Talk:List of skin conditions/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about List of skin conditions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Indroduction

Copied from my talk page: Snowman (talk) 12:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you could discuss changes first on the talk page? Regardless, thank you for your work on wikipedia. kilbad (talk) 12:04, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
May I refer you to WP:OWN. Snowman (talk) 12:08, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
I am certainly not telling you not to edit the article, but just asking if you could discuss changes first on the article talk page? kilbad (talk)

May I say, and I hope that this is helpful, that I perceive your approach including the manor of your reverting edits as unwelcoming, and also that I find your edit summaries rather incomplete explanations for a complex page. I have made a number of edits to the introduction, which I thought were improvements; however, some have been reverted. Please examine my edits more carefully. I wrote my edit summaries carefully, so please consider my edit summaries as topics for discussion and explain why you have reverted my edits. Snowman (talk) 12:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I think most of your edits add valuable information to the article, whether it was the addition of the (1) nerves in the dermis, or (2) the social effects of different skin conditions. In fact, with regard to the latter, I think it could be expanded into its own paragraph as there are many articles avaliable on that topic. Your discussion about mucous membranes not having a stratum corneum is also a great addition, but perhaps we could put it as the end of paragraph 2, instead of in the middle? Another request would be that we work on adding citations for this information. Regardless, I apologize for any offense I caused, and, again, appreciate the work you have done on wikipedia. kilbad (talk) 12:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

ok. Snowman (talk) 09:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Repository of facts for possible future use

From a psychosocial perspective, skin diseases can be more than a cosmetic nuisance, also producing anxiety, depression, and other psychological problems that affect peoples' lives in ways comparable to arthritis or other disabling illnesses.^[1]

Please discuss major changes first

Please discuss any major changes you plan on making to this list of cutaneous conditions before making them so all the editors can be on the same page. Thanks! kilbad (talk) 18:07, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

There are alot of technical medical words, and the readability would be improved by some plainer ones - but how to conserve meaning....Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Lists

Are there any other lists of skin diseases, such as an alphabetical list? Snowman (talk) 09:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your questions. With regard to skin diseases on wikipedia, currently this is the only list of them on wikipedia. There is no alphabetical list that I am aware of. This is certainly not to suggest that I am opposed to other lists. However, at the momement, it is a top priority of WP:DERM to make this list comprehensive in that it should include all skin-related conditions. Also, in addition to improving the list itself, we are essentially using it to guide creation of missing skin disease articles, and as a tool for organizing exisitng articles. kilbad (talk) 15:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Could the current list be considered as a classification of skin diseases? Looking at the section on skin tumours there is a long way to go in the sub-classification of the sections. For example, I recall that there are 23 benign tumours of the skin adnexia (I last looked at these skin tumours some years ago); however, in the list on the page they are all mixed up with a lot of other tumours. Snowman (talk) 09:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The current structure of this list does reflect a classification scheme for skin conditions. The classification scheme used to categorize dermatology articles is a hybrid of how they are organized in Andrew's and Fitzpatricks unabridged dermatology texts (see WP:DERM:REF for full citations). Their classification systems were used to create the categorization scheme for derm articles on wikipedia (see WP:DERM:CAT) which is then reflected in the structure of this list—all in an attempt to help guide editors as to where a skin disease article should be initially categorized, though this is not to suggest an article cannot eventually be put into mutliple categories. Great care is being taken in the classification and categorization of these conditions as it has traditionally been very hard to organize these diseases (see the Jackson reference in the list for more details (I think it is a free full text)). However, if you would like to see a certain group of conditions categorized and listed together, simply propose the category at the WP:DERM:CAT talk page, and most likely we can add it. kilbad (talk) 15:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Is most the the introduction repeated elsewhere on the wiki? I am not sure of the function of the longish introduction in the current list. It seems to me that in both the introduction and short prose at the top of each secion there is a lot of anatomical information, but little about the pathological basis of disease. Snowman (talk) 09:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I wrote the entire introduction myself, pulling only a few facts from other wiki articles that I had previously added. I personally think that, for the size and scope of the list, a nice, full discussion of skin anatomy and physiology is appropriate. However, I completely agree with you that more information on the pathological basis of disease is needed in the intro (maybe two or three paragraphs worth?). Hope this answers some of your questions? kilbad (talk) 15:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments on the language, as requested

Brendan, it's so nice to find a WPian who is willing to dispense with anonymity. I'm halfway there with a pic on my talk page, and it's very easy to find my real name. Who cares? Only those who want to be nasty here.

"of or affecting"—pity you can't dispense with one of them.
I'm increasingly tending to use a dash rather than a comma to signal to the reader that they're not about to navigate through a running list (first sentence). Avoids reverse disambiguation – just a slight one. Do you prefer spaced en dashes or unspaced em dashes for this purpose—like that? Just need to be consistent within an article.
(Implied "all") glands function as a barrier against the external environment? The pituitary gland? Do muscles comprise part of the surface of the body? (I'm a total non-expert, so I might be raising silly things.)
"Also", like "furthermore", "moreover" and "in addition", is what I call an additive back-connector. It's unnecessary (therefore undesirable) 90% of the time. The others rarely have a role in good writing. ("Also" can also unintentionally convey the sense that the subsequent statement is just chucked in as an afterthought, which is usually not the case.)
Watch out for close repetitions of less usual words: "found". I am guilty of this myself in first drafts. I didn't like either of the "founds" in this case. "Composed of" twice was OK, but I found I could just remove the second without changing the meaning. I hope.
"Within the latter kind, there are hairs in structures called pilosebaceous units, each with a hair follicle and sebaceous gland, and an associated arrector pili muscle." Unsure of the intended structure, and therefore meaning. Should it be: "Within the latter kind, there are hairs in structures called pilosebaceous units – each with a hair follicle and sebaceous gland – and an associated arrector pili muscle.", or without the comma: "Within the latter kind, there are hairs in structures called pilosebaceous units, each with a hair follicle and sebaceous gland and an associated arrector pili muscle."
"The epidermis is without blood supply, nourished by diffusion from the dermis, and composed of four cell types: ...". To me, this opening contains ideas that are not sufficiently close to jam together thus. Perhaps make the logical connection between "without blood supply" and (instead) "nourished by ..." into one statement, then start a new sentence to introduce your list of cell types?
A pet peeve that not all word-nerds (among them Hoary and Noetica) back me up on: "with + noun + "ing". See this.
"In normal skin the rate of production equals the rate of loss, taking about two weeks for a cell to migrate from the basal cell layer to the top of the granular cell layer, and an additional two weeks to cross the stratum corneum." Ungrammatical: where is the subject/agent for "taking"? I think it needs to be split ... "In normal skin the rate of production equals the rate of loss; it takes about two weeks for a cell to migrate from the basal cell layer to the top of the granular cell layer, and an additional two weeks to cross the stratum corneum." Do I understand it correctly? Are both intervals of two weeks the equality referred to before?
The dermis is "a layer", and then "two layers". I know what you mean, but either find another word for the first "layer", or use ... um ... ", itself composed of ..."?
Within these components are the pilosebaceous units, arrector pili muscles, eccrine and apocrine glands." The grammar of the list is not right: there are really three, not four items (1, 2, and 3a and 3b). "Within these components are the pilosebaceous units, arrector pili muscles, and eccrine and apocrine glands." You could add "the" before 2 and 3a, although it's not essential.
"contains vascular networks parallel to the skin surface, superficial and deep vascular plexuses, which are connected by vertical communicating vessels." Again, ironically in a list article, I'm finding your treatment of inline lists problematic: first reading and I though the networks were parallel to three things; but no, I think the two types of plexus are nested ... "contains vascular networks of superficial and deep vascular plexuses, parallel to the skin surface, which are connected by vertical communicating vessels."? Ar the two types of plexus connected, or are they both connected to the skin surface? Needs work, this one. So much technical writing needs you to pretend to be the non-expert or semi-expert reader; this is very hard to do.

