Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Dermatology task force/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Article tagging

I have requested that {{WPMED}} be modified to include the dermatology task force. So please hold off on tagging articles with {{WPDERM}}. Once an admin makes the change to {{WPMED}}, you can tag articles with {{WPMED|class=...|importance=...|dermatology=yes|dermatology-imp=...}}. This will then use one combined article assessment template for both WPMED and the derm task force (just like Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Emergency medicine and EMS task force and Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Reproductive medicine task force). Thanks. --Scott Alter 15:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

A handful of articles need re-tagged when everything is ready. I figure there's no rush on this task, so long as it gets done eventually. Tagging articles is never as important as improving them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
I just changed the tags on the articles that had {{WPDERM}}, so this template can now be deleted - but probably will need WP:TFD. There were 2 minor bugs in the derm task force section of {{WPMED}} (bug with importance categorization and a spacing problem), and I have requested that these be fixed...so the articles currently in Category:Unknown-importance dermatology articles will be properly categorized once {{WPMED}} is fixed. --Scott Alter 02:12, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Since a speedy was inexplicably declined, I'll list it with TFD. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

task force vs. project

I had a discussion with User talk:Kilbad about this being a task force vs. project. I think a task force would be easier to manage, and I will change the wording on the collaboration's page. I just wanted to get a bit more input from the WPMED community first, before completely integrating derm as a task force (like EM/EMS and reproductive medicine). --Scott Alter 15:55, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you're right. If so, I need to go back and delete all the categories I just created. I'll also have to TfD the current banner. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 16:03, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Generally, I'm more in favor of having one big WPMED project, with a task force for each specialty. The derm project was created by one person out of the blue, with no other previous interest expressed. Running an entire project with just one person is difficult, and usually results in an inactive project - like most of the medicine sub-specialty projects are. I tried to catch User:Kilbad before too much work went in to the project. The only things that would have to be "undone" are the new categories and the few articles that have been tagged with {{WPDERM}}. --Scott Alter 16:08, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
I'll get tagging, then. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 16:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
I hate to say this, but I think the categories can actually be kept. The names of the categories seem to fit what {{WPMED}} uses for task force categorization. I'm going to start creating the category structure for the other aspects of the task force. --Scott Alter 16:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Gah. Well they're tagged. I'll remove the tags, then? —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 16:49, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
I just went through them, removed the tags, and put them within the Category:Dermatology task force hierarchy. --Scott Alter 16:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Good lad! —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 16:56, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

New templates

I created a new template {{Diseases of the skin and appendages by morphology}} and put some comments on the discussion page. I plan on using this template as a guide to pages I create/work on. Any feedback would be greatly appreciated. Kilbad (talk) 02:13, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Wow. Nice work! You're certainly very good at creating things from scratch. Is this your first Wikipedia account? —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 06:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
It is, and now that I am in my medical residency (dermatology) I am trying to contribute to wikipedia more Kilbad (talk) 12:37, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm not very familiar with the U.S. system, but that's after internship and before board certification right? Looking forward to seeing more of your contributions. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 17:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I have created another new template {{Clinical and histological nomenclature for skin lesions}} and wanted to get some feedback about it. How do you feel about the overall content and organization? Please see the discussion page for my desired scope and rational. Kilbad (talk) 18:08, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I think your categorization of diseases and lesions are great. But I caution you to not create too many templates, or templates that are too big. When I am creating with templates, I try to only have one template per type of "thing" being presented. What I mean by this is not to create different templates for every possible "thing" by classification...different classifications such as by ICD9 code, morphology, body location, etc. Another way to put it is that two templates should not contain the same articles just listed differently.
Other possible ways to organize and find articles are with lists and categories. Ideally, there would be articles for "List of skin diseases by x", where x=any possible way you could classify skin diseases. Based on your template, there could be an article List of skin diseases by morphology. Currently, skin disease is just a partial list of diseases, but this article should really be split from the list and be made into an overview article like Heart disease, Respiratory disease, Liver disease, etc.
Getting to categories, if you take a look in Category:Dermatology and Category:Skin diseases, you'll find hundreds of articles without any further categorization. Although categories are much less frequented by readers, part of the mission of this project should be to better categorize articles. Just like lists can be created by x, categories could also be created so similar diseases would be grouped together. I'm not really sure how skin diseases should be classified for lists or categories, but if you can give me some direction, I'll help out. --Scott Alter 21:42, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


To do

I've added a To-Do box to the main page. Items can be added to the relevent sections in the template by clicking the 'Edit' link on the To-Do box. Kind regards,

—Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 18:40, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I will be releasing a full listing of skin diseases in about a day, from which people can see what articles need to be added. Also, I find people just glaze over to-do boxes (at least my friends and I do), so I would like to avoid using one if possible. kilbad (talk) 18:59, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
However, maybe you could help me with this page and getting the category tree full expanded on the right (see the discussion page). kilbad (talk) 19:01, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate that a listing of skin diseases will give everyone an idea of which articles exist and which don't, but a to-do box allows organisation to show which articles need copyediting, wikifying, merging, splitting, verifying, cleaning up, expanding and others. It's come in pretty handy for some other task forces, I know it has with neurology. Surely there's no harm in it? —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 19:06, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Those big to-do boxes can be pretty overwhelming to people, maybe we could create a simple list of like 3-5 tangible tasks people can work on and then cross them out/replace them as tasks get done? kilbad (talk) 19:12, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Works for me but we're going to need a way to find which articles need the most work. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 19:14, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
We could start with the "big" stuff and work our way down? Like Dermatology and skin? kilbad (talk) 19:17, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Or the other way around: editors are often more willing to work on "interesting" articles, even if they're unimportant.
Overall, I think you will attract more enthusiastic editors by just chatting here, on this talk page, about what you're doing, what you achieved today, which articles are on your mind, or what amusing disaster of an article is lurking out there, and so forth than you could by creating imposing task lists, no matter how they're presented. We're all friends here, not employees. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:07, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
I completely agree. kilbad (talk) 01:12, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

List of dermatologic conditions (List of skin diseases)

