Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medical Conditions
For a September 2004 deletion debate over this page see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Medical Conditions
{{SampleWikiProject}}
Are we the first general encyclopedia ever to include the category "etiology" as part of our disorder articles? Doesn't this strike you as a little bit too medically specific? I've never even run across the word myself, and I don't want anybody getting the impression that these articles are of medical reference quality.
- I've created/modified a few disorder articles and I use a number of medical books from which I get the data (I have some of them listed in the references). Etiology is a Wikipedia article and is linked from the articles that use the term. The term is used (like prognosis, presentation, and incidence and prevalence) in the profession, and so I decided to use it. Some of these articles also contain specific information. The problem with Wikipedia is that it is not isolated to just summaries of various topics. Complete articles may contain more specific information, some that require some sort of in depth knowledge. Of course such required in depth knowledge can be another article so that the Encyclopedia supports itself. I'm not opposed to changing the term if people want that, but I am not sure that it is really bad to be medically specific (which could possibly be read as accurate). -- Ram-Man
- I've incorporated a few medical articles into the Wiki from sources like the CDC, and even the more detailed public articles use terms like "Signs and symptoms" and "Causes" rather than abstruse terms that people have to look up. Typically, specific medical terms are reserved for deeper sections. Note that these articles are probably targeted for an even more medically oriented audience than ours, so I think we would be wise to take a page from their book.
- I agree that Wiki can and should include loads more specific information than say, Britannica. But this is an issue of general presentation, though, and I think other encyclopedias have set a pretty good precedent in that area. (PS I'm only making a big deal about it because this issue is likely to affect a lot of articles.) Dachshund
- I mean that at least the first few paragraphs of a (likely) oft-read article like this one should be presented for a general audience, and at very least the headings and heading summaries should be as well. I may not be interested in an exhaustive list of symptoms or drugs, but I should be able to skim the top of that section and know immediately that it's going to talk about symptoms and drugs. This doesn't prevent us from going into unlimited detail lower down in the section-- it simply helps non-specialists by giving them the gist.
- For an example, take a look at Rocky mountain spotted fever, which is almost entirely lifted from the CDC. It's an excellent example of an article intended both for medical professionals and for the general public. There's certainly some specific information ("Abnormal laboratory findings seen in patients with Rocky Mountain spotted fever may include thrombocytopenia, hyponatremia, or elevated liver enzyme levels"), but the headings and heading intros don't require definitions (the most "medical" is "epidemeology"). Dachshund
- Looks good! I also noticed another heading: "Prevention and Control". -- Ram-Man
- I added a separate category for "Prevention" instead of putting it with treatment. They are different ideas. -- Ram-Man
- Should we move Incidence/Prevalance up higher? Or maybe that info can simply be summarized in the intro. Dachshund
- I think this may depend on the specific articles, but I have no objections. I guess I put it there because I thought that may need to describe the disease before saying how common it is. For instance, there are two types of diabetes, and 3 types of cerebral palsy. The incidence and prevalence will differ depending on what type it is. As such, it would be more helpful to know what those types are before an explanation of how common they are. However some disorders do not have types and may better fit farther up in the list (since it is probably a popular heading to look at). Likewise the "types/categories" heading fits at various locations depending on the specific article. It will need to be a judgement call for each article. Just so long as we have the headings, the order doesn't matter as much. -- Ram-Man
The Name[edit]
Please bear with me and my English. I would like to take part in this
WikiProject. At least, as much as my time allows.
I have a few quick questions :
- why disorders ? Maybe Diseases and syndromes ?
- is there a standard or a de facto standard of capitalizing diseases names like Cerebral Palsy or is this only a US convention ?
If my queries have already been answered elsewhere please direct me to this page. Kpjas 24-10-2002 21:23:11 CEST
As explained in Cerebral Palsy, it is *not* a disease. It is also not usually called a syndrome. The term disorder is a generic enough term that it can refer to all of the health problems. It was a little arbitrary though. If there is a more generic term, that would work, but disease is not the term to use. Cerebral Palsy is a proper noun. According to naming conventions of Wikipedia it would be "Cerebral palsy" unless it was a proper noun, which it is. That is the reason for the capitilization. Maybe someone disagrees?
I did check a thesarus before making the name. I also didn't want a compound name because it is too long (personal preference I guess). -- Ram-Man
I have no immediate plans to participate in this particular project, but I would suggest a name change to make it clear that it's talking about medical disorders and not disorders of Wikipedia projects, which is what drew me to it. Moving it now while the project is still young would be easier than later. Eclecticology 19:31 Oct 24, 2002 (UTC)
What should it be renamed to? Maybe Wikipedia:WikiProject Medical Disorders?-- Ram-Man
- That would solve the ambiguity problem that I noted; however, I would still leave the decision to those who want to be involved in the project. Eclecticology
I'm ok with Wikipedia:WikiProject Medical Disorders. Would Wikipedia:WikiProject Medical Conditions be too vague? Dachshund
One of the medical references I use refers to them as Conditions, but I didn't use it because I thought that the term was less clear than Disorder. However adding Medical in front keeps clarity, and conditions is a more accurate word than disorders. -- Ram-Man
- The current name is OK with me. I can't think of a better one now, and it is definitely better than the previous. Kpjas 2002-10-25
I noticed that Health science is linked from the Main Page, but the more complete article Medicine is not. Should these two articles be merged into one? They both contain very good information, but I don't think the Medicine page is getting enough attention since it is not linked from the Main Page. -- Ram-Man
- IMO the merge would be a bad thing. "Heath" and "Heath science" are broader terms and they should stay in WP.
The other thing is wheather "Medicine" deserves to be on the Main Page. IMO yes. But I might be biased in this respect.
Kpjas 2002-10-25
Hello dear participants of Wikiproject Medical Conditions. Recently I've been creating a lot of stuff on medicine (I'm a doctor myself), effectively ignoring the fact that this Wikiproject existed. Is anyone still involved? What are the plans? I'm getting jealous of the light-blue boxes at the bottom of all sorts of pages, apart from the medical ones (it seems). I'm eager to join. Please see some of my recent work on oncology, thiazolidinedione, infectious disease, nephrology etc. Please write on my Talk page or even over here. JFW 19:14, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)
WikiDoc[edit]
Well, I'm trying to gather some support from other doctors to buff up the medical side of Wikipedia. Please see my WikiDoc page for some proposals; do not hesitate to invoke my talk page to share your feelings. When everything is on track, we might more our effort to this Wikiproject page, but not before there's some solid base. JFW 20:15, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)