Talk:Optic canal

Anatomy: Gross Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anatomy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anatomy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnatomyWikipedia:WikiProject AnatomyTemplate:WikiProject AnatomyAnatomy articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been classified as relating to gross anatomy.

can you take an eye from an eye socket???? you need to include this.[edit]

--Gigilili 12:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion on sympathetic nerves

Currently, the article states that sympathetic nerves accompany the ophthalmic artery and optic nerve through the optic canal, but does not expand on where those nerves come from. I did not see this explained on the sympathetic nerve page. Someone with knowledge and/or resources would help future users by briefly expanding on the origin of these sympathetic nerves and briefly stating their eventual termination.

--A thoughtful user

Excessive images[edit]

The first image in the "Additional images" section offers little article enhancement and the next three nothing that cannot be found through the two in the infobox or the "Optic canal" image. While it can be argued that adding many images could give some improvement, that might otherwise be lacking in a stub or start-class article, it does not improve an article to be inundated with images just because they are "out there" needing a home. If a policy or guideline specifically states (policy in this case) Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files, nor a "manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal" (or picturebook) then there is a legitimate argument that seven images on a start-class article is providing just the opposite of policy.

I can see two, possibly three but an end of consensus by silence is when concerns are voiced unless there is sound rationale to argue improvements by ignoring the "rules".

If someone cares to enter into a dialog on some to keep, or boldly make improvement by trimming, that would be great. If not I will delete three or four per above comments and the edit summary rationale of the reverted edits. Thank you, Otr500 (talk) 15:15, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]