Talk:Gluteal muscles

Untitled

This needs serious work Mattopaedia 03:06, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I have copyedit'd the page, I think it now just needs referencing properly. Kcordina 12:43, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for all your work. It lacks in anatomical detail and clinical evidence. I've fixed it, though Mattopaedia 14:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I feel better now. Mattopaedia 14:41, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Top stuff. It could just do with the formatting fixing - but I can't work out how to get the infobox's to appear one above another - at the moment they appear side-by-side leading to a very odd appearance. Kcordina 15:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I tinkered with it for a while, but gave up in the end because it was 0100 and I was meant to be studying. Maybe lines between each? Mattopaedia 00:00, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Gluteal Muscles

message moved from User talk:Arcadian

Hi, I notice you've taken the info-box's out of the Gluteal muscles page. Was that simply because they weren't formatting correctly? Or some other reason? There was a lot of good information in the boxes so it would be good to retain them, if the formatting can be fixed (which I'm sure it can be given a bit of time). Kcordina 13:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Those boxes aren't gone; they've just been moved back to gluteus maximus, gluteus minimus and gluteus medius, where they had been before User:4micah did his merger back in December. However, if you want to find a way to include that information both on gluteal muscles and on the subpages, I'd have no objection. --Arcadian 15:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

No, that's fine - they work better on the individual pages, I just wasn't being observant. Kcordina 09:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

"Massaging the Gluts is necessary?"

Isn't the massage section a bit overstated? Could we have a link to support the necessity of massaging the gluts?

I agree completly, it has no references and sounds like an ad for massage services that need to be long and frequent to have any good. It makes me wonder who put it there and what they do for a living. Elcarmean 22:37, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Propose dropping all the massage and homeopathic items in this article

I plan to edit out all the massage and homeopathic items in this article unless someone can come up with a peer reviewed piece of evidence to support the claims on this page.

Completely agreed. An early 20th century homeopathic text is not the kind of reference a medical page needs. Also I think the word "buttocks" should be used instead of "arse or bottom" in the firts paragraph 71.194.163.17 (talk) 05:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

This page still needs major editing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cshuster (talk • contribs) 18:49, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The description of firing neurons is completely innane. Maybe nociceptors and a reflex arc. But basic sea slugs studies describe the desensitization of such reflex arcs. This is just...bad. I'm removing it like everyone has talked about at length. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.53.121.242 (talk) 07:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Interwiki

There seemed to be a problem with interwikis, because they were about gluteus maximus only. I removed them and added them where they belong. --83.208.83.66 15:56, 15 September 2006 (UTC), Bodlina, from Czech wikipedia

Function?

Little to nothing in the Function section is about the function of the gluteal muscles. It's a superficial discussion about the aesthetic appearance of gluteal muscles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.72.138.85 (talk) 06:05, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

needs much editing

I plan to do some major rewrites on this page. I have taught medical anatomy for more than 30 years and have never heard of the panniculus adiposa. It may be a specialized term in dermatology. The panniculus carnosa doesn't exist in humans except for the platysma. It exists in quadrupeds. Also this topic is gluteal muscles whereas much of the text pertains to "gluteal region" Anatomyczar (talk) 13:14, 1 April 2015 (UTC)1 April 2015 (UTC)—  contribs) 12:21, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

The adult entertainment picture?

Hey all. I removed the salacious picture at the bottom of the article that seems to be there for no apparent reason other than a PG-13 wink. My removal was undone by an IP. Would be interested to hear if others think this is appropriate or not. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:40, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

it is 173.22.43.93 (talk) 16:41, 10 March 2024 (UTC)