Talk:Central pattern generator

Untitled

This article requires some updating for the references which are not appropriately quoted; i.e. 27 does not exist and 26 is not the right reference. Looks like there was a shift at some point...Sebzskp (talk) 13:47, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to improve the article in any way that seems good to you. Looie496 (talk) 16:26, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

A useful source for updating information, freely available, may be TristramWyatt (talk) 12:15, 10 December 2015 (UTC) TristramWyatt (talk)

Neuromodulation

In this part, the division into three subdivisions seems not to be justified, as all of them are treating quite the same, with only different accents. --77.191.235.22 (talk) 20:53, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Formatting subheadings

Neuromechanics, with all due respect, I don't think you are familiar with the editing and formatting process of WP. Look at your latest edit and look at the current contents table. As a result of your edit, the mammalian heading is now at a higher level than the locomotion heading. I don't think this is your intention. Second, WP is NOT the place for original research WP:OR. You should be selecting references from secondary sources and summarizing their contents here. You should NOT be synthesizing information from primary sources. Please see WP:V. Many of the sources that you provided are primary sources, which may are appropriate in a peer-reviewed journal article or scholarly thesis, but not in WP. Finally, you need to resolve the copyright issue of that image that you inserted into this article. These issues must be resolved. Otherwise, the edits will be reverted. danielkueh (talk) 00:27, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting my formatting error. I saw it too and corrected it, probably just as you were putting your message together. Re. primary and secondary sources, this is confusing. How do the references I've used (articles in scientific journals) differ from all the other articles in scientific journals referenced on this page? I checked out WP:V and didn't see anything there against citing such papers. Please clarify.

Re. the figure, it's based on a figure published in the American Handbook of Physiology, but it's been extensively modified from the original, including the structure of the control loop itself.

Finally, I'm unfamiliar with the mechanism for responding to editors' criticisms. Is this the way to do it? I couldn't find any instructions on how to go about this on WP. I went to your talk page, but couldn't see how to correspond with you. Thanks v much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neuromechanics (talk • contribs) 00:50, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Neuromechanics, 1) Go to WP:OR, specifically WP:primary (this section is within WP:OR). You will find WP's policies on the use of primary and secondary sources. Primary sources can be used but only under VERY limited circumstances. Your description of locomotion in mammals is quite extensive and does involve interpretation. But you have to rely on a secondary source when providing interpretations. To keep it simple, avoid primary sources when possible. 2) For the figure, you need to respond to the blue tag on the figure's page. Otherwise, that figure will be deleted on Dec 17, 2012 by WP bots. 3) Yes, all discussions about making edits to a WP article should be made on the WP article's talk page. Correspondence that are personal or that are not germane to improving or editing a WP article should be made on a user's talk page instead. Also, please indent your responses to another editor's comments by adding colons to the first sentence of each paragraph. Also, do not forget to sign your name by adding four tildes at the end of your response. Hope this helps. Regards. danielkueh (talk) 01:05, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Danielkueh, thanks for the clarification and pointing me to WP:primary. I didn't realise that WP discourages references to regular scientific papers. I'll replace these with reviews that discuss the same material. It seems a bit odd, because in order to discuss author A's study, I have to refer to author B's interpretation of author A's study, which author A may not even agree with. Oh well, it is what it is. I may not get to this for a few days so please bear with me. Re. the figure, thanks for the warning, I'll respond to the blue tag. I'm assuming that this was the right place to respond to you. Regards, Neuromechanics (talk) 04:25, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Neuromechanics, the easiest solution is to just avoid mentioning specific studies and just focus on basic principles. Unless of course the study is of great historical significance (e.g., Watson and Crick). Most of the time, detailed descriptions of this study and that study are overkill for a WP article. Just write it for a non-technical audience and that should be fine. Regards. danielkueh (talk) 14:21, 13 December 2012 (UTC)