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

Welcome

Welcome to all members, current and future! Please feel free to let us know what you're working on, if you have ideas about pulmonology-related needs on Wikipedia, and whether you need any help. We'd love to hear from you on this page. Thanks!

Imp to pulmonology

When we go about putting tags on wikipedia articles of how important they are to pulmonology, is there any criteria for this? Or is it personal opinion? Tyrol5 [Talk] 19:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've been using my own opinion. However please feel free to draw up some guidelines. Example articles would be helpful too. Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:16, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WPMED has criteria for the overall project (here), but each task force gets to create its own system. For the main project, the notion is that up to about 100 articles could be Top-importance, about 10% are High-importance, most diseases, conditions, and common medical tests are Mid-importance, and people, places, anatomy, and so forth are Low.

I might suggest that you make a list of the "top 10 diseases" for pulmonology (or something like that), and declare those to be your top priority. Most normal diseases are probably normal (mid) priority. Finally, as the person that has done the vast majority of this work for WPMED: aim for "close enough" in your assessments for now, and just don't worry about it too much. The work you do on the actual articles is more important. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback. I will continue to use personal opinion, as I am very interested in pulmonology and consider my opinion to be pretty good as to how important something is to pulmonology. Tyrol5 [Talk] 22:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bronchitis main picture

I have noticed that the Bronchitis article is high importance, but it is a stub. I took a look at the page and thought it would be nice if there was a main picture. I mentioned this on its talk page, but I cannot seem to get any attention. If you agree with my idea, I would be more than happy to go ahead and locate a picture that I can put on the page. Tyrol5 [Talk] 00:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please be bold and upload an appropriate image. If you find (or create) an image with a free license, please upload it to Wikimedia Commons. Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pediatric pulmonology to Pulmonology merger

The pediatric pulmonology article is a very small article and should be merged into the Pulmonology article. None of the other specialties have pediatric versions of their articles. Also the pediatric pulmonology article is an orphan, meaning little or no other pages link to it, so I feel that the content from that article would best fit into the pulmonology article. Tyrol5 [Talk] 00:33, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. Axl ¤ [Talk] 02:25, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that I have the proper tools to merge two articles, as I'm not an administrator. This is why I brought it up, so after the content from pediatric pulmonology is moved to pulmonology, pediatric pulmonology can either be deleted or redirected to pulmonology. Tyrol5 [Talk] 12:28, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can perform a merge. This is the one time you can cut and paste text from one article in to the other, and then leave a redirect at the article that has been merged. I just redirected pediatric pulmonology to pulmonology. There was no need to actually add additional content, since everything mentioned in pediatric pulmonology was already in pulmonology. --Scott Alter 13:15, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 09:35, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

Pulmonology article

~~I noticed that an unregistered IP address continues to delete the picture for the pulmonology article. Would someone please take care of this? Tyrol5 [Talk] 01:14, 4 November 2009 (UTC)~~ [reply]

I posted a warning on his talk page. Tyrol5 [Talk] 18:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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) 03:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sellick maneuver and Sellick manoeuvre

I suggest that the articles Sellick maneuver and Sellick manoeuvre should be merged 688dim (talk) 20:37, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oxygen toxicity

Just a heads-up that I've nominated Oxygen toxicity as a Featured Article candidate. I'd like to thank particularly Axl, who worked hard to help get its GA status, and invite anyone interested to help out with the criticisms that are likely to be raised at the FAC discussion. --RexxS (talk) 19:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that you are correct in nominating this article, as it is a very thorough and well thought out article. I think it is indeed featured article material. Thank you for sharing. Tyrol5 [Talk] 18:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While working through the FAC process, Axl and I have found a few deficits in other articles, and Axl is already working on Haldane effect. I've identified some areas which might be fixed without difficulty by someone knowledgeable in Pulmonology: CO2 retention is imho a badly-named article, but Carbon dioxide retention redirects to Hypercapnia; Carbon dioxide narcosis doesn't exist, even as a redirect; Hyperoxia is a stub. There is some content and many references in Oxygen toxicity that might help flesh out these articles, and perhaps add a little to Bronchopulmonary dysplasia. This is outside of my expertise, so any takers? --RexxS (talk) 19:17, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Acute exacerbation of COPD

Recently, I have been working on an article entitled Acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, which as most of you know, is a very broad and complex topic. Please feel free to help out at any time on this article. I say this because I am not sure if anybody really knows about the existence of this article in this task force. Thanks, Tyrol5 [Talk] 15:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Tyrol5. Have you seen WP:MOSMED? There are guidelines on how to structure the article. Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:34, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Axl, I appreciate you mentioning these guidelines as this makes the task of collaborating upon this article so much easier. I will overlook the information provided, and I hope others will follow accordingly so that we may work together to improve articles such as the one mentioned above. Tyrol5 [Talk] 00:14, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hypersensitivity pneumonitis

Hypersensitivity pneumonitis ought to be re-worked to fit WP:MEDMOS - specifically this. I've started the task, completely re-arranged things and contributed a few micrographs. Any help would be appreciated. :-) Nephron T|C 00:39, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We'll help you out on this task as we see fit, as this falls within the coverage of this task force. Thanks for letting us know. Tyrol5 [Talk] 12:59, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lungs and breathing activity template