I have finally added a near complete listing of all skin disease and have tried to mirror the article's headings with the categorization scheme we have been discussing. I wanted to know if I could get some feedback about all this, particularly about the skin disease article (also, please see the discussion on that page). Thanks! kilbad (talk) 23:24, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd recommend moving the content you just added to List of skin diseases. Skin disease should be an article giving an overview of skin diseases. I'd recommend a format like having a section for each category of skin disease, with links to overview articles on each of the categories of diseases. --Scott Alter 23:40, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
That is fine with me... I don't suppose you want to move it? kilbad (talk) 23:45, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
I think you should "cut and paste" the content to List of skin diseases, and then restore the little content that was at Skin disease. I'd prefer that you copy it, so that you can get "credit" for the content in the article's history. I don't think I want to move the list with the move command, since there is more than just a list in the history of Skin disease. --Scott Alter 23:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Done kilbad (talk) 23:57, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
All we need to do now is link to the articles which exist. I'm sure a bot at WP:BOTR can turn all these into wiki-links but we'll have a load of redlinks to remove too. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 09:11, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, can you help me add the links? Also, we can use the link adding process to spot check for any typos. kilbad (talk) 15:12, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
I'll add a request at WP:BOTR for a bot to link everything. We can then go through the redlinks and either create the articles or fix typos. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 16:43, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Ok, links have been added, but the lines with parenthetical are all one link, and that needs to be fixed. kilbad (talk) 19:49, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

picture requests


Conditions of or affecting the human integumentary system

Conditions of or affecting the human integumentary system isn't exactly a simple, straightforward name. Is there any reason that this list couldn't have been left at List of skin diseases and just had an explanatory note placed at the top to indicate that it includes not just "skin", but other anatomical features closely related to the skin, and not just "diseases", but all sorts of medical conditions? No general reader (our official audience) is going to look for a page under this name. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Isn't that what redirects are for? But yes, I agree, it's unnecessarily complicated. List of skin diseases would be more appropriate with a notice about what is contained. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 08:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
I renamed the page because the list contains more than just "skin" diseases, this after getting some feedback on the idea from Arcadian at User_talk:Arcadian#Rename_list_of_skin_diseases. However, I am certainly open to discussing it more, and changing it back if that is what the consensus ends up being. kilbad (talk) 12:08, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Or perhaps List of skin-related diseases: inclusivity without jargon. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
That sounds reasonable to me. What about List of skin-related conditions, as all the items in the list are not necessarily diseases, such as ephelis (aks freckles) for example? Thanks again for your help! kilbad (talk) 15:54, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Works for me! WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:12, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Ok, then if nobody else objects, I will defer the move to you. kilbad (talk) 19:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 Done WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:07, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

joining task force

Hi! can I join this task force? Recently my wikithusiasm has grown again and I would like to contribute more then just random edits. Lasts couple of days I've created a new page on Keratolysis exfoliativa and suction blistering. Furthermore I did a major re-write on lichen sclerosus since it was tagged for a clean-up. SanderB (talk) 20:00, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Anyone can join! Thank you for your help! Simply add your name to the list at WP:DERM. Please also remember to cite reliable sources for all the facts you add! Thanks again! kilbad (talk) 20:39, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Mohs surgery

This article has undergone some big changes recently. I just checked some spelling but it really needs expert attention. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 15:16, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree. I am working on some other things currently, but perhaps I can get around to it later in January. kilbad (talk) 15:36, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Amorolfine and Onychomycosis

Shouldn't Amarolfine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amorolfine) be added as an effective treatment for Onychomycosis in the "Nail disease" page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nail_disease)? 9t7t2 (talk) 22:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps post your question at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Pharmacology and see what people think. kilbad (talk) 12:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Ulcerative dermatitis

I just started Ulcerative dermatitis. I have little-to-no dermatological background. Any help in expanding the article will be vastly appreciated. :-) -- Levine2112 discuss 07:53, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Why Lead Poisoning?

Why does the dermatology task force want to concern itself with Talk:Lead poisoning? Is this a mistake? The Lead poisoning article itself is in different categories. --AJim (talk) 01:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

No mistake. Lead poisoning can cause pigmentation changes (see Lead_poisoning#cite_ref-Andrews_22-0), which is why it has been added to the Category:Disturbances of human pigmentation. I hope we have not stepped on any toes here, and certainly only want to see the article get better. kilbad (talk) 02:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
WPDERM is allowed to tag anything that it's willing to support. I'm glad to see editors like AJim are paying attention, though. It's amazing how many non-medical pages get tagged as supposedly being medicine-related articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Certainly lead poisoning is a medicine-related page? kilbad (talk) 12:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, of course. But I've literally removed {{WPMED}} from articles on trees before: it turns up in all kinds of inappropriate places. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Pigmentation is hardly the most salient aspect of Lead poisoning, but I see no harm in dermatologists taking an interest in it. I was mostly surprised to see this as the only category. Without examining the history, I wondered if it were not the result of some vandalism. Maybe I will simply add the article categories and see what happens. --AJim (talk) 21:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
There is absolutely no objection here to addition of more categories, or to any other improvements of the article. Thanks again! kilbad (talk) 21:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Userboxes

Hi i designed these user boxes for participants in Dermatology task force

|{{User:Madhero88/Dermatologytaskforce}}
I am a member of
Dermatology task force
Usage
|{{User:Madhero88/Dermatologytaskforce2}}
I am a member of
Dermatology task force
Usage
|{{User:Madhero88/Dermatologytaskforce3}}
I am a member of
Dermatology task force.
 Usage

Maen. K. A. (talk) 20:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


Skin ulcer and Ulcer (dermatology): what is the difference?

I came across these two articles while disambiguating Ulceration. Is one a disease and the other an injury? Both are very short -- should they perhaps be combined? Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:20, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I've merged them (I was the only editor of Skin ulcer). --Arcadian (talk) 06:29, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Great! Thanks! --Auntof6 (talk) 06:49, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Taskforce importance

The WPMED template was recently changed so that taskforce importance is no longer inherited from WPMED importance. (i.e. formerly, if taskforce-imp is not specified, then the taskforce importance would be the same as the general WPMED importance. After the change, the taskforce importance is "None" if it is not specified). (See WP:WikiProject Medicine/Assessment#Statistics.)

