This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

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 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.

This should be merged into the section of coronary artery. The coronary arteries are so similar, there is no point in duplicating all the introductions and diagrams and forcing the reader to look at seperate pages to get more detail on each individual artery. Dlodge 21:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

or, it at least should have its title changed to "left anterior descending artery". Sfahey 15:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should be merged into coronary artery. And title should be changed to either left anterior interventricular artery or left anterior descending artery. Angavar (talk) 08:07, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Belongs here. Google it if you need additional reading. AStudent (talk) 20:04, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Its not entirely obvious what this picture is supposed to be showing. I think it should be pointed out. I can't do it myself though, cause I'm not sure what its depicting. Clearly one half of it references the article, but the other half is confusing. Is it a comparison picture? The same heart at a different time? 74.134.243.62 (talk) 18:21, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Propose to merge the widow maker here. WP:DUP, same subject, the widow maker seems to be a WP:NOTDIC issue. Brandmeister^talk 12:29, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes good idea. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:38, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree! Maestroso simplo (talk) 03:20, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the articles overlap widely. --Tilifa Ocaufa (talk) 12:09, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like there's some good agreement on this merger so far. I was thinking we could merge now but WP:MERGE recommends waiting at least a week before making a decision (through concensus). In the mean time I'll notify some of the most recent editors using this tag:{{subst:Mergenote|<source page>|<merger discussion talk page section>}}. Also, does someone have experience merging articles? I've read through WP:MERGETEXT and understand it but that doesn't necessarily mean I'll be able to do it. Maestroso simplo (talk) 01:19, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support. No need for a hurry, I suggest perform in a couple of days if no problem. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:42, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merged now, after recommended one week. Brandmeister^talk 12:31, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The merge was a good thing IMO, but it now means that almost 60% of this article, and the largest single section, is not about the subject of the article, but rather about how the LAD is sometimes referred to as the "widow-maker". That seems disproportionate, and is verging on sensationalism. Suggest pulling that down to a single statement in the main content (and removal of the reference to "widow-maker" in the lede) Thomask0 (talk) 17:49, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would love to see variant of LAD such as type I,II, III R.Radzi (talk) 02:38, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

R.Radzi. We are all volunteers here. So it is up to you to make the change.

I've moved this page to its much more commonly used variant, LAD. N-gram: [1] --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:33, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Tom. I will help Wiki whenever I can. R.Radzi (talk) 08:20, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]