I didn't quite make it to the end of the lead. Some people may be critical of the technicality: resist them, although you may ask them for one or two particular examples of opaqueness and offer to spell them out with an additional phrase. You write well, but need to attend to a few issues :-) Tony (talk) 16:19, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your feedback. Reading through your comments has been very helpful. Please allow me roughly two weeks to work on all of the items you have mentioned, after which I will repost here. kilbad (talk) 18:56, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I actually had some time today to do some editing, and below have outlined some changes I made in response to your comments...

"of or affecting"—I am open to changing this phrase if you have a better idea.
With regard to running lists, I have tried to set apart all of them with the unspaced em dash. I think I got them all, but maybe you will catch something I didn't. However, do you now feel that there is overuse of the em dash in the article?
As you pointed out, there are many glands in the body, and not all of them are found in the skin (only the eccrine, apocrine, and sebaceous glands). With regard to muscle, if we are considering "skin" as the "surface of the body," then yes, there is muscle present (only one type, called the arrector pili muscle). My goal with that first sentence was to outline the general components of the integumentary system without breaking it down too much at one time. Right now there are five items in that opening list, but it would be eight if I included each specific gland type. At this time, I cannot think of a good adjective to modify "glands" to make it more specific. Do you have any recommendations? Also, with regard to "muscle," should I be specific and state "arrector pili muscle" right off the bat?
I believe I have removed all additive back-connectors, with "also" only being used twice to indicate another name for which something is know. Is that usage ok? Also, the first time I use "also" it is within a parenthetical, while the second time it is not. Which is preferred?
I have tried to revise all close repetitions of less usual words, but see below for one that I am concerned about.
I edited this sentence such that it uses the spaced en dashes. How does that read to you?
I split that sentence in two; however, I am concerned about possible close repetition of the word "epidermis." What do you think?
I did a search of "ing" in the article to analyze possible "with + noun + "ing"", but I am uncertain which words are used inappropriately. Most seem like that have a base verb?
I changed the sentence as you suggested
I changed the wording of that sentence to use "layer," then later "sections."
I added "and the"
I revised that sentence... how does it read now?

kilbad (talk) 18:21, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Relevance note

Hi, this is a copywriting comment on the order of paras according to relevance. Suggesting the end of the lead, para beginning "Conditions of the human integumentary system constitute a broad spectrum of diseases..." would read better and more quickly relate to the article topic if it were brought in early i.e. after the first sentence.

It's a long lead and I'd break it after that to a section on the human integumentary system which is really supporting background to the topic, with subsections on the epidermis, dermis, and subcutaneous strata including a {{main article}} template under each header.

A further point is to avoid blue-linking words whose meaning and function are assumed knowledge, e.g. human, hair, skin, nails, muscle as it's unlikely they would be followed up in this context. Suggest words like "Embryologically" could be prosified with "In the embryo" or "In embryo" and blue-link embryo to embryology if you feel it's needed. It's easy to be seduced into believing technical terms are more loaded than plain English equivalents, but worth giving it a go. Afaik, accessibility is still a priority in wikipedia. Fwiw, Julia Rossi (talk) 23:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your comments. I agree that the lead section is longer, but, given the scope and complexity of the list, I think some discussion about the components of the skin and how they work is important, else, how is someone going to know what an "Epidermal cyst" is if the term "epidermis" is never addressed? However, with that being said, I have tried to make several changes in response to your feedback, including (1) the removal of several blue-linked words whose meaning and function are assumed knowledge (like human), and (2) replacing "Embryologically" with "In the embryo." kilbad (talk) 14:20, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Some feedback

Kilbad asked that I leave some feedback on this list. I made several minor edits; some additional comments follow:

From my limited experience at WP:FLC, more images will be needed. Can you find some free images of select diseases and sprinkle them throughout the article?
"The major function of this system is to act as a barrier against the external environment." I think "to act" could safely be removed without affecting the meaning.
"The skin itself weighs an average of four kilograms ..." Likewise, "itself". It's a subjective matter, but a good rule of thumb is not to use a word you don't have to.
"each with a hair follicle and sebaceous gland, and each with an associated arrector pili muscle." I took out the hyphens and revised a bit, but can we just say "each with a hair follicle, sebaceous gland, and an associated arrector pili muscle"?
I've been fixing them but please check again for em dashes used to start lists of items. You should use colons for that purpose. Em dashes are used to indicate a pause in text, not the start of a list.
"The dermis is the layer of skin between the epidermis and subcutaneous tissues" Why "tissues" plural? You used it as a singular before.
I'm not sure about the giant level 2 heading under which all the diseases are listed. Is there a precedent for dealing with this? Can't "Acneiform eruptions", etc. all be level 2 headings?

--Laser brain (talk) 18:54, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Kilbad, Laser brain is one of our foremost featured-content reviewers. I think it's no big deal whether your "drumroll" mid-sentence is a colon or an unspaced em dash (as you've changed to), or the alternative to the latter, the spaced en dash. I'd probably not have bothered changing it. If there are a lot of dashes in successive sentences, they sometimes stick out. But again, no big deal.

I must say, this is working up to being a valuable resource indeed. Well done. Tony (talk) 03:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

The reasons I went with the colons are that our MoS suggests them ("A colon (:) informs the reader that what comes after it proves, explains, or modifies what has come before, or is a list of items that have just been introduced.") and, in another section suggests "Use em dashes sparingly. They are visually striking, so two in a paragraph is often a good limit." I agree with both suggestions in this case. As it stands, the lead is a dash-fest and the eyes are drawn to them. I recommend changing them back to colons. --Laser brain (talk) 03:21, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Laser brain here. Just like links, em dashes should be used sparingly to maximise their effect on readers. Therefore, use them only when necessary. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:50, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

@Laser brain - Thank you very much for your feedback, and I certainly hope I did not come across in an argumentative or ungrateful way. I read everyone's comments regarding colons vs em dashes, and have switched back all the em dashes to colons as your initially suggested. I apologize for my misunderstanding of the issue. Also, with regard to all the other grammar/punctuation issues you raised in your above comment, I have attempted to address each one, and I hope you notice an improvement.
With respect to images, I will try to find some additional quality images to include, but often have trouble finding really good derm photos on the commons. Perhaps I will try to upload some myself.
As far as the large level 2 heading, the article's organization is based on the current categorization scheme for dermatologic content (see WP:DERM:CAT), which is why I added that overarching "Conditions of or affecting the human integumentary system" header with a "see also" link to Category:Cutaneous conditions. I think it adds a little more organization and information to the list, but am willing to remove it if that is what the community wants.
Again, thank you for your replies, and I apologize if I stepped on any toes. I just want to be a good editor, and appreciate all of your feedback. ---kilbad (talk) 17:11, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Kilbad, no worries at all! We are all here to improve articles and discussions on matters of style are always welcome. If the discussion would have gone the way of em dashes, that would have been fine as well. The list is looking great. --Laser brain (talk) 17:52, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Endash

I fixed a number of places where the article's use of hyphens didn't conform to WP:ENDASH. However, I ran out of time to complete the job and left a number of red links that need to be checked. Briefly:

When a hyphen means "and" or is part of a range, it needs to be turned into an endash.
If any of the conjoined items contain spaces, the endash needs to be surrounded by spaces, e.g., Lupus erythematosus – lichen planus overlap syndrome, von Hippel – Lindau syndrome.
A single person's name should use a hyphen, not an endash. Thus, the correct spellings are "Graham-Little syndrome" (with a hyphen), named after a single person Graham-Little; as opposed to "Fox–Fordyce disease" (with an endash), named after two people, Fox and Fordyce.
If the fix creates a red link, the corresponding article should be renamed. For example, I renamed Muir-Torre syndrome (with hyphen) to Muir–Torre syndrome (with endash).
I finished things up through Muir–Torre syndrome; the remaining red-links need to be checked, to make sure I didn't introduce a mistake (for example, it would be a mistake to rename Graham-Little syndrome (with a hyphen) to Graham–Little syndrome (with an endash). The corresponding article contents can be endashed at your leisure.
Aren't style guides wonderful? But the article will look a tiny bit better when this is done.