The old behavior can be restored for those taskforces that desire it. (See template talk:WPMED#Taskforce importance.) Zodon (talk) 07:37, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification. kilbad (talk) 14:23, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Toenail feature

Mongoloid cuticle is up for deletion. The AfD appears to have been motivated primarily by a lack of sources in English under that name (a direct translation from the Chinese sources). Do we have any related articles? Does anyone know what the English term is for a genetically inherited split fifth toenail? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you are looking for "Inherited accessory nail of the fifth toe," which can appear as a split nail. See [1] for more details. Hope that helps. kilbad (talk) 18:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Sounds exactly right. Thanks! WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Np. However, I do not have a source for the term "Mongoloid cuticle," so I cannot verify whether it is synonymous with the term "inherited accessory nail of the fifth toe." kilbad (talk) 18:17, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Acne spam

We have an odd article at 5 Alpha Phyto-Technology. Mr Google says that the name is a commercial product for treating acne in women. The contents of the article don't particularly mention it. Can someone that knows way more about this than I do merge whatever's good to the real article (I assume that we have one) about acne, and perhaps prod the "name brand" afterwards? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:03, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

The topic of acne vulgaris and related treatments is somewhat disorganized at this time, in my own opinion. Currently, there are the are two main articles, acne vulgaris and acne scarring, which should probably be merged as previously proposed. Then perhaps we can merge in 5 Alpha Phyto-Technology; however, I have not personally heard of that therapy. ---kilbad (talk) 20:49, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
I believe that "5APT" is just the latest in a long line of cosmetics. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:49, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Category:Viral skin conditions

I removed West Nile Virus from this category. Then I noticed that an editor is adding a large number of diseases to this category. I think that adding any infection that may sometimes present a rash is a disservice to the category topic. Rmhermen (talk) 04:40, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I think you are making a fair point. I should only be including primary viral skin conditions within that category. I apologize for the mistake. ---kilbad (talk) 20:01, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
For those people that aren't watching the main project's talk page, there's a question at WT:MED#Re_Category:Viral_skin_conditions about whether or not this category should be renamed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:27, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Portal:Dermatology is up for deletion

I nominated Portal:Dermatology for deletion. You are welcome to either comment on the deletion discussion, or try to resurrect the portal. Svick (talk) 16:29, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

List of unassessed redirects

User:Kilbad asked me if I could post here list of unassessed dermatology redirects here that we created together, so here it is: Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Dermatology task force/Unassessed redirects. User:Svick By posting this, I'm also testing my bot, so I'm actually using my bot account. SvickBOT (talk) 20:46, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Xenobot Mk V (talk · contribs) tagged 1323 pages with {{WPMED|dermatology=yes|class=redirect|importance=}} per request. –xenotalk 15:04, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Since we are done with that list of redirects, I am going to redirect the page to WP:DERM:MA for the time being. ---kilbad (talk) 14:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Dermatology articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Dermatology articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 22:21, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Conservative treatment of ingrown toe nails

This seems like more of a howto than an article. It was suggested I drop it off here, so those familiar could examine and tell if AfD or repair was the best option. Considering the title, I didn't have a lot of faith it could be salvaged. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:03, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I recommend that you boldly merge and redirect it to a larger article (and lose most of the how-to in the process). WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:08, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
I came here as I'm not familiar enough with the subject matter to do so and was hoping someone else would be willing. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:49, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Hope I'm doing this right!?

I'm an academic librarian not a medical professional, but am collecting information about linear nevus sebaceous syndrome due to a personal interest. Hope the edits were OK! I do try to leave a nice verifiable trail of citations... AnnieJo (talk) 21:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

More - it had appeared that there was no article on linear nevus sebaceous syndrome, but then I found the one on Schimmelpenning Syndrome, which is a synonym. There's a confusing tangle of synonyms and almost-synonyms, but the direct synonyms I know of are:
Schimmelpenning syndrome
Feuerstein-Mims syndrome
Schimmelpenning-Feuerstein-Mims syndrome
Feuerstein-Mims-Schimmelpenning syndrome
Linear nevus sebaceous syndrome (LNSS)
Nevus sebaceous syndrome, linear
Solomon syndrome
Jadassohn nevus phakomatosis

And then you can spell nevus as naevus, and sebaceous as sebaceus...

Then there's epidermal nevus syndrome (ENS), which was originally a synonym but is more often now used in the umbrella sense listed in the current article. And then there's Nevus sebaceous of Jadassohn, which usually refers to just the nevus sebaceous but sometimes to the entire Schimmelpenning syndrome... whew!

Any thoughts on how to sort this out in a technically correct manner, using the Schimmelpenning syndrome article as a base? AnnieJo (talk) 21:24, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Thank you very much for your help with this topic. You are dealing with several issues; therefore, let me try to address them here. As you have noticed, most dermatologic conditions have at least one synonym, if not more, some many more (see Keratosis punctata palmaris et plantaris for example).
  • With regard to actual disease synonyms (i.e. terms that are used to refer specifically to the same disease), the following should be done:
  • If there is no article, pick the most common name to use for the actual article title. This is subjective, so use your best judgment after reviewing the literature. If there is already an article under one of the names, as in your case, Schimmelpenning syndrome, you can simply use that as the article. Occasionally, because people are not aware of all the synonyms for a particular disease, wikipedia ends up with multiple articles on the same disease under different titles, and in those cases the articles need to be merged.
  • Once you have a the base article name chosen, make sure you start the article off stating other names by which the disease is known (see again Keratosis punctata palmaris et plantaris for a dramatic example). Make sure you give citations for all the disease synonyms if not found within the same source (see WP:DERM:REF for more details).
  • At this point, once you have your base article unified with all the diease synonyms, then you can go ahead and create redirects for all the disease synonyms.
  • For almost synonyms (i.e. disease names that may refer to two or more distinct entities) also include them within the article as a synonym. However, instead of creating a redirect, disambiguation pages should be made for those terms. Disambiguation pages are special articles which link to topics a term might refer to. So, for example, see Punctate keratoderma, which may refer to one of two distinct diseases.
  • Additionally, each unique redirect page and the actual article page should be placed in a category. Of course, there are times a redirect should not be categorized, like when it is a redirect based on minor spelling differences. However, see WP:DERM:CAT for more details on when and how to do that.
  • Then, once you have your article with disease synonyms, redirects in place, and everything appropriately categorized, update your disease in the list of skin-related conditions so that all the disease synonyms are present. Right now you will notice Schimmelpenning syndrome has no alternative names listed.
  • Ok, I hope this helps get you started, and please post any other questions you have here, and someone will respond in a timely fashion. kilbad (talk) 00:08, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I will be back to work on these entries later. AnnieJo (talk) 11:29, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

