Talk:Cranial drill

Educational Project

Application for course page currently pending on Wikipedia:Education noticeboard Limelightangel (talk) 11:15, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Attention to referencing conventions

References 2 & 3 need attention to comply with conventions and standards. Use the correct tremplate for web sources, and include an author, publisher, date, and date accessed. The second sentence needs references.

Limelightangel (talk) 11:33, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Usernames in Red

By completing the student online training and editting other pages, you evidence experience with the platform and your usernames will turn from red to blue.

Limelightangel (talk) 11:43, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Use of images

This draft needs the addition of relevant, acceptable images for the topic.

Limelightangel (talk) 11:44, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

I added an image of a surgical drill to the infobox which is free to use from WikiCommons. If you can find a better one that is free to use, pleace replace it, as the current one isn't in fact a specific cranial drill, however a surgical drill that can be used for neurosurgery with the right drill bits.

LIUC02Nico (talk) 09:59, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Types

I paraphrased and modified slightly the last line of the introduction of types and design.Napoleone98 (talk) 23:33, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Robotic Drill

Ferrigna12 (talk)We wrote about it two times, shall we change or delete the one written in Types? (talk) 17:09, 8 November 2018

• Maybe we should consider moving the first descriptional part from 'safety' to 'types', so that the drill is described in the types chapter and not in safety. LIUC02Nico (talk) 21:18, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

• I moved the first descriptional part from 'safety' to 'types'. Does it look good or do you think it needs any more changes? Jolj12 (talk) 16:49, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

• It looks good now. LIUC02Nico (talk) 14:05, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

I was looking at other wikipedia pages, and I thought that maybe Robotic drill (the one described in types) should be written under another Title, such as Scientific progres or something like that,becouse it has not been put for sale yet. Ferrigna12 (talk) 14.11.2018 21:25

• Putting it under Scientific progress is a good idea. For more information, please have a look in the journal of neurosurgery which I add here as a reference for you. We have the possibility to describe the computer-aided design / machinery (CAD-CAM) here.

We should correct the grammar. Adela515 (talk) 16:56, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

References

Pneumatic drill

We should review especially the second last sentence for objectivity. The adjectives "superior" and "great performance" don't seem very neutral to me. LIUC02Nico (talk) 10:18, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Safety

In the safety topic, we could also cover maintenance of the instruments and sterilization (making it aseptic for next use) LIUC02Nico (talk) 21:40, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, I have mentioned it in a few lines. Jolj12 (talk) 22:16, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

As for Types and Safety, I wrote another E-mail to a German manufacturer that is called "evonos", asking about more information and also copyright for pictures of different drill bits that can be attached to the hand piece. LIUC02Nico (talk) 09:55, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

mentioning cranial drill on other pages

I mentioned our pages on pages such as drill and skull.Napoleone98 (talk) 11:48, 30 November 2018 (UTC) I expanded the description of cranial drill citing the University of Utah and his great supportive.Napoleone98 (talk) 02:32, 2 December 2018 (UTC) I created a sub-heading 2 releated to cranial drill on drill wikipedia page.Napoleone98 (talk) 13:21, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Inspiration

You can maybe find inspiration for further content looking at the Wiki page of Dental drill. LIUC02Nico (talk) 10:38, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Drill bit

It is necessary to add a briefly description about drill bit, so then the cranial drill's explanation is clearer, what do you think? Ferrigna12 (talk) 17:34 14.11.2018

• Good idea, in which category should we put it? Or should we describe it in the introduction of the article? LIUC02Nico (talk) 19:27, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

• A little description in the introduction is fine. Ferrigna12 (talk) 14.11.2018

• I found new contents from reliable sources about drill bit.Napoleone98 (talk) 00:39, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
• I will start adding contents of drill bit to the introduction. Napoleone98 (talk) 16:38, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Merger proposal

@Neuroscalpel, PBCal, and Anagoria: I propose that Craniotome (tool) be merged into Draft:Cranial Drill. I think that the content in the Craniotome article can easily be explained in the context of cranial drills, and our article is of a reasonable size that the merging of Craniotome (tool) will not cause any problems as far as article size is concerned. LIUC02Nico (talk) 19:36, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

• I have no opinion about merging the content. However, whatever the case may be, a page in the article space should not redirect to a page in the draft namespace. If this draft gets published, the idea of redirecting the other page here could be revisited, but not until then. Steel1943 (talk) 01:39, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
• Thank you very much for this hint, I did not have that in mind. LIUC02Nico (talk) 10:43, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Popular culture

At the moment the section belongs only to TV-series, and movies. Shall we modify the title into Cinematography ? Ferrigna12 (talk) 14:14, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

• I propose to rename the section to "Appearances in media", because as we see in the automatic message, popular culture should be of more importance with high-quality references. LIUC02Nico (talk) 10:47, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

It's all stupid trivia and should be removed forever per WP:UNDUE. Doesn't help readers understand the subject any better. Would we include "bowls in popular culture" for any appearance of a bowl? The only plausible argument for keeping any mentions is when third party sources discuss the pop culture appearance in depth, which gives context and shows that people beyond Wikipedia nerds have considered the specific in relation to the general. Hypothetically, something like "cranial drills are often seen in horror films, which has been seen as a metaphor for anxiety by Dr. Filmscholar MD, especially in the films X,Y,and Z..." would be encyclopedic and enlightening, not pedantic and trivial. --Animalparty! (talk) 17:31, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

See also

I added the topic "See also", you can add more links if you want. Jolj12 (talk) 17:49, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

References

In the seventh reference the URL is missing. [[User:Lisa.g16|Lisa.g16] (talk) 16:58, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Note

Most of this page was about trepanning which is already covered in Wikipedia in the trepanning page and the History of neurology and neurosurgery page. I merged some of the content that was here into History of neurology and neurosurgery; the content about actual cranial drills today was not keep-able.

The content about John H. Bent appears to be a hoax, as far as I can tell. The only that that was sourced was the patent (and patents are not reliable sources in Wikipedia per WP:SPS which is policy); all the stuff about him having surgery with his own device was unsourced, and I looked quickly and found nothing about that other than WP:CIRCULAR references back to this page. Hm.

With respect to drills per se, there was no high quality sourced content about "cranial drills" here; there is no difference between surgical drills used on skulls and surgical drills used in other parts of the body, and the technology has generally followed that of plain old drills. I have redirected this page to Drill#Surgical. If you find high quality secondary sources per MEDRS about actual cranial drills that are used (not inventions but rather actual ones used in the OR), please post about them here. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 02:42, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

• @Jytdog: - thanks for your input here. I agree that Bent is dubious, and there is some unnecessary page overlap. I disagree that all the content is transferable to surgical drills used in other parts of the body. The page also merged content with an existing, and quite poor page, on Craniotome (tool). The page was created as part of an educational project, and while there are clear learnings and improvements to be made, the page at least starts a topic on a Requested Article, and includes images and research specific to cranial drills. Can the page be reinstated and editted to address the valid issues you have identified? As the groups teacher this is great learning for them, but will also give them the opportunity to edit and address the issues that you identify. Many thanks! Limelightangel (talk) 16:39, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Status of This Article

This page has currently been blanked and redirected. An editor, User:LIUC02Nico, seeking to restore this page submitted a draft, Draft:Cranial drill, via Articles for Creation. Discussion here as to whether to revert the blanking and redirection seems a better way to discuss than using Articles for Creation. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:18, 23 December 2018 (UTC)