It seems this talk page has been inactive for a while, but here goes. The lungs and breathing activity template, I believe, is inaccurate. I have edited the tachypnea article most as I didn't want to alter everything comprehensively; I would welcome someone else's discussion on what exactly to do when major medical dictionaries differ. Is this supposed to be Wikipedia stuff at all or is it dictionary stuff? Is the fact the dictionaries differ worthy of an encyclopedia article, and is a broader discussion beyond the definition worth doing for these articles? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vinnypatel (talk • contribs) 01:32, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lungs and breathing activity

Eupnea - normal breathing

Dyspnea or shortness of breath - sensation of respiratory distress

Bradypnea - decreased breathing rate

Hyperaeration/Hyperinflation - increased lung volume

Hyperpnea - faster and/or deeper breathing

Hyperventilation - increased breathing that causes CO₂ loss

Labored breathing - physical presentation of respiratory distress

Tachypnea - increased breathing rate

Do you mean this table (right)? It looks okay to me. "Hyperventilation" may have more than one definition due to lay interpretation. There are subtle differences in definition according to the dictionaries. I don't think that these differences can be properly described in the table. You are taking the right approach to the "Tachypnea" article, referencing the differences to the individual dictionaries.

The "Tachypnea" article has significantly more information about it than you would expect in a dictionary. Thus I believe that it does have a place in Wikipedia. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:15, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Effect of oxygen on chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

Effect of oxygen on chronic obstructive pulmonary disease is an awkward article. My understanding of COPD is as a fundamental aspect of its pathology is the development of air-trapping due to obstructive airways, the decreased ability to ventilate decreases the available oxygen for gas-exchange, thereby reducing systemic partial pressure of oxygen. The addition of oxygen to the COPD patient is to force a flow into the lungs to help keep the alveolar partial pressure of O2 great enough to sustain appropriate systemic partial pressures. In a severe COPD patient whos carboxic drive no longer functions, the hypoxic drive fulfills the need, and large amounts of O2 sustained over a long period of time can diminish that drive. This article specifically could be summed up in a single section of Oxygen toxicity with a brief mention of extra-care in COPD populations. At least, thats my angle; if I am wrong let me know. I didn't want to make any changes without posting here first :-) Kastyn.rrt (talk) 15:39, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, welcome to the WikiProject!

Air-trapping and reduced ventilation is indeed one of the mechanisms by which arterial pO2 ends up being reduced.

" The addition of oxygen to the COPD patient is to force a flow into the lungs to help keep the alveolar partial pressure of O2 great enough to sustain appropriate systemic partial pressures. "

That's not correct. The addition of oxygen increases the FiO2, which increases the alveolar pO2 and hence the arterial pO2. Administering oxygen does not significantly increase flow into the lungs. Artificial ventilation is required to increase flow, commonly non-invasive ventilation in COPD patients.

" This article specifically could be summed up in a single section of Oxygen toxicity with a brief mention of extra-care in COPD populations. "

"Oxygen toxicity" is already quite a long article and has featured status. Actually we had a discussion regarding the inclusion of harmful effects of oxygen in COPD during the FAC. The consensus was that the effects of oxygen on COPD were outside the remit of the article. A single sentence was included for completion: "Hyperoxia can also indirectly cause carbon dioxide narcosis in patients with lung ailments such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or with central respiratory depression." Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:31, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Critical care medicine

Since this is the pulmonology task force and critical care medicine is closely related to pulmonology, should all critical care articles fall into the category of our task force? Examples of articles that I am referring to are intensive-care medicine and Medical ventilator. Tyrol5 [Talk] 13:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Medical ventilator" possibly (perhaps more accurately under "Anaesthesia"), but "Intensive-care medicine" is too broad a topic to be described as specific to Pulmonology. Axl ¤ [Talk] 15:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that since many intensive-care units are attended by a pulmonologist, our task force could lay claim to the semi-broad topic, though it could also fall under cardiology's task force too, I dont think each topic has to be limited to a specific task force, if there is a huge overlap like in medicine, or surgery, then maybe no task force should specifically lay claim, but both of those topics are pretty acceptable for us to claim. In my opinion :) Pulmonological (talk) 07:58, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Archived some threads

I've archived some inactive threads to subsections which were notifications about discussions that have since been closed. — Cirt (talk) 06:39, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pulmonary cyst

It will be appreciated if an expert has a look at the dab page Pulmonary cyst. The current text states:

Pulmonary cyst may refer to:

To start, a cyst is an anatomical feature and lymphangioleiomyomatosis is a disease, so this is a category error. Moreover, there are other diseases that give rise to pulmonary cysts, such as Birt–Hogg–Dubé syndrome and pleuropulmonary blastoma, so the list is misleadingly short. And aren't there benign pulmonary cysts that are not considered a symptom of any specific disease? The best solution may be to turn the dab page into an article, even if initially a stub. Finally, I suspect that "lung cyst" is simply a synonym of "pulmonary cyst", so shouldn't Lung cyst redirect to Pulmonary cyst? --Lambiam 20:51, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]