GA Attempt: Solar urticaria

Greetings. I have been working on the article about solar urticaria for some time now and was planning on putting it back up for GA in the near future. I was wondering if anyone that is part of the dermatology task force would be willing to review the article. It would be greatly appreciated. NYYfan1 (talk) 01:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I can take a look at it this week. I will post some feedback here in a day or two. ---kilbad (talk) 02:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much. NYYfan1 (talk) 23:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Ok, here are my thoughts. If you look at Wikipedia:Good article criteria, this would be my assessment on each of the points:
1. Is the article Well-written? I think the spelling and grammer are generally ok, but the flow of the article from sentence to sentence is a little choppy, and at times lacks structure. Also, make sure the article lead can "stand alone" on its own, but also that everything in the lead is found somewhere in the body of the article.
2. Is the article Factually accurate and verifiable? Perhaps you could pass on this point; however, make sure you are using reliable secondary sources (see WP:DERM:REF for more information), and try to cite every sentence so readers know where the information is coming from.
3. Is the article Broad in its coverage? I think you have done a nice job covering the important points, and I think you would also pass on this point. Now I think it is just a matter of refining the style (i.e. structure, layout, flow) of the content.
4. Is the article Neutral? I think it is. Pass.
5. Is the article Stable? I think the article fairly stable, without any ongoing edit wars or content disputes. Pass.
6. Is the article Illustrated, if possible, by images? Yes. Pass.

Hope you don't mind me butting in with some advice... I think the coverage still needs some improvement. I highly recommend taking a look at the excellent review article Botto NC, Warshaw EM. (2008). "Solar urticaria". Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology 59(6): 909–920. This review gives a good overview of the subject, and covers some aspects that are missing in the article. For example, SU is mediated by immunoglobulin-E, which doesn't seem to be mentioned in the article. The history goes back further than what the article describes as well. Another review article that doesn't seems to have been used is Roelandts R. (2003). "Diagnosis and treatment of solar urticaria". Dermatologic Therapy 16(1): 52–56. How about Roelandts R, Rychaert S. (1999). "Solar urticaria: the annoying photodermatosis". International Journal of Dermatology 38(6): 411–418. All of these reviews will provide useful info to help provide a more complete overview of all aspects of the disease. If you like, give me a ping, and I can give the article a thorough copyedit after these sources have been consulted and included. Sasata (talk) 16:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you all for the help. I'll do my best to improve the areas suggested and incorporate the sources. NYYfan1 (talk) 02:30, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
BTW, you needn't actually name a source for every single sentence. That's discouraged even in featured articles. If an entire paragraph comes from the same source, then listing it once in the paragraph is enough. Remember also that "Good Articles" are really supposed to be "Good Enough" articles -- not "practically perfect", or "featured article except that we haven't actually checked every detail of every style guideline yet". WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the comment. I did not realize that citing each sentence was discouraged. I appreciate the clarification. ---kilbad (talk) 02:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Copyvio check?

Can someone with a copy of Fitzpatrick's Dermatology in General Medicine (2003) please turn to page 700 and figure out whether the long structured list at Hyperhidrosis#Classification is a copyright violation? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:23, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I placed that information there, which was taken from a combination of two tables on that page. If you feel it is a copyright violation, please feel free to remove it. I certainly was not intending to violate Fitzpatrick's copyright. If you have additional question, I would be happy to respond openly here. ---kilbad (talk) 23:17, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Without knowing what the originals looked like, I can't tell you whether or not it's a copyvio. In general, you can't just copy a long list straight from a source, but did you really "copy" it, or did you use information from the two tables to create your own list? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
The list is not a straight copy of the text, as some of the names are formatted and ordered differently. However, are you associated at an institution where you could request the book on loan? That way you could take a closer look? ---kilbad (talk) 13:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Even if it isn't a copyvio (and it may be getting close to the line) when an article contains a long list referenced to a single source, it makes it difficult to integrate information from other sources. It's usually best to keep citations as modular as possible. --Arcadian (talk) 13:44, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you both for the comments, and I understand your point about keeping citations as modular as possible; therefore, if one of you wants to remove, truncate, or modify the list in any way, I would have no objections. ---kilbad (talk) 16:58, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Drug categorization: consensus sought

Should the 2nd, 3rd and 4th levels of the Category:Drugs by target organ system mirror the Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical Classification System exactly, or be consolidated when possible?

Please read the more thorough description of this issue at WT:PHARM:CAT and post your comments there. Comments are much appreciated! Thanks ---kilbad (talk) 00:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Solar purpura

Hello. I recently added some information to the stub solar purpura, and I would appreciate feedback from a member of the Dermatology Task Force. I'm new to Wikipedia (and not a medical professional). Thanks. Connwriter (talk) 14:03, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The information looks fine. However, make sure you are citing all the information you add. Thanks for your contributions! ---kilbad (talk) 17:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your help. I cited a reference where you indicated one was needed. Connwriter (talk) 18:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Roseola

Roseola could use some attention. I think it's supposed to be a plain redirect to the proper name, or perhaps a disambiguation page, but it appears to have turned back into a stub. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

  • The terms "roseola," "roseola infantum," "exanthem subitum," and "sixth disease" are synonymous. To give you a specific source linking the single word term "roseola" to the others, see PMID 10969859, Evaluating the Febrile Patient with a Rash, from which the following quote is taken, "Roseola, or exanthema subitum, is caused by human herpesvirus 6." This is also supported by Andrews' and Bolognia (see WP:DERM:REF for full citations). Therefore, I would support a merge and redirect to Exanthema subitum. Would you favor that action? ---kilbad (talk) 01:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Sounds fine to me. I'll set it up. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Looking for help expanding list of dermatologists

