Talk:Nasolacrimal duct

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.

Redundant Article, consider merging

There seem to be 3 nearly identical articles on this topic. They all even use the same illustration photo. Perhaps they should be merged.

Cheesefromwater (talk) 14:14, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lacrimal apparatus, lacrimal canaliculi and nasolacrimal duct could be fused into a single one, that should be called Lacrimal apparatus. They should defenitely not be merged with nasolacrimal canal. Perhaps it should include the lacrimal gland.

The lacrimal apparatus is divided in different parts, as it is specified in the article. But the nasolacrimal canal is neither a part of the lacrimal apparatus nor a synonym or part of the nasolacrimal duct. According to different anatomy reference textbooks (Feneis, Sobotta, Gray), the canal is the osseous space inside the superior maxilla (it is a part of the bone) and the duct is the part of the lacrimal apparatus that goes through the canal. They're radically different things and should not be fused into one article.

- Sumurruchu (talk) 11:15, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where...??? and pictures

Where is the tear duct located in the body? Also, the pictures aren't as informative, at least to me (i can't understand most of the things on there :/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beary605 (talk • contribs) 01:10, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal

Suppport the March proposal to merge Nasolacrimal canal and this page on the duct, because they're so closely-related topics their best discussed together for context. Distinctions between them can be discussed on the page. Merging here might be best, as this is the better-developed page. Klbrain (talk) 09:34, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- '''Support''' makes sense to cover these two small structures together. Tom (LT) (talk) 11:26, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support, per the above. –Tobias (talk) 16:12, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't support the merge. See my comment in "Redundant Article, consider merging". Sumurruchu (talk) 11:19, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of course they are not the same thing, but that is not the relevant point. The canal is largely occupied by the duct, so it makes sense to discuss them together. That is, the formal merge reasons are context and short text, not duplication. Disjointed information can be difficult to follow, as we perhaps we can see from this discussion ... Klbrain (talk) 14:50, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]