Eubulides (talk) 18:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the rest of them, kilbad. I made one further minor edit and it all seems to be fixed now. Eubulides (talk) 07:15, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Stick with Vancouver system for page ranges

Recently a number of edits have replaced things like "pages=491–7" with "pages=491–497". Can you please change these back? The "pages=491–7" style is the standard Vancouver system used in medical journals, on PubMed, etc.; there's no good reason to depart from it in this medical article. Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 06:54, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I did that in response to comments at the FL review. Do they still need to be changed back? ---kilbad (talk) 06:55, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, please change them back. That interpretation of the manual of style is incorrect. I'll comment on the FL review page. Eubulides (talk) 06:57, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I changed them back. ---kilbad (talk) 07:02, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Image style

In response to The Rambling Man's comment on the FLC page, I redid images to follow WP:MOS#Images more carefully. Most of this consisted of removing pixel sizing. One suggestion is to orient faces to point into the text; another is to start off the article with an image on the right; a third is to avoid sandwiching text within images. I could not satisfy all three suggestions with the leprosy image in the lead, so I moved it to the body. Perhaps another image could be found (or moved) to the start of the lead.

One thing I did not do was to add alt text as per WP:ALT. This should be done for every image in the article. I did just the first image, to show an example of how it should be done for the other images. The alt text is for people who can't see the image: it should be brief and should talk about only what is visually apparent to a naive reader (no explanations of the disease or mechanism). Eubulides (talk) 18:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I added some basic alt tags. ---kilbad (talk) 00:22, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Medical Subject Headings

These links may be helpful: Wikipedia:MeSH and Medical Subject Headings. -- Wavelength (talk) 18:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Melanocytic tumors of uncertain malignant potential

I have just found Melanocytic tumors of uncertain malignant potential (WP:O). -- Wavelength (talk) 19:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Update: I am still researching this term. Thanks for your patience. I have found a couple more articles in pubmed, including [1]. ---kilbad (talk) 15:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I added it. Thanks again. ---kilbad (talk) 19:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

~~I also need to add Umbilical granuloma. See PMID 11666047 and 15157600.~~ added ---kilbad (talk) 13:49, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Lead

I wonder if the lead can do without the last two sentences of the first paragraph, "Hair-bearing skin contains structures called pilosebaceous units, each with a hair follicle, sebaceous gland, and associated arrector pili muscle. In the embryo, the ectoderm forms the epidermis, hair, and glands, and is chemically influenced by the underlying mesoderm that forms the dermis and subcutaneous tissues." WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Brendan asked me to take a look at the recent changes to this list, which I have. Um, isn't this a feature list? Then what is with all the need for review and changes? I realize people are still adding diseases to the list, fine. But why is there a need to change the lead when this text has already been dissected in a feature list review (see this aricles review). Plus, thousands of people look at this list every day, and for months noone seems to have made any changes? If it ain't broke don't fix it...

In the future, if you someone wants to make changes to the text, I think there should be discussion about it first. And, if you are going to make major changes, then should not the feature status be removed until another review happens to analyze the changes? ---Bojilov (talk) 22:40, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Featured list doesn't mean it can't or shouldn't be changed - several of my changes were innocuous and incremental, such as the use of templates at the start of the article, clarification of a bit of text with a new reference, correction of some redirects and disambiguation links and replacing some raw citations with citation templates. Further, only two of the FL criteria deal with the areas I touched on - prose and lead. I like to think my writing is at least good, perhaps professional (though I did just notice a grammatical mistake), and part of my goal was to make the lead more engaging and inviting. I came to the article after a request from kilbad on my talk page and my usual process is to be bold about it.

What do you consider problematic about my edits? I didn't change much content - most of my changes were just wording in an effort to make it more readable for a general audience. I wasn't aware of the FL page, but reviewing it I see a couple specific comments that my edits appear to have addressed:

the comment on "interdigitates" - rather than having an interwiki for a specialist word, isn't a more general wording that gets at the same idea better? I know what interdigitates means, I just don't really think it adds much unless you're a doctor.
I ended up adding {{dynamic list}} to the page - templates are useful since a single change or improvement propagates across all pages; apparently this change was made before and reversed?
I agree that it's a very impressive list and the introduction gives a very nice overview of the skin in general; whether my prose is better or not is an open question. Again, our readership is a general one - if doctors think it's fine, it might be too technical; if they think it's simple, but comprehensive, it might be a sweet spot.

Since kilbad just dropped by and asked me to review the page, I vaguely thought he was looking for proofreading (didn't realize it was a FL). If no-one thinks my edits were an improvement, I'll check the wikilinks in the body text and wander off - as a list I don't see much to work on beyond the lead and ensuring the links go to the right place. Like many people, I don't have the expertise to say whether it's substantively correct.

A couple final comments - the EL section could probably be just the DMOZ - the google directory looks a lot like the DMOZ page and the Yahoo directory contains advertising. Further reading is usually non-duplicated sources (and is therefore appropriate), but are usually lengthy ones - whole books or articles covering the entire topic. Some of these look pretty specific. And I agree with the FL reviewers - this is a very impressive page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 02:50, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I think we should leave the lead and intro text's of the article alone. I like how it reads now, and the text has stood the test of a FL review and thousands of hits per month with no complaints. Personally, I would like to see effort going into making sure the list is comprehensive as far as the diseases included within. If changes are made to the text, I will probably resubmit the article for a FL review, sorry Kilbad. ---Bojilov (talk) 18:57, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Have you read the text after my edits? You can see the final version of my changes here. It's quite possible my changes improved the page and I don't think it's particularly fair to say the old one was better merely because it lasted for a while. I made the changes I did because I thought they improved the page. And if you're going to revert, then please replace the substantive positive changes I made (adding templates at the top of the page, the use of citation templates for certain sources, and the addition of Grant-Kels 2007 including a link to google books). Thanks, WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 21:51, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

First, I would like to thank both of you for your interest in making this a great article. I think in that respect, we all want the same thing. I also want to apologize because I did ask both of you to review this article, and, as a result, feel that the disagreement between you two is partially my fault. With respect to WLU's edits, I have already added back in the {{dynamic list}} and new citation because I think we can all agree that those edits do improve the article, at least I hope we agree. With regard to the other edits, perhaps we should take a break from the text for a while, and just let things cool off? The list is not going anywhere, so perhaps we could all take a step back and decide what's worth getting fired up about? Regardless, I hope you both can forgive me for my role in this. ---kilbad (talk) 22:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Additional sections | categories

Several of the article's sections / categories are getting a bit large. I think we may want to add a couple of new sections / categories to slim down some of the larger ones. Perhaps we can start a discussion / list of possible new cats. Here are a few I was thinking about:

Category:Cutaneous congenital abnormalities (perhaps there is better phrasing for this one?)
Category:Pregnancy-related cutaneous conditions
Category:Keratodermas (under Category:Papulosquamous hyperkeratotic skin diseases)

Ok, let me know what you think. ---kilbad (talk) 01:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Why invent a group name for pregnancy-related skin disorders when there already is the term dermatoses of pregnancy - hence should this not be Category:Dermatoses of pregnancy ? David Ruben ^Talk 03:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