I am looking for a few editors who would be willing to help me significantly expand the list of dermatologists. Would any of you consider working on this project? ---kilbad (talk) 21:46, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Stubs

Over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting we usually try and keep stub categories below 800 articles, you may have noticed that the Category:Dermatology stubs is over 1200 so we are looking at trying to split it. There is a current proposal here to split it but if some one could have a look over the proposal to see if it is the best way to go to fit in with this projects future plans we would be grateful. Waacstats (talk) 07:50, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Bolognia push 2009

Please help make sure wikipedia has articles on every dermatologic condition. There are many new articles and redirects to be made, and we at WP:DERM are looking for more help! ---kilbad (talk) 15:10, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I can help out. I'll start with the letter M, and underline it on the "progress" list to ensure there's no duplication of efforts. Sasata (talk) 15:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Don't forget to add your names to the participants' list as well. ---kilbad (talk) 15:51, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Summary of the letter Z

Note I will copy/paste the previous info here towards the talk page of the subpage of dermatology missing articles.Calaka (talk) 08:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned articles

I have just found these orphaned articles, which may or may not be of interest to editors of the list.

Here are some more.

Two more are Hand infection and Periungual wart. -- Wavelength (talk) 05:16, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Please consider these external links as being of possible help within the scope of this task force.

-- Wavelength (talk) 22:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Websites for academic journals generally make very poor external links. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
That leaves the first and third on the list of ten. -- Wavelength (talk) 02:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Template:Fitzpatrick 6

{{Fitzpatrick 6}} this is a fast cite template for Fitzpatrick. EG. {{Fitzpatrick 6|184}} gives McLean, David I.; Harley A. Haynes (2003). "Chapter 184: Cutaneous Manifestations of Internal Malignant Disease: Cutaneous Paraneoplastic Syndromes". In Freedberg; et al. (eds.). Fitzpatrick's Dermatology in General Medicine (6th ed.). McGraw-Hill. ISBN 0-07-138067-1.. Rich Farmbrough, 00:43, 14 December 2009 (UTC).

Awesome! Can you make on for Bolognia? ---kilbad (talk) 00:56, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
I will have a look shortly. Rich Farmbrough, 05:33, 14 December 2009 (UTC).
I made {{Bolognia 2}} which has the chapter headings, but the authors are not available in an easily retrievable form. I set it up for chapter 1 to show how it is done, in template:Bolognia 2/first and template:Bolognia 2/last. I made the diagnosis section "Chapter 0". Thus

but

Bolognia push update

Thank you all for your help on the Bolognia push. We have made a lot of progress, and I just wanted to take this opportunity to thank the community. ---kilbad (talk) 02:45, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Required pages

I have created a list of "required" pages (maybe not the best name) Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Dermatology_task_force/Required_pages here. It is a re-factoring of the index from Buxton (2003). Rich Farmbrough, 05:33, 14 December 2009 (UTC).

Rich, thank you so much for your interest in this project. I will definitely spend some time with the list you have created, and make sure all those red links turn blue! After just briefly looking over the list, I think we will find most of the conditions already present on Wikipedia, just under a differently spelled name, without quotes, etc. Thanks again!!! ---kilbad (talk) 13:37, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I am done with the list. I am going to archive it if you are ok with that? ---kilbad (talk) 01:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Elephantiasis nostras

I added three new sections to the stub elephantiasis nostras, and I'd welcome feedback from a Derm Task Force member. Thanks. Connwriter (talk) 22:52, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks like you have developed a good start to the article! Keep up the good work! ---kilbad (talk) 18:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Assessment rating for this task force

Looking at Template:WPMED, I notice that, although the main WikiProject rating includes a couple of extra classes (Book-class and Redirect-class), all the task forces use the standard scale, except this one. Unless this is deliberate, for some reason, it would probably be more logical to use the standard scale for this task force as well, so that all task forces are set the same. The effect would be that Book-class and Redirect-class will be classified as NA-class. Hope this makes sense. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Could you more fully explain the issue? I am not completely following. Thanks in advance! ---kilbad (talk) 15:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Category:Dermatology articles by quality has 17 subcategories but all the others (e.g. Category:Cardiology articles by quality) have just 11. Why not bring Dermatology in line with the others? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Which do you want to do away with? ---kilbad (talk) 22:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
The other task forces combine all the non-article classes (Template, Portal, Redirect, Category, etc.) into NA-class. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:22, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
I think those classes could be helpful for this taskforce, particularly the category class, which we are currently using, and the redirect class, which we are about to start implementing. If you are ok with it, I would prefer to keep the current classes as is? ---kilbad (talk) 14:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Dysplastic nails

Zori Stalker Williams syndrome has a redlink to dysplastic nails. It seems like there ought to be an obvious page to redirect this redlink to. Any ideas? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:10, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I added a stub. Please feel free to change it to a redirect if you like. ---kilbad (talk) 00:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

ICD codes

Could someone turn all all these codes into a wikipedia list, or integrate it into ICD-10 Chapter XII: Diseases of the skin and subcutaneous tissue? ---kilbad (talk) 12:06, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Rich helped us out at Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Dermatology task force/ILDS-ICD. ---kilbad (talk) 19:06, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
It looks like we need to set up a whole bunch of redirects now. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:40, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
That would be great. I think using the list to create a more derm-related, uncategorized, talk page-less redirects is a great idea. Would you be willing to help us with that? ---kilbad (talk) 22:42, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Is it possible to find...

