Talk:Hypercapnia

message: I've suggested a merge at Talk:CO₂ retention:
Should CO2 retention be merged into Hypercapnia? I know that the terms are not identical, but it is one of the principal causes of hypercapnia. Neither article is large and it would seem to be sensible to collect related information together. For what it's worth, Carbon dioxide retention is already a redirect to Hypercapnia.
Any comments welcome. --RexxS (talk) 17:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  In the long run, they are basically the same thing. Mike Allen 06:11, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I also agree, CO2 retention should be a subsection of Hypercapnia. > Merge and redirect. I will get to it when I have more reliable internet again. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 03:06, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge CO2 retention into this article 

message: As this is a condition, not a sign or symptom, I've changed the category from :Category:Symptoms and signs: Respiratory system to :Category:Respiratory diseases for want of anything more specific. --RexxS (talk) 15:26, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categories 

message: doesn't seem to justify an article of its own Rathfelder (talk) 21:07, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose merge.  There's plenty of detail that can be added to normocapnia.  Like what normal levels are, how the body maintains those levels, how they are tested, and so on. But more importantly, good health should be presented in articles on good health rather than merely as subtopics of illnesses or abnormalities. The Transhumanist 19:09, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge of [[Normocapnia]] 

message: The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited. Any format of inline citation is acceptable: the use of <ref> tags and citation templates such as  is optional.Looks good. 
The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. It contains a large proportion of the material necessary for , although some sections may need expansion, and some less important topics may be missing.As far as I can tell, OK. Adequate for WikiProject Scuba. I have no opinion for WikiProject Medicine. 
The article has a defined structure. Content should be organized into groups of related material, including a lead section and all the sections that can reasonably be included in an article of its kind.Structure OK. 
The article is reasonably well-written. The prose contains no major grammatical errors and flows sensibly, but it does not need to be "brilliant". The Manual of Style does not need to be followed rigorously. Looks OK. 
The article contains supporting materials where appropriate. Illustrations are encouraged, though not required. Diagrams and an infobox etc. should be included where they are relevant and useful to the content.Has relevant illustrations. OK for me 
Looks OK. Promoting to B-class for WikiProject Scuba. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 19:12, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  B-Class review 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Hypercapnia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080414220954/http://www.accessmedicine.com/content.aspx?aID=886013 to http://www.accessmedicine.com/content.aspx?aID=886013
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110707080400/http://www.accessmedicine.com/content.aspx?aID=591330 to http://www.accessmedicine.com/content.aspx?aID=591330
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:45, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I have removed this:
:The spelling "hypercapnea" is occasionally seen in published medical articles (44 results in a PubMed search in 2016), but it is not entered in major dictionaries and is not tied to any etymology that involves the -pnea suffix. It is a misspelling by writers who misunderstand that the word hypercapnia does not end in the same suffix that apnea does.
Can be reinserted in altered form if someone has a source. JFW | T@lk 07:04, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research 

message: I have removed the following table, which was in the "Diagnosis" section but without any logical reason for this. I suspect it was inserted as part of the diving content.
Tolerance to increased atmospheric CO2 concentration
%CO2 ininspired air	Expected tolerance for useful activity on continued exposure to elevated CO2	Expected tolerance for useful activity on continued exposure to elevated CO2
%CO2 ininspired air	Duration                                                                    	Major limitation
0.028              	lifetime                                                                    	normal atmosphere
0.04               	lifetime                                                                    	current atmosphere
0.5                	lifetime                                                                    	no detectable limitations
1.0                	lifetime                                                                    	no detectable limitations
1.5                	> 1 month                                                                   	mild respiratory stimulation
2.0                	> 1 month                                                                   	mild respiratory stimulation
2.5                	> 1 month                                                                   	mild respiratory stimulation
3.0                	> 1 month                                                                   	moderate respiratory stimulation
3.5                	> 1 week                                                                    	moderate respiratory stimulation
4.0                	> 1 week                                                                    	moderate respiratory stimulation, exaggerated respiratory response to exercise
4.5                	> 8 hours                                                                   	moderate respiratory stimulation, exaggerated respiratory response to exercise
5.0                	> 4 hours                                                                   	prominent respiratory stimulus, exaggerated respiratory response to exercise
5.5                	> 1 hours                                                                   	prominent respiratory stimulus, exaggerated respiratory response to exercise
6.0                	> 0.5 hours                                                                 	prominent respiratory stimulus, exaggerated respiratory response to exercise, beginnings of mental confusion
6.5                	> 0.25 hours                                                                	prominent respiratory stimulus, exaggerated respiratory response to exercise, beginnings of mental confusion
7.0                	> 0.1 hours                                                                 	limitation by dyspnea and mental confusion
Happy to reinsert with some degree of context. JFW | T@lk 14:22, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Tolerance" table 

message: I don't think Wikipedia should be in the business of giving space in articles to debunking every bit of self-evidently nonsensical bs that appears on social media. But since this conspiracy theory cites the Wikipedia article, it is probably useful to have a talk page mention of it, in case someone takes it seriously This BBC fact check page explains why it is nonsense: Coronavirus: 'Deadly masks' claims debunked. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 08:16, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Facemasks cause hypercapnia" fantasy