On Category:Cutaneous congenital abnormalities, perhaps Category:Congenital cutaneous anomalies would read better. Congenital at first glance to delineate, just so nobody can get the idea "Oh, these are only about dermatology, so they probably aren't that serious..". And 'anomalies', as it may encompass both 'abnormalities' and 'oddities'. Just a thought.-- Rcej (Robert) - talk 05:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Right now I am still looking at a few medical books as to any possible alternate suggestions for congenital conditions; however, I would support a separate dedicated category all the same. I am not sure if Category:Dermatoses of pregnancy would be the best choice for the second one, as it sounds like it would be addressing disease processes that affect only the dermis or skin while pregnant; whereas, Category:Pregnancy-related cutaneous conditions would appear to address the entire integumentary system including not only the skin, but also the hair, nails, and any related muscle and glands. My interpretation at least. Oh, and as far as Category:Keratodermas, having had the oppurtunity to work with these, until Kilbad was kind enough to assist and take over, you have a big thumbs up on those buggers. Calmer Waters 06:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I do not hear any objections to the Category:Keratodermas, so I may start the process of implementing this new category under Category:Papulosquamous hyperkeratotic skin diseases. With regard to the Category:Pregnancy-related cutaneous conditions wording, I prefer this wording for the reasons stated by User talk:Calmer Waters, but also because it allows for conditions which are not necessarily diseases (i.e. dermatoses) per se. For example, linea nigra is a pregnancy-related cutaneous condition, but not a dermatosis.

I also really like User talk:Rcej's suggestion of Category:Congenital cutaneous anomalies, and feel strongly that a category encompassing developmental conditions is needed, as currently this group of conditions is spread out amoung many other categories where they don't fit extremely well, like accessory tragus, which is currently under Category:Dermal and subcutaneous growths.

Also, as always with dermatology categories, for any new category we create that has any "technical" terms in the title (such as Category:Keratodermas), there will be a simple, understandable, straightforward introduction at the top of the category page to inform readers regarding the mean, scope, and contents of the category. Any other thoughts? ---kilbad (talk) 17:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

OK re other skin condirions of pregnancy - but I still feel Category:Dermatoses of pregnancy a useful grouping - just needs be a subcat of Category:Pregnancy-related cutaneous conditions then. David Ruben ^Talk 01:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, what about Category:Congenital cutaneous anomalies ->> Category:Developmental cutaneous anomalies, so something similar? Several texts I have use the term "developmental." ---kilbad (talk) 02:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Developmental does not always signify congenital, though. Congenital is wider. Rcej (Robert) - talk 03:26, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

If "congenital" is a broader term, then I would favor that. Not that I disagree with you, Rcej, but do others also agree that the term "congenital" is a broader/more inclusive term than "developmental"? If so, then we can go with Category:Congenital cutaneous anomalies. ---kilbad (talk) 03:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

It's hard to answer that question.

I believe that 'developmental' is often, but not always, used (by technically minded people) to indicate a problem of (or affecting) specifically embryonic/fetal development, e.g., Cleft palate. If the line at the top of this section about faulty morphogenesis applies to every item in the list, then renaming it 'developmental' might be appropriate. There are at least very few truly developmental disorders that can't be considered congenital.

Congenital conditions usually includes all genetic conditions that can be detected at or shortly after birth, e.g., Hemophilia, which is 'congenital' but not 'developmental'.

People typically exclude some other genetic conditions, e.g. Polycystic ovarian syndrome, that are present at birth but not clinically evident.

The age of the source may explain a more expansive definition of 'developmental': A few years ago, it was popular to refer to all children with any sort of intellectual disability or just about any other problem as having a 'developmental disorder'. This works well enough when talking about children with Down syndrome, but it's nonsensical when talking about children with traumatic brain injuries. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:59, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Section / Category updates

The congenital anomalies section and Category:Cutaneous congenital anomalies, as well as pregnancy-related section and Category:Pregnancy-related cutaneous conditions have been created. Please let me know what adjustments need to be made.

I have also created the palmoplantar keratodermas section, but still need to create the Category:Palmoplantar keratodermas. Let me know what you think.

Also, while we are looking at the current dermatology-related categories, do you think there would be any utility in having a Category:Radiation-related cutaneous conditions underneath Category:Skin conditions resulting from physical factors? Thanks in advance for your feedback! ---kilbad (talk) 01:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

AEC syndrome spelling

For AEC syndrome this article first lists Ankyloblepharon filiforme adenatum–ectodermal dysplasia–cleft palate syndrome, but sources tend to give other names:

"ankyloblepharon filiforme adnatum–ectodermal dysplasia–cleft palate syndrome" ("adnatum", not "adenatum") (Fitzpatrick's)
"ankyloblepharon–ectodermal defects–cleft lip/palate (AEC) syndrome" (Julapalli et al. 2009, doi:10.1002/ajmg.a.32797), (Cole et al. 2009, doi:10.1002/ajmg.a.32836, )
"ankyloblepharon–ectodermal defect–cleft lip and/or palate (AEC) syndrome" (Motil et al. 2009, doi:10.1002/ajmg.a.32789)
"ankyloblepharon ectodermal dysplasia and clefting" (Koster et al. 2009, doi:10.1002/ajmg.a.32794)

Almost nobody lists it with our name, which I am inclined to think is a solecism. But anyway, given that authors disagree on the name (even in the same issue of the same publication!) perhaps this should be listed primarily under AEC syndrome or (our article's name) Hay–Wells syndrome? It's better to list the most commonly-used name first, I'd think. This same principle might apply to other diseases too, but I thought I'd mention this one test case first. Eubulides (talk) 19:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Eubulides, thank you so much for your attention to detail, and your help with cutaneous conditions! I really mean that. With regard to the term "Ankyloblepharon filiforme adenatum–ectodermal dysplasia–cleft palate syndrome," this is probably a typo, probably my fault, so I have moved that redirect to Ankyloblepharon filiforme adnatum–ectodermal dysplasia–cleft palate syndrome. Also, I think listing primarily under Hay–Wells syndrome is a good idea, and I have reflected that change in our list. With regard to the other synonyms you list, I think those should be added to the article and list, and I would defer those additions to you. Thanks again for your help, and I look forward to any other feedback you may have. You may also want to see a recent comment at WT:MED regarding the treatment of condition subtypes/variants in this list. ---kilbad (talk) 20:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Additional sections / categories

I was thinking about separating out some conditions into three new sections/categories:

Category:Conditions of the nail apparatus under Category:Conditions of the skin appendages, perhaps with a merge in from nail disease
Category:Eosinophilic cutaneous conditions
Category:Radiation-related cutaneous conditions under Category:Skin conditions resulting from physical factors

Any thoughts? ---kilbad (talk) 20:41, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Where is Category:Eosinophilic cutaneous conditions being sub-categorized from. Also like how Category:Radiation-related cutaneous conditions is broken up from Category:Skin conditions resulting from physical factors. Maybe another for friction or resulting in the physical injury? IDK. Calmer Waters 02:52, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I think perhaps Category:Eosinophilic cutaneous conditions could be a "first level" category/section? ---kilbad (talk) 00:27, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I sectioned out Eosinophilic cutaneous conditions, now we just need to add those conditions into the new Category:Eosinophilic cutaneous conditions. --kilbad (talk) 04:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, Eosinophilic cutaneous conditions is done. ---kilbad (talk) 07:18, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I added a Ionizing radiation-related section. ---kilbad (talk) 20:50, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I changed it to Category:Ionizing radiation-induced cutaneous conditions, just fyi. ---kilbad (talk) 17:40, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Some questions

Just wondering about some things. I won't make the changes myself since I'm no expert on the subject:

shouldn't the description of 17.2 (Mycosis related) also include nails?

Great catch... done. ---kilbad (talk) 00:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Pleased to help. Scarabaeoid (talk) 02:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

the description of 23 (Neurocutaneous) seems grammatically limping. Or is it me?