Is it possible to find the number of new pages created within a certain time frame which are within the scope of a particular project. Restated, and more specifically, if I wanted to know how many new dermatology-related articles had been created since Nov 08, how could I find that out? Could I use the derm assessment data somehow? ---kilbad (talk) 19:05, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

1843. There is 1843 articles whose talk pages are in Category:Dermatology task force articles and that were created on 1 November 2008 or later. If you want, I can give you a table of all the articles from that category with their creation dates. Svick (talk) 21:09, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you so much! And a table would be great. Perhaps you could post that table at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Dermatology task force/Missing articles. Also, would you mind posting how you generated that data? Thanks again! ---kilbad (talk) 21:55, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
The table is quite big, so I posted it on its own page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Dermatology task force/Article creation dates. I created it using the API: first, get list of all articles in the category ([2]) and then for each page there, get the timestamp of the oldest revision (e.g. [3]), all this using Powershell (but you could do the same in any programming language). Oh, and I found out that the count above is inaccurate, because I counted non-articles too. The actual number is 1758. Svick (talk) 23:19, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Journals about dermatology

Editors might be able to use the list of journals at http://www.doaj.org/doaj?func=subject&cpid=43. -- Wavelength (talk) 04:32, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Image use

For a compilation of data regarding the use of dermatology-related images, see the image data page. This data still has a lot of issues, so perhaps someone could work on how it is collected? See the respective talk page for details. ---kilbad (talk) 21:08, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Pictures

There are about 200 pictures added at Commons:Category:An introduction to dermatology (1905) book and Commons:Category:Photographic illustrations of skin diseases 1886 book. Feel free to add to appropriate articles.Smallman12q (talk) 01:11, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again! ---kilbad (talk) 21:52, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Electrotrichogenesis

The article on electrotrichogenesis is very strange; I get the impression that it represents some flash-in-the-pain treatment that didn't go anywhere (or worse, some sort of quackery that slipped in under the medical radar), but I don't know where to go to assess it. Could someone with a better knowledge of the field take a look at it? Mangoe (talk) 16:55, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

There are enough sources there I think you will have a hard time deleting the article. Perhaps post a question at WT:MED if you have more specific issues you want addressed. ---kilbad (talk) 01:25, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm more concerned about the status of it as a generally accepted treatment. Mangoe (talk) 03:32, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Citation templates now support more identifiers

Recent changes were made to citations templates (such as {{citation}}, {{cite journal}}, {{cite web}}...). In addition to what was previously supported (bibcode, doi, jstor, isbn, ...), templates now support arXiv, ASIN, JFM, LCCN, MR, OL, OSTI, RFC, SSRN and Zbl. Before, you needed to place |id={{arxiv|0123.4567}} (or worse |url=http://arxiv.org/abs/0123.4567), now you can simply use |arxiv=0123.4567, likewise for |id={{JSTOR|0123456789}} and |url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/0123456789 → |jstor=0123456789.

The full list of supported identifiers is given here (with dummy values):

  • {{cite journal |author=John Smith |year=2000 |title=How to Put Things into Other Things |journal=Journal of Foobar |volume=1 |issue=2 |pages=3–4 |arxiv=0123456789 |asin=0123456789 |bibcode=0123456789 |doi=0123456789 |jfm=0123456789 |jstor=0123456789 |lccn=0123456789 |isbn=0123456789 |issn=0123456789 |mr=0123456789 |oclc=0123456789 |ol=0123456789 |osti=0123456789 |rfc=0123456789 |pmc=0123456789 |pmid=0123456789 |ssrn=0123456789 |zbl=0123456789 |id={{para|id|____}} }}

Obviously not all citations needs all parameters, but this streamlines the most popular ones and gives both better metadata and better appearances when printed. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 02:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Dermabrasion

The article "Dermabrasion" aside from being spelled wrong is a stub without references to either Scars and/or treatments. It mentions Only laser treatments and lacks links to cocoa butter, fruit acids etc. Long time treatments. Found it in a search for acne scars and the linking is wrong. Dave Harris 21:12, 24 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trihent (talk • contribs)

Dermatology or oral pathology/oral medicine?

Many times I have come across stub articles of oral conditions and found them tagged with dermatology task force. Whilst obviously there is much overlap in terms of involved pathoses, would a dermatologist ever concern themselves with the mouth? I am not removing these as it appears intentional and I do not want to upset anyone. Example would be (although not stub anymore) black hairy tongue. I see the logic of tagging derm on articles which can present on either/or the mucosa and the skin, but our example black hairy tongue can only occur in the mouth... Thoughts? Lesion (talk) 19:44, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I think that the DERM task force generally takes an expansive idea of its scope. Multiple task forces can tag an article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:00, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
I think the logic may have been "derm covers anything to do with the skin or mucosa". However, this logic is being selectively applied, the vagina has a mucous membrane too, does that make many obs and gynae articles dermatology? Or the rest of the GI tract besides the mouth for that matter- I don't see derm tags on any gastro pages... imo, derm articles should contain mucocutaneous conditions, but not conditions which present uniquely on mucosae... Lesion (talk) 21:38, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
As there is no WP:oral medicine ; surely this kind of article is more appropriately WP:gastro than derm? Just a thought... Lesion (talk) 21:41, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Oil cleansing method

Asking here because I'm not sure where else this is appropriate. I've nominated the oil cleansing method article for deletion. The discussion may be found here. I would appreciate your input on the issue! - Sweet Nightmares 04:43, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Archived some threads

I've archived some inactive threads to subsections which were notifications about discussions that have since been closed. — Cirt (talk) 20:09, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).

Web tools, to replace the ones at tools:~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at toollabs:popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.

If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot (talk) (for Mr.Z-man) 05:02, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Expert attention

This is a notice about Category:Dermatology articles needing expert attention, which might be of interest to your WikiProject. It will take a while before the category is populated. Iceblock (talk) 04:56, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Angioedema

I'd like some input on the 3rd sentence of the 1st paragraph, which reads, "The term angioneurotic oedema was used for this condition in the belief that there was nervous system involvement, but this is no longer thought to be the case". The assertion is unsourced and there seems to be some indication to the contrary. Consider this excerpt from Radiologic manifestations of angioedema that reads, "Although it is rare, cases of central nervous system involvement have been reported in patients with HAE and ACE inhibitor-induced angioedema".[1] Any thoughts/suggestions? Dr. James Schultz (talk) 19:27, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

The term "angioneurotic oedema" does not seem to be actively used in recent reviews, though there are some "also known as" mentions. Still, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/medgen/1543 still shows "Angioneurotic Edema" as a synonym of "Angioedema". I'd consider simply stating it as a synonym and skiping the commentary on the belief. LeadSongDog come howl! 21:41, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
It makes sense. My main emphasis was on the assertion that "...this is no longer thought to be the case". It seems there is still a consensus that in certain instances there is direct central nervous system involvement, in which case the aforementioned unsourced statement isn't accurate.Dr. James Schultz (talk) 21:46, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
  1. ^ "Radiologic manifestations of angioedema". US National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health.

