Talk:Hypertrichosis

message: I believe the stub Hypertrichosis lanuginosa should be merged or redirected to this page. -Jacob 216.165.123.163 18:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've redirected it as the two pages it linked to both came back to here. Smartse (talk) 16:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge proposal

message: Seriously im doing a project on hypertrichosis and I need sources other than wikipedia and i tried to get them from here and you have to pay for them.  I am not paying 30 dollars for a piece of information.  PLEASE get new sources!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.82.211.32 (talk) 02:29, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: this page needs better sources

message: I removed a sentence implying that because of the preceding distinction between androgenic and vellus hair "people with hypertrichosis have heavier hairs rather than more hairs." There were two problems with the sentence. First, despite the initial word implying connection to the preceding sentences in the paragraph, it did not arise or was not established as true by them. Thus the connection should not have been implied. Second, I am doubtful that the statement is even independently true. I think some people with hypertrichosis do indeed have more hairs than average. I may be wrong and would defer to a cited scientific study that establishes the truth or the bounds of the claim, but for now I have removed it "without prejudice" to reintroduction as the lawyers say. Evidence please. alteripse 00:46, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: heavier or more hairs?

message: It would be impossible for this condition to be found in 1 out of 10 billion people. There are only 6.5 billion people on Earth. If that was true, the condition would not yet have occurred. Thus, the 1 in 250 million occurrence rate must be 
true.BrainDark 22:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This Article  says that there are 19 currently living today (including 17 LIVING members of the Aceves family).  Assuming that this Supatra Sasuphan  is included in that number of 19, and that todays current world clock is reporting a population of 6,543,922,352.  Then the rate based on currently living people would be 1 in 344,416,965, or about 1 in 340 million.  Does anyone know who the other two living members of this group are?--65.27.233.122 02:27, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

text: That number probably refers to congenital hypertrichosis lanuginosa, of which only about 50 cases reported worldwide since the Middle Ages (there have been more than 6 billion people living on this earth). --WS 16:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've seen the number of total population ever as 100 billion, which would still cause problems with a 1 in 10 billion average. Aristoi 01:09, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Occurence Rate 

message: Is this disease noticed at birth or later on (like with puberty)?
Need to know for a book I'm writing.  Thnx in advance.
Scott Free 04:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Onset 

message: A few years ago, I saw an IGIA infomercial of these electronic tweezer-like devices that would be used to remove hair for the last time ever. Once used on a follicle, the follicle deactivates for the last time, once-and-for-all. Don't many with this excessive hair condition use IGIA? I would get my hands on an IGIA at the first opportunity if this happened to me. --70.179.170.133 03:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  IGIA 

message: Merged undeveloped sub-articles. All are stubs and are not being actively worked on. This article - Hypertrichosis - is being adopted and hopefully will be brought up to FA. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 16:17, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merged 

message: Does having one random really long hair come under this? If so I have a picture of a 10cm leg hair which can be included. Smartse (talk) 16:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Include! Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 16:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Done, it isn't a great photo, I think I have a better one somewhere, I'll look for it once I'm home in a few days. Smartse (talk) 16:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Question

message: Someone might find these useful - , , . Cheers. Remember (talk) 16:19, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: For more detailed medical details google scholar tends to come up with things. Abstracts often contain the general gist of a paper but if you need a full copy I might be able to email you a copy. I'll try and add some stuff myself but might not have enough time... Smartse (talk) 16:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: *I'll second that: if you need any journal articles, I may be able to access them as well.  Strombollii (talk) 01:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be greatly appreciated, if you could! KatieW1992 (talk) 20:08, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Looking at the six B-Class criteria, the article is likely to fall short principally on "The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies." So attention will need to be focussed on Epidemiology, History, and Society and culture. Do some research using http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=hypertrichosis&as_ylo=&as_vis=1 as a starting point, particularly looking for epidemiology. As you go through abstracts, you should get a feel for developments, giving an idea of what to put in History - this should really be about the first description of the condition and the subsequent milestones in the understanding of it; the notable people probably belong more in the Society and culture section; get some quality refs on how people have viewed sufferers from this condition to expand S & c. Hope this helps. --RexxS (talk) 00:19, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Google book source