Propose an alternative wording, and perhaps we can change what we currently have. ---kilbad (talk) 00:29, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, let's try. Now it says: "Neurocutaneous conditions are due organic nervous system disease or are psychiatric in etiology." How about making it "Neurocutaneous conditions can be either organic nervous system diseases or have a psychiatric etiology." Whatever you decide, the plural 'are' and singular 'disease' of the standing description mutually exclude each other. Scarabaeoid (talk) 02:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you could ask user:Tony1 for his input. He is great at wording this stuff. ---kilbad (talk) 03:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. Not meaning this bad, but starting to ask people to help me improving an article in which I'm not really interested (mind, I just stumbled in!) is going a bit too far for me. I'm willing to help personally where and when I can, but actively asking other people to help improving is something I will keep for articles closer to my interests. Scarabaeoid (talk) 05:45, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I can see the word 'valley' as a second part of a disease name both spelled with capital and small letter v, depending on the disease. Is that correct?

Amazing eye! All of the uses of "valley" reference a proper name, so they should all be capitalized. ---kilbad (talk) 00:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

My pleasure. Scarabaeoid (talk) 02:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

maybe I'm overlooking them, but I don't see links to botfly and chigger/jigger?

Specific pathogens are not list, only the conditions they cause. In this case, Chigger bite is listed under "Parasitic infestations, stings, and bites." ---kilbad (talk) 00:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, this section is messy! Chigger bite leads to actual mites (Trombicula) which tend to itch close to the private parts. But the link to what I ment, the actual chigger or sand-flea, is hiding under the name tungiasis, named after it's scientific name Tunga penetrans, with only some non-English aliases behind it. The botfly Dermatobia hominis is nowhere to be found (by me, at least) while it is a common and very distinct skin parasite in the neotropics. This guy is a condition! Bites of various kinds of spiders (including the black widow) all lead to a single article about spider bites, while latrodectism (named after the black widow genus Latrodectus) leads to the actual black widow bite article. I can't find the temporary skin-darkening by some beetle species. Some specialist in medical entomology should have a look over here. Scarabaeoid (talk) 02:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you could ask user:Arcadian for his input, or maybe post for some help at WT:MED, as I agree some of these articles/redirects could use some better organization. Regardless, what parasitic infestation, sting, and/or bite-related conditions would you like to see added to the list. Perhaps we can start by at least adding them to the list, and getting some preliminary redirects created. ---kilbad (talk) 03:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, Human botfly (maybe named as 'human botfly infection' to give it a disease-like name?) seems a valuable addition to me. Putting all spider bites together (since they point to a single link) would also be good (Latrodectism is then linked to via spider bite). And giving the alias 'chigoe flea bite' to tungiasis would also help for finding this subject. Since this is a list of conditions rather than causes, maybe things like 'x-bite', which I see a lot now, should rather be named something like 'x-bite poisoning' on this list. Trypanosomiasis may need the alias Chagas disease. Although I don't know if this disease affects the skin, it is contracted by scratching the skin and thus rubbing the infected feces of a certain bug in. And the bug sucks your blood, which is also an invasion of the skin. Since I'm on it, wouldn't the small incisions of the skin by vampires (the bats, not Dracula) not also belong on this list somewhere? Especially since they may infect a person with rabies? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scarabaeoid (talk • contribs) 05:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

the photo subscripts give both primairy and secundairy listed disease names. Shouldn't it only be primairy listed names (to ease the finding of the disease belonging to the picture)?

I think this would definitely be an improvement to the article. Would you consider fixing the captions? ---kilbad (talk) 00:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that would be feasible. Tell me how. Maybe someone over here could help me a bit with the problems in my bottle trap article then. Scarabaeoid (talk) 02:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

What kind of direction/feedback are you looking for? ---kilbad (talk) 03:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Apparently, there are 3 problems, but user:Ttonyb1, who asked me to improve the article, is not helping me much on how to solve them.

More references or sources for verification: I can't find anything more. Every beetle collector uses the darn things, but hardly anyone writes about them. How to proceed?
Needs wikification: Maybe someone with a lot of experience on Wikipedia can have a look here. Making small corrections or telling me where to make major ones is greatly appreciated.
Unappropriate material: I 'de-manualized' the article as much as possible. What else to do?

Scarabaeoid (talk) 04:45, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

in 36 (Footnotes), 6th point, the word 'a' seems erroneous in the phrase "is a abbreviated to". I have no idea how to edit this footnote; the text doesn't show up when I click 'edit'.

Fixed... thanks again! ---kilbad (talk) 00:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Cheers! Scarabaeoid (talk) 02:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Scarabaeoid (talk) 05:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Wells syndrome?

In the section Eosinophilic cutaneous conditions the condition Eosinophilic cellulitis is placed. It has Wells syndrome as an alias. Given the fact that this condition probably has nothing to do with the plural of a well, I suppose it is named after a person Well or Wells. Shouldn't it than be named Well's syndrome or Wells' syndrome? Google gives all 3 options... Scarabaeoid (talk) 06:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I switched it to Wells' syndrome. ---kilbad (talk) 00:09, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Bazex syndrome

Bazex syndrome describes two different entities, so eventually we are going to need a disambiguation page. ---kilbad (talk) 00:18, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Done. ---kilbad (talk) 03:12, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Mucous membranes

"Conditions of the mucous membranes involve the moist linings of the eyes, nose, mouth, and anus." I think you might want to either include the genitals here, or explain why you don't. By the way, the definition of mucous membranes in the link is also in some other aspects different of the one used here. Tongue excluded, ears included, etc. Scarabaeoid (talk) 01:44, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I worked on the wording. How does it look now? ---kilbad (talk) 12:17, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

To do...

I think a footnote on the different "Id" reactions should be added addressing the different possible spellings of the term. ---kilbad (talk) 13:10, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Integrate the term "poliosis." ---kilbad (talk) 19:30, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Conditions to add: tuberculid, pintids, syphilid, gangosa, butcher's wart, harvest itch, bednar tumor, necrolytic acral erythema, chondrodermatitis nodularis helicis ---kilbad (talk) 01:34, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Pictures vs list

Under the chapter Melanocytic nevi and neoplasms a picture with ‘Mongolian spot’ is shown, while neither this condition nor it’s synonyms as shown in the link are mentioned in (this chapter of) the list.

Under the chapter Monocyte- and macrophage-related the picture with ‘Granuloma annulare’ is not related to a specific condition. Is this on purpose? The same goes for chapter Papulosquamous hyperkeratotic: Palmoplantar keratodermas with a picture of ‘Palmoplantar keratoderma’, chapter Psoriasis with ‘Psoriasis’, chapter Urticaria and angioedema with ‘Urticaria’ and chapter Vascular-related with ‘Purpura’. Scarabaeoid (talk) 03:09, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you again for your close attention to detail. I have made some changes. How do they look now? Also, I am uncertain what type of palmoplantar keratoderma is shown in that photo, perhaps you could find out? ---kilbad (talk) 23:43, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. Looks pretty good now I think (the text that is, not those gruesome pics). I suppose you're still working on the 'Mongolian spot'? Regarding the 'Palmoplantar keratoderma', I absolutely have no clue. I've an eye for typo's etc., but the subject of this very list is way out of my league. I just try to keep my personal experience with this stuff to a minimum... You'd best ask a dermatologist (aren't you one yourself?). Scarabaeoid (talk) 03:01, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I moved the mongolian spot photo. ---kilbad (talk) 19:28, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Bites 'n stuff

I see a couple of my changes have been improved (better linking, I didn't know how to), but some of them have been undone, and I wonder why.