Use of "shielding lotion" in 1965

I've examined the claim that "As early as 1965 the term shielding lotion was used." This is sourced to PMC 1928665 and looking at that source, I believe this is a misrepresentation of the source. The phrase is used once in that study about acne in the sentence, "Many patients used a simple alcohol astringent and a cosmetic shielding lotion." The phrase, "a cosmetic shielding lotion", is not an example of the "shielding lotion" that Expansion Plus was promoting. It seems that a chance combination of words in an article, which discusses the use of a lotion (along with an alcohol-based astringent) to prevent cosmetics contributing to acne, has been hijacked in an attempt to create a much longer "history" for the phrase than actually exists. I propose that the text suggesting that the phrase had currency as far back as 1965 be removed from the article as undue and misleading. --RexxS (talk) 22:07, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Here's my suggestion. (I will not make any changes to this article because most of my edits here have been challenged and reverted by the same individual)
It seems to me the term shielding lotion has no place in this article. No reliable sources indicate that it is the same thing as a barrier cream and I think it should be removed from the article.
There are many reliable sources that indicate that barrier creams are effective at treating certain skin conditions. According to Wikipedia's policy about opposing viewpoints in reliable sources, both positions should be discussed. Dr. James Schultz (talk) 22:16, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
It might be UNDUE, but I don't think that's a chance combination of words. "After placing the lead shielding, lotion is applied to the target area" would be a chance combination of words. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:19, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Requesting a Review of the Article Barrier cream

I'm just going to be honest here. The entire Barrier cream article is one big opinion piece. It is completely lacking in neutrality and espouses negative undertones throughout the entire article. Despite the opinion of a certain editor who has taken expansive liberties with the article, there are legitimate and effective uses for barrier creams in the treatment of various dermatological conditions.

In my opinion, the article is neither encyclopedic nor accurate. As a dermatologist, I find the lack of accuracy in the article bothersome, but my attempts to repair it in the past have been met by reverts and challenges every step of the way by the editor responsible for the problems with the article. The truth is, the article needs a complete rewrite by someone without an agenda, someone with actual experience in the industry. Dr. James Schultz (talk) 17:17, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

And I'm going to be honest. Schultz is a single-purpose account dedicated to promoting "shielding lotion". Not once has Schultz offered any source to back up his opinions. These complaints lack any intellectual rigour, and are solely based on his claim to be a dermatologist. They are a time-sink for editors trying to maintain neutrality and sourcing standards, and should be treated with the contempt they deserve. --RexxS (talk) 20:06, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
A "single purpose account dedicated to promoting shielding lotion"? I've contributed more to Wikipedia than simply discussing shielding lotions and I'm certainly not promoting the term on the barrier cream article. My problem with Barrier cream is with the misinformation, lack of neutrality and the many statements that fail verification. Anyone who reads the content in the article and actually compares it with the sources being cited can see the problem with the sources. Dr. James Schultz (talk) 20:38, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
I read the content. It's obvious you didn't read the sources. Just point out the sources you consider problematical and the statements that fail verification and I'd be more than happy to discuss them. But please, quit the abject whining without adducing a single real example. That's just timewasting. --RexxS (talk) 21:23, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
As for your claim to having "contributed more to Wikipedia than simply discussing shielding lotions", that's your usual flim-flam. You've made 149 edits so far and less than 20 have been concerned with anything other than "shielding lotion"/barrier cream or whining about DocJames. Those few include such wonderful sources as a Google search and a primary study in animals for Psoriasis. Your sourcing credentials are abundantly clear. --RexxS (talk) 21:40, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Instead of going on and on about nonsensical stuff, why don't you simply address the points I've made:

Barrier cream is not "also known as a shielding lotion" and the source cited [4] does not say that it is.

The entire premise of the article is that barrier creams are ineffective as treatment options and. This flies in the face of thousands of reviews and studies that state otherwise, such as:

"Correctly matched barrier preparations protect against harmful factors and irritants, facilitating at the same time hand washing at the end of the working day, and together with the use of suitable non-irritating detergents and skin care products are important elements contributing to the prevention of occupational skin diseases." Barrier creams in prevention of hand dermatoses - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25090859
"The barrier cream was shown to be more effective in treating and managing patients with IAD than the previous product that patients had been using." Br J Community Nurs. 2014 Dec;Suppl Wound Care:S32-8. doi: 10.12968/bjcn.2014.19.Sup12.S32.
"Some barrier creams and moisturisers are effective for irritant contact dermatitis; steroids are effective for allergic contact dermatitis." Evid Based Nurs. 2006 Jul;9(3):74.

A major problem with this approach is that there are many reliable sources that contradict the premise of this article. According to Wikipedia, "When reliable sources disagree, present what the various sources say, give each side" Wikipedia:Verifiability. This article makes no attempt to do that and in fact takes great lengths to present one viewpoint, which also violates WP:POV

It's true my initial edits were regarding an article I created about shielding lotions. (Are you saying you wouldn't defend an article you wrote that was being criticized and attacked?). I have also added content and citations to other articles including Antiparasitic, Psoriasis, Paraldehyde, Anticonvulsant.

Here's a quick question for you. Why do you feel the need to attack me personally and question my motives here? Why can't you simply stay on topic and discuss the merit of what I've stated? I have not once gone into your contributions to try and uncover some hidden agenda and make accusations I really have no way of knowing are accurate. Not appropriate at all.

Dr. James Schultz (talk) 22:04, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Try to understand that some sources are discussing treatment and others are discussing prevention. Getting a handle on that will help you in juxtaposing the sources that seem to you to contradict what's in our article. As for your question, I understand your chagrin about the ill-fated Shielding lotion, and I even empathise with your reaction. But you must know by now that we won't be accepting an article that discusses a little-know marketing campaign that has zero currency in good-quality medical sources. It's just not encyclopedic. Now, if you want to propose some sources to expand this article and some text that summarises them, I'm more than happy to work with you - and I believe everyone else here will join in. Please feel free, by the way, to examine my contributions. Good luck with finding any CoI or hidden agendas in there. --RexxS (talk) 22:39, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Look, I know the difference between prevention and treatment. And I know the article discusses both prevention and treatment. I also know that barrier creams have been shown to be effective at both treating and preventing certain conditions, just like they have been shown ineffective at preventing and treating certain conditions. For instance, an appropriate barrier cream can treat certain types of psoriasis with limited success, but barrier creams are completely ineffective at preventing any type of psoriasis. Some barrier creams are efficient at preventing outbreaks of contact dermatitis in some individuals, by blocking out the irritants and allergens that cause the outbreaks, but may not be that effective at treating contact dermatitis.
Instead of simply making a blanket assertion that the efficacy of barrier creams is disputable, why not discuss all of the conclusions? I really don't have a vested interest in this article, but it irritates the hell out of me that it doesn't have all the information and misrepresents other information. And I honestly couldn't care less about shielding lotions. I created an article I thought was informative and when it got pounced on I got defensive. Doesn't mean I'm some kind of spokesmen for the shielding lotion marketing team; I'm just a man who doesn't really like criticism. Dr. James Schultz (talk) 22:54, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Could you two help me out with a better understanding of the content behind this dispute? For example: is petroleum jelly a barrier cream? Is it a shielding lotion? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:13, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Sure, WAID. Petroleum jelly is now recognised as having no curative properties, so is not effective in treatment of pre-existing conditions. Whereas it is hydrophobic and rather inert biologically, so it makes a good barrier to both inhibit water loss from the skin and prevent ingress of many chemicals, so performing the prophylactic function of a barrier cream. There's no such thing as a "shielding lotion", other than as a marketing scheme - no hits on PubMed, no hits on Trip database. So a particular barrier cream may have efficacy in prevention or treatment of various conditions, but it's a broad subject and takes effort to generalise. I'd support expanding the article to discuss those differing aspects in more detail, but not a re-write designed to resurrect a failed article on "shielding lotion". Does that help? --RexxS (talk) 22:28, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
@RexxS: You keep insisting there's an attempt to "resurrect a failed article on 'shielding lotion'" Where in this discussion has resurrecting a shielding lotion article been even remotely touched upon? Just because I wrote an article on shielding lotions that was later merged with Barrier cream does not mean I'm trying to resurrect anything and you haven't seen a single indication anywhere in this discussion that would have given anyone that idea. So please, for the sake of civility, just let that drop and stop assuming you know my motivations here Dr. James Schultz (talk) 22:38, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
@WhatamIdoing: technically pertoleum jelly is not a barrier cream, though some barrier creams do have a petroleum base. As for the basis for this discussion, I believe the article as it stands has major problems, which I have gone into detail about here and on the article talk page. Dr. James Schultz (talk) 22:26, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
@Dr. James Schultz: So, please elucidate, in what way is petroleum jelly "technically ... not a barrier cream"? I've given my reasons in terms of its biological inertness and hydrophobia. You've just plucked your opinion out of thin air. What's it based on? I should also point out that you have gone into no detail whatsoever on the article talk page about all of these problems you keep claiming exist. I'll pick up the discussion there if there's any chance we can arrive at something that actually improves the article. --RexxS (talk) 22:49, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
@RexxS: Don't misunderstand me, I agree with your reasons and know that Petroleum Jelly does have barrier properties. The reason I said "technically" is because the intended purpose of Petroleum Jelly (the reason it was formulated) was not to provide a protective barrier but to moisturize. You can actually read about the history, purpose and formulation of Petroleum Jelly on the Vaseline website (http://www.vaseline.us/skin-health-care/what-is-petroleum-jelly.html). Dr. James Schultz (talk) 23:13, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
I've given up on reading the long lists of complaints elsewhere, and am now just trying to learn something.
So RexxS, it sounds like you believe that petroleum jelly is a barrier, and therefore that it is a barrier cream. Is it possible that these two categories might not completely overlap, e.g., a barrier that is not a cream? (I recall that lotions and creams aren't identical, for example.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:14, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Well, if it looks like a barrier cream and works like a barrier cream, then it's probably a barrier cream, but I think "barrier cream" gets used as a general term to encompass different chemicals that may have completely different properties. For example, petroleum jelly repels water, so prevents moisture from leaving skin, and acts as a moisturiser (as Dr Schultz says, that was its original purpose) - or rather it prevents loss of moisture. Of course, it also prevents water-based chemical contaminants from entering the skin, and will repel any water-borne bacteria from infecting a wound, so it has multiple uses - both for preventing damage and promoting healing, although I'm unaware of any sustainable claim that it actually treats any skin condition. On the other hand, one of our references (Pace 1965: "A Benzoyl Peroxide-Sulfur Cream for Acne Vulgaris") discusses the use of "benzoyl peroxide, a powerful, non-toxic, oxidizing agent, combined with sulfur in an oil-in-water emulsion base" for treatment of acne. That's a water-based preparation that is actively antibacterial, so has measurable effectiveness in treating, as well as preventing acne. It wouldn't do the same job of moisturising as petroleum jelly, just as vaseline doesn't treat acne, but in their own way, each of them performs some of the functions that I think we would recognise as a barrier cream. I never quite got to grips with the difference between a 'lotion' and a 'cream', other than creams are more viscous than lotions, but I'm not sure there's a rigorous defining line between a thin cream and a thick lotion. Anyway, a rose by any other name would smell as sweet, so I don't lose any sleep over it. --RexxS (talk) 16:51, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Does treats mean "thing used with curative intent" or "thing that there are reams of scientific evidence demonstrating efficacy"? If the former, then petroleum jelly is used to treat diaper rash and head lice. It probably works (better than a regular hand lotion) for ichthyosis, too. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:25, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Acne vulgaris FAC Request

Hello, everyone, this important page would benefit from experienced dermatology FAC reviewers to help give the article its final push to FA. For convenience, here is the link to the review page [5]. Thank you! TylerDurden8823 (talk) 17:51, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Dermatology task force/Archive 1/Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of WikiProject Medicine.

We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:

  • The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
  • The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
  • The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).

We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of WikiProject Medicine, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.

Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:15, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Dermatology_task_force/Archive_1&oldid=1221510185"