Both spider bite, tarantula bite and funnel web spider bite point to exactly the same page, not even to a different chapter on that page. In such, they may well be under the same name in the conditions list I think. If they would point to different chapters on the linked page, a separation would be okay.
Human botfly completely disappeared from the list! Why? I just squeezed another one out of my shoulder, and I can testify that that keep a permanent (breathing)hole in the skin, make the skin itchy and flaking, create a local subdermal infection and at times take a rather annoying bite from the living tissue they're in. I really think they are to be included in any list of skin conditions.
the effects of Urticating hairs, notably of the Theraphosidae family (bird spiders) on the skin are discussed in named link. Why removing them from the list? (I known the link includes also info on urticating caterpillar and plant hairs)
Phytophotodermatitis has its own page on Wikipedia. I think there should be some link on this list pointing to that page. Scarabaeoid (talk) 02:08, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your help with this article, and consistent attention to detail. In response to your comments:

Specific conditions should be listed individually within the list, regardless of whether or not they have their own stub. While, for the most part, I like to see stubs for each individual condition, if several links reference the same article, I think that is fine (though you could divide out and create new stubs if you like). Restated in a different way, this is a list of conditions, not a list of articles.
I know the human botfly can cause cutaneous issues, therefore, perhaps we should add a link like Human botfly infestation, or something like that? However, simply listing human botfly gives the cause, but not the condition.
Similarly, urticating hairs lists a cause of a cutaneous condition, but not a condition itself.
Phytophotodermatitis is already listed.

Let me know what you think... and thanks again! Ever considered joining our task force at WP:DERM? ---kilbad (talk) 15:09, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I like to help provide people with accurate information, and I think that's what Wikipedia is created for. Commenting on you responses to my comments on your changes of my last edits (big grin):

I got your point. However, on other places on Wikipedia I have seen links to article chapters, rather than to articles. I think something like that (which I don't know how to do) would be a good thing for e.g. the various types of spider bites, all of which are discussed in detail in chapters of the main article.
Granted, the human botfly itself is not a cutaneous condition. However, this would lead to a whole heap of similar problems. To name a few: Nairobi fly dermatitis redirects to Nairobi fly (which is the cause, not the condition), Pediculosis pubis redirects to Crab louse (which is the cause, not the condition), Vitamin B1 deficiency (which is a cause, not a condition) redirects to Beriberi (which is not even an cutaneous condition as far as I understand). I suppose a temporary link to the cause could work for now, since there is no article on the condition. In time this can than be corrected. Personally, I much rather find a link to an adult article on the cause than a stub of the condition, which will do little else than provide a link to the cause anyway.
See previous comment
I just found Phytophotodermatitis. It just wasn't in the place where I searched for it before.

Well, that's what I think for now. I never considered joining any task force, especially not one on a subject which I am not familiar with (I don't think there is a nitpicking task force). Anyway, I'm awaiting a permit to start with a major not-internet related research project which will most likely leave me very little time to work on things like Wikipedia. Scarabaeoid (talk) 22:20, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you again for your feedback. To begin, this is a listing of conditions of or affecting the human integumentary system, hence entries such as beriberi (a condition that affects the skin). Also, again, this is an organized listing of cutaneous conditions, not articles. Therefore, I think each unique cutaneous condition should be listed independently, regardless of where we are linking to. With regard to redirects like nairobi fly dermatitis and pediculosis pubis, please feel free to make those redirects more specifically directed to article sections if desired, or to separate them out into their own stubs. However, each entity is its own condition, and should probably be listed independently. ---kilbad (talk) 20:37, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for replying. First, before I posted my last comment I actually checked beriberi and I found nowhere in the article anything regarding the skin, henceforward my remark. Would you be kind enough to point out to me what I'm overlooking? Second, I can agree with your opinion that this is an organized listing of cutaneous conditions and also that each condition should be listed independently. I do not, however, agree with you on your remark "regardless of where we are linking to". If this was just a list for the sake of having a list, fine. But in my opinion this list should actually help people to find information on various conditions in a way as easy as possible (Wikipedia is all about providing info, right?). Therefore, linking specific conditions to the same general page, instead of specific chapters on that page, seems not a good idea to me. Either generalize the condition and point just to the general page, or specify the conditions and point to the exact chapters on the general page. It seems to me that the present way of organizing this list in these cases is giving searching people more work than necessary. Third, like I mentioned before, since the subject is not really in my lane I won't start making new stubs/articles or major changes here. Fourth, although it appears to me that you are both the creater and maintainer of this list, a third voice in this discussion might give some fresh opinion. It seems to me that both of us are kind of digging trenches, which can't be good. Scarabaeoid (talk) 01:35, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

As new to this discussion, the big issue does not appear at first glance, what to include in the list, but rather how to include and direct the reader to the condition. I believe that if this article is to be a list of the causes of cutaneous conditions, then we should stick to only that (Conditions that affect the human cutaneous tissue). This would help to keep the list standardized and focused without deviation. To do this, it must be clear in the introduction that this is the case. Concerning how to deal with a condition that is caused by an organism. I agree that items on the list should direct to the condition caused ie. Leprosy or Hansen's disease that affects the system, rather than the organism causing it, in this case Mycobacterium leprae. That one is an easy example because of the amount of material availible, unlike the human botfly, but helps to as foundation of how to deal with condition verse cause.

In regards to conditions that do not have an article, I feel that they should be linked to where the information describing the condition is written about. If it is not yet written, then it should be omitted or redlinked till such time that there is relevant information available and added to somewhere within Wikipedia. As this is a list to help direct readers to information on the condition, it is only fair to have a link that takes them to that information. If the only information available is to the organism that causes it, then that article should have some prose describing the condition, and the link directed to the section of the article that describes it. If a subsection is not available because there is not enough material present to warrant one, then to the whole article itself and maybe a footnote stating that it is going to the vector, rather than the condition. This would help with further expansion efforts in the future, while addressing why its being done. I don't believe that every condition should have its own article if it can be better placed within a larger or parent article that already exist, if there is not enough material available to reasonably expect that it can be later expanded beyond that stub (one that is only one or two sentences in length).

The human botfly article does not currently state anything more than that the larva needs to spend 8 weeks in a wound to mature and that would needs to stay uninfected. It does not state whether it causes a wound by first introduction access through a bite, or whether it lays its eggs on an already exposed wound. The idea of Human botfly infestation sounds like a promising partial solution to an instance of this problem; however, unless there is enough material available, I believe the article should be redirected to the human botfly article and a section anchor placed, after the material about the condition is added to the article. As Scarabaeoid has pointed out, anchors are very helpful to for bring a reader directly to the material requested. This of course is dependent on whether that material is: first, under a section of the article, and second, if that material is wholly contained within the section. Footnotes are also a possibility. These are just my opinions and hopefully only taken as such. Kindly Calmer Waters 03:25, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion Calmer Waters. This seems reasonable to me. Hopefully someone will be able to expand the human botfly article with the section you propose. Given time and online info, I might do it myself. Scarabaeoid (talk) 20:56, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

ICD-10

Would anybody mind if the top level categories were grouped not alphabetically, but by the corresponding ICD chapters? --Arcadian (talk) 16:19, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I would prefer the main categories/sections be alphabetized, but do not have strong feelings on the issue. Perhaps you could propose your alternative order here and we can discuss it further? ---kilbad (talk) 19:24, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

How about having top-level headers like those shown at Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Dermatology task force/ILDS-ICD, so that more closely related conditions are grouped more closely together, and in an order as close as possible to international standards? (I'm not proposing that each individual condition be sorted -- even if that were desirable, it would be impossible, because many of these don't have codes.)--Arcadian (talk) 19:37, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I am not opposed to that. However, could you give me some time to write some intros and develop some cats for the new infestations organization scheme? ---kilbad (talk) 19:55, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

No problem. While you're in there, you may want to consider moving Pneumocystosis (I left it there for now, but it probably would be better under fungal conditions). --Arcadian (talk) 20:01, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

ICD-10

Would anybody mind if the top level categories were grouped not alphabetically, but by the corresponding ICD chapters? --Arcadian (talk) 16:19, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I would prefer the main categories/sections be alphabetized, but do not have strong feelings on the issue. Perhaps you could propose your alternative order here and we can discuss it further? ---kilbad (talk) 19:24, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

How about having top-level headers like those shown at Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Dermatology task force/ILDS-ICD, so that more closely related conditions are grouped more closely together, and in an order as close as possible to international standards? (I'm not proposing that each individual condition be sorted -- even if that were desirable, it would be impossible, because many of these don't have codes.)--Arcadian (talk) 19:37, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I am not opposed to that. However, could you give me some time to write some intros and develop some cats for the new infestations organization scheme? ---kilbad (talk) 19:55, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

No problem. While you're in there, you may want to consider moving Pneumocystosis (I left it there for now, but it probably would be better under fungal conditions). --Arcadian (talk) 20:01, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

(copied from Arcadian's talk page)

Would you consider adding small one line intros to the new subsections of List_of_cutaneous_conditions#Parasitic_infestations.2C_stings.2C_and_bites? ---kilbad (talk) 20:25, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, now that I have been working on that section a bit more, how strongly do you feel about having the phylum subsections? Would you be opposed to going back to just one section for infestations? I am just not sure how important the phylum subdivisions are to people reading about cutaneous conditions? ---kilbad (talk) 13:59, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

It depends upon the reason for having Category:Parasitic infestations, stings, and bites of the skin, and the reason for not putting everything in List of cutaneous conditions into a single alphabetical list. That category is so broad, it includes everything from lizard bite to mucocutaneous leishmaniasis. Most people won't care about the phylum per se, but if the goal is to group together conditions with similar characteristics, the goal can only be met by breaking it down into subcategories, and at this level, phylogeny is the most clinically relevant. That said, if you're sure you want to merge them back together, I won't revert. Per your first question: if you'd like me to write introductions, I'd be happy to, but I'd rather wait a bit to see if they get merged before doing so. --Arcadian (talk) 16:56, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

To me, it would be even better to split up arthropods further into arachnids, insects and myriapoda (I admit these three names are actually on three different taxonomic levels), but that is arbitrary. Also, it would be nice to give some English names to the various phyla. That really would make things more understandable and accessible to laymen (which is what Wikipedia is about). Scarabaeoid (talk) 17:57, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

First, thank you both for your recent work on the list, as it is always nice to have some help.

The sectioning and categorization of these cutaneous conditions is very subjective, and I will be the first to admit that. My guide for sections and categories has been the chapter headings of Andrews' Diseases of the Skin: Clinical Dermatology, which I generally have not strayed too far from except when certain conditions do no fit well into any of the current sections, at which time I add a new section/category. The relatively new addition of the congenital anomalies section would be an example. While the list is large, with many sections, in general, I have tried to keep the number of sections/categories relatively small. With that being said, I would prefer to have just one "Parasitic infestations, stings, and bites" without any subcats/sections, but don't want to step on any toes over this issue. Also, with regard to arthropod-related conditions, perhaps we could provide the taxonomic breakdown at the Arthropod bites and stings article, which we can add a link to within this list?

Just some thoughts. Let me know. ---kilbad (talk) 18:07, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't merge the sections again. Providing a link to to the arthropod bites and stings article would be good I think (especially since that link includes more than just bites and stings). How about some English names (possibly also at other groups of conditions)? Scarabaeoid (talk) 19:32, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Incomplete information?

Introduction, paragraph 3, last line: "The function of blood vessels within the dermis is twofold: to supply nutrition and regulate temperature." I think this information is not complete. It seems to me their function is actually threefold, the third function being protection by providing blood platelets (to close a wound) as well as white blood cells (to attack invading organisms). Scarabaeoid (talk) 21:11, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that is an excellent point. Perhaps you could propose an alternative wording here that we can develop? ---kilbad (talk) 21:19, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Because this is not an article about the skin itself I think it should be kept short (especially since the ways in which the other two functions are provided are also not discussed here). Therefore I think it can simply be worded as The function of blood vessels within the dermis is threefold: to supply nutrition, to regulate temperature and to provide protection.

Mind, the first two functions are cited from literature no. 3. I have to leave it up to you if/from where function three should be cited. Scarabaeoid (talk) 22:46, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I found this link, which has some sources [2]. The last paragraph states, "Dermal blood vessels have multiple functions beyond just serving as a conduit for circulating cellular and non-cellular components. The cutaneous vasculature and its cellular components, namely endothelial cells, are active participants in a variety of physiologic processes. These include wound healing, control of hemostasis, temperature regulation, and the modulation of inflammation/leukocyte trafficking (Table 2)." Perhaps we could work in that wording into our sentence, and I can find out which source they use for that content, and cite it here as well? ---kilbad (talk) 13:26, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

What about "The function of blood vessels within the dermis is fourfold: to supply nutrition, regulate temperature, modulate inflammation, and participate in wound healing." ---kilbad (talk) 13:33, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Kilbad asked me to comment: the listing technique looks fine in all of these examples. Yes, probably best if the "to" is repeated each time. Tony (talk) 13:47, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

So The function of blood vessels within the dermis is fourfold: to supply nutrition, to regulate temperature, to modulate inflammation, and to participate in wound healing does not sound awkward with all the to 's? ---kilbad (talk) 13:56, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I think splitting up protection into 'modulating inflammation' and 'participating in wound healing' is a good thing. And maybe the to's sound/look a bit awkward, but I think grammatically it's the better option. But I'm not a native speaker, so you might want to check with someone else. Scarabaeoid (talk) 14:22, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I have updated the wording and citation. I will also add a second citation for the sentence in a bit. Hope that looks better. ---kilbad (talk) 15:18, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Loxoscelism

I think, regardless of a previous discussion, that in this list Loxoscelism and Necrotic cutaneous loxoscelism may be put under one link as a condition and an alternative wording for this condition. After all, the cutaneous part (which this list is about) of Loxoscelism equals Necrotic cutaneous loxoscelism. Scarabaeoid (talk) 14:46, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Great point. Done. ---kilbad (talk) 15:20, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

With regard to ICD codes

Perhaps instead of dividing the page into sections based on ICD codes, we could include links to relevant ICD chapters under each of the existing sections. So, for example, beneath the "Infection-related" section we could have:

Thoughts? ---kilbad (talk) 19:00, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

The classification currently used on this page is idiosyncratic, and based upon a single textbook. The terms aren't widely used. This wouldn't be a major problem if it just affected this page (though it is a copyvio risk). However, this page has been used to drive a global dermatology classification system which is introducing new challenges on hundreds of other pages. Almost every medical condition can have a cutaneous manifestation, but I think it is important that we distinguish between dermatology conditions and cutaneous expression of other diseases. ICD and ILDS are the standards; I think they need to be incorporated. --Arcadian (talk) 19:19, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

While the classification system is based on Andrew's, all the other main derm texts, those being Bolognia, Fitz, and Rooks (see WP:DERM:REF for citations) all use similar headings for categorizing disease (if you want, I can share the online Bolognia login information with you?). None of the texts use ICD codes to organize their content. As a result, I would prefer not to use ICD codes as the primary means of organizing this content. However, with that being said, I do agree that the ICD codes are important. As a compromise, would you be open to putting them in the "see also" links for each section? ---kilbad (talk) 19:32, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Multiple classifications can be accommodated together by means of sortable wikitables. -- Wavelength (talk) 19:34, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Unless there are strong objections, I would like to revert back to [3] while I add a few more conditions tonight, and work on the infestation section, and while we continue to discuss these issues here. ---kilbad (talk) 00:07, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Curious, but should not Wiki adhere to the most current, consensus-based regard for ICD codes per the ever changing literature, as opposed to the texts... which are not going to reflect consensus in the moment? Rcej (Robert) - talk 01:04, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps someone could post links to all the different derm-related ICD chapters here, so that we can discuss and integrate them into the list? ---kilbad (talk) 01:07, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Current list of redirecting links

The following is a listing of links within the list that redirect to another article. ---kilbad (talk) 11:41, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

List of palmoplantar conditions

Kilbad, I found List of palmoplantar conditions at CAT:O from May 2010, and I decided that you would probably know best what to do with it. (This talk page is on my watchlist, and I will watch here for a reply.)
—Wavelength (talk) 00:02, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Would you be ok with redirecting that to List_of_cutaneous_conditions#Palmoplantar_keratodermas? I don't feel strongly about the issue, so if you have another idea I am certainly open to it. ---kilbad (talk) 20:44, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

If it is redirected there, that is acceptable to me. I notice that two of the three conditions listed on that page are listed at List_of_cutaneous_conditions#Conditions of the skin appendages, but I understand that sometimes an item can be classified in more than one category. The expression "Would you be ok with redirecting that ..." could mean that you are asking whether I am willing to do it myself. You can do it, but if you have not done it within the next 24 hours, then I am willing to do it myself. I have now watchlisted List of palmoplantar conditions also.—Wavelength (talk) 23:56, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Done. ---kilbad (talk) 23:11, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you.—Wavelength (talk) 02:04, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Kepler's disease

The article Kepler's disease has been proposed for deletion.—Wavelength (talk) 23:02, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

No objections here. ---My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 00:26, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned articles from December 2010

I found the following articles in Category:Orphaned articles from December 2010.

—Wavelength (talk) 01:27, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I have resolved the orphan status of Health effects of bedbugs. However, I think Yunis-Varon syndrome is probably outside my scope of expertise. ---My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 15:30, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you.—Wavelength (talk) 15:49, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Working outline for lead section

I. Overview of the human integumentary system
II. Epidermal structure and function
III. Dermal structure and function
VI. Subcutaneous tissue structure and function
V. Overview of cutaneous conditions

---kilbad (talk) 22:49, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the lead section should be shortened down to a minimum, with linking to the articles of interest. After all, this is a list-article and its content should reflect that. Mikael Häggström (talk) 08:36, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Working style guidelines

All sections should have a brief introduction with citation(s).

... or, where there's a proper article describing the entries, inclusion of a link to that article such as "following is a list of types of [[(the cutaneous condition)]]". Mikael Häggström (talk) 08:41, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

All diseases under a header should be listed in alphabetical order.
All synonyms for diseases within a parenthetical should be listed in alphabetical order.
A disease should only be listed once.
Only clinical photos should be included within the list.

---kilbad (talk) 12:56, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Working inclusion guidelines

Conditions of or affecting the human integumentary system should be included within this list.
Clinical images.

---My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 20:49, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Nevusdepigmentosus1.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Nevusdepigmentosus1.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Other speedy deletions

What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 00:16, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Moved lead to corresponding article

This list had a huge introduction in the lead section, while the article on this subject had just a short piece copied from it! The situation was backwards - greater comprehensive expository prose belongs in articles, not the lists that support them.

So I've swapped the lead sections between this list and the article it supports, and then moved part of the lead into the body of the article, breaking it up with subheadings to make it easier to read and browse. Each subsection created includes a {{Main}} link for further ease of browsing.

See cutaneous condition and cutaneous condition#Where cutaneous conditions occur. The Transhumanist 22:58, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Aerosol burn

Editors, I have just found "Aerosol burn" at "User:AlexNewArtBot/MedicineSearchResult" (version of 12:23, 5 July 2012). Please add the latter to your watchlist(s), and please add "Aerosol burn" to the correct section of "List of cutaneous conditions".
—Wavelength (talk) 16:03, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Added ---My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 18:54, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

wikipedia lacks a standard for shocking pictures

while doctors and the like may be used to pictures of diseases, ordinaly people may have a hard time focusing on the article when the selected images of the most griveous states are presented. I know people personally who felt sick parsing the page, looking for their skin illness. The standards must be adopted to the internet. Book-bound encyclopedias are much, much slower, often grayscale.

One idea is to have a disclaimer on the page, or a javascript choice on each image to show it or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.228.189.97 (talk) 08:29, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Additional entries

Here are three additional conditions which I found by watching User:AlexNewArtBot/MedicineSearchResult.

An expert in dermatology can decide whether and where to list them on the page.
—Wavelength (talk) 15:53, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

External links to directory categories

Because of the closure of Yahoo! Directory in late December 2014, the external link to its category on skin conditions was removed at 22:45, 27 December 2014. However, it is still available at the Wayback Machine, and the corresponding category in Google Directory (which closed on 20 July 2011) is also available there. I propose that these four external links be added under the heading "External links".

All the Internet - Directory - Main/Health/Conditions_and_Diseases/Skin_Disorders
Skin Disorders in the Best of the Web Directory (Best of the Web Directory)
Skin disorders in Google Directory (closed on 20 July 2011), archived at Internet Archive Wayback Machine (Wayback Machine)
Skin conditions in Yahoo! Directory (closed in late December 2014), archived at Internet Archive Wayback Machine (Wayback Machine)

—Wavelength (talk) 03:27, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

- Done -My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 14:16, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

annotations needed

This is a very impressive but overwhelmingly long and too-bare list, nearly uselessly incomprehensible unless you have a medical background. We need a version that includes at least one or two words in ordinary English to hint what each condition term refers to. And we need at least a sentence of explanation for what each category section is about. Ideally, each category section would link to a separate article that would have a fully annotated list of the conditions within that category.-71.174.175.150 (talk) 18:17, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

annotations needed

This is a very impressive but overwhelmingly long and too-bare list, nearly uselessly incomprehensible unless you have a medical background. We need a version that includes at least one or two words in ordinary English to hint what each condition term refers to. And we need at least a sentence of explanation for what each category section is about. Ideally, each category section would link to a separate article that would have a fully annotated list of the conditions within that category.

This article is being actively and aggressively protected from any attempts to make it useful to non-specialists by adding helpful annotations.-71.174.183.177 (talk) 20:41, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

References

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. Remember that when adding content about health, please only use high-quality reliable sources as references. We typically use review articles, major textbooks and position statements of national or international organizations (There are several kinds of sources that discuss health: here is how the community classifies them and uses them). WP:MEDHOW walks you through editing step by step. A list of resources to help edit health content can be found here. The edit box has a built-in citation tool to easily format references based on the PMID or ISBN.

While editing any article or a wikipage, on the top of the edit window you will see a toolbar which says "cite" click on it
Then click on "templates",
Choose the most appropriate template and fill in the details beside a magnifying glass followed by clicking said button,
If the article is available in Pubmed Central, you have to add the pmc parameter manually -- click on "show additional fields" in the template and you will see the "pmc" field. Please add just the number and don't include "PMC".

We also provide style advice about the structure and content of medicine-related encyclopedia articles. The welcome page is another good place to learn about editing the encyclopedia. If you have any questions, please feel free to drop me a note.

Bfpage |leave a message 00:49, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Reasons for reverts

Caps at the beginning of the line, then lower case for the rest unless a proper name
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.61.83.123 (talk • contribs) 02:34, 28 October 2015

Thank you for working on this page. I have started a discussion with the med community re these changes. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Edit_review --My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 13:33, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

^ Barankin B, DeKoven J (2002). "Psychosocial effect of common skin diseases". Can Fam Physician. 48: 712–6. PMC 2214020. PMID 12046366. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

[pmid12046366-1] Barankin B, DeKoven J (2002). "Psychosocial effect of common skin diseases". Can Fam Physician. 48: 712–6. PMC 2214020. PMID 12046366. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

[1]