message: Our group is creating a list of at least thirty references.  We will cite and format them appropriately ASAP.  Vancemiller (talk) 13:30, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If there is a more appropriate format for this then let us know so something can be changed.
* Hypertrichosis lanuginosa congenita
* Minoxidil-induced hypertrichosis: treatment with calcium thioglycolate depilatory
* A new form of hypertrichosis inherited as an X-linked dominant trait
* Mapping of the congenital generalized hypertrichosis locus to chromosome Xq24-q27.1
* A new case of hairy elbows syndrome (Hypertrichosis cubiti)
*Primary Generalized and Localized Hypertrichosis in Children
*Diseases of the Skin
*A Treatise on diseases of the skin
*Diseases of the eye and skin
*The Ancestor Within
*Genetics 1995: Bacterium Tells All, Human Tells A Lot 
*Hypertrichosis
*Hypertrichosis.com
*The H Syndrome Is Caused by Mutations in the Nucleoside Transporter
*Hypertrichosis of the Lanugo Hair in Malnutrition
*Hypertrichosis - Real Life Werewolves?
*Case of Congenital Hypertrichosis
*The Woman Beneath the Hair: Treating Hypertrichosis
*Acquired Hypertrichosis Terminals in Bronchial Carcinoma
*Clinical and Experimental Dermatology
*Causes of Hypertrichosis
*The hairy family of Burma: a four generation pedigree of congenital hypertrichosis lanuginosa.
*The Sacred Family of Burma 
*Congenital Hypertrichosis Lanuginosa: Differential Diagnoses & Workup  
*Trichophyia and hypertrichosis: A side effect of foam sclerotherapy
*Doctor Doctor...  
*FEDOR JEFTICHEIVE - Jo-Jo The Dog-Faced Boy  
*Hypertrichosis Lanuginosa Congenita
*Hair removal with the long-pulse alexandrite and long-pulse Nd:YAG lasers is safe and well tolerated in children
*Faun tail nevus with aplasia cutis congenita.
*Werewolf syndromethehumanmarvels.com > WEREWOLF SYNDROME - Hypertrichosis Retrieved on may 16, 2009
*Ambras syndrome{{Cite web
  
===A few quick things===
*Reference 31 won't fly at GA -- it's a blog.  
*24 looks to be having some formatting problems, though that isn't a problem at this stage in the game, obviously. 
* hypertrichosis.com is interesting.  If you really plan on using it, make sure to check it out in depth.  The fact that there's no author listed may be a warning sign.
*The citation template you're using seems a bit glitchy.  For instance, ref 27 is from a journal (via pubmed,obviously), but doesn't have the journal title/issue/volume listed.  Be careful. 
Strombollii (talk) 04:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible references 

message: *Reference 31 won't fly at GA -- it's a blog.  
*24 looks to be having some formatting problems, though that isn't a problem at this stage in the game, obviously. 
* hypertrichosis.com is interesting.  If you really plan on using it, make sure to check it out in depth.  The fact that there's no author listed may be a warning sign.
*The citation template you're using seems a bit glitchy.  For instance, ref 27 is from a journal (via pubmed,obviously), but doesn't have the journal title/issue/volume listed.  Be careful. 
Strombollii (talk) 04:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: A few quick things

message: Don't know if you've ventured into the world of PubMed (), so I thought I'd drop by with a link: it's  a government-run database of medical articles and has pretty much everything.  Most of the articles are just abstracts; however, PubMed Central () is all free full-text articles.  Good luck! Strombollii (talk) 21:29, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Good References

message: We have created a sandbox to begin editing this article. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypertrichosis/sandbox
–Vancemiller (talk) 14:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If I may pass on some advice given to me at the beginning of the project: unless you're planning on completely rewriting everything (and to an extent, even if you're planning on doing so...), make edits directly to the actual article.  Doing so will attract more editors and hence, let you have your article proofed and modified piece by piece. Strombollii (talk) 20:52, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: We were going to work on sections and as they are completed, or have sufficient information, copy them into the main article.
–Vancemiller (talk) 23:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Project Buddies, would you guys like to find a time to specifically assign different sections of the article for one another to add on to/address. This way we wouldn't be in the dark about what the other is working on, or thinking of working on, and probably save a lot of time. Just a thought. KatieW1992 (talk) 20:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hypertrichosis Sandbox 

message: AP team - please complete the edit summary when making changes to the article or leaving comments on the talk page - this will allow others to monitor the progress and more effectively assist where necessary! In fact, as a group project, it is essential so that your team may monitor each others contributions. See me in class if you need assistance with this task. JimmyButler (talk) 18:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit summary 

message: Given that the current human population is 9 billion, the ocurrence paragraph is self-contradictory. The wording in the source shows awareness of this contradiction. But this source does not seem to be serious. --Ettrig (talk) 13:28, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed that isn't a reliable source so I removed the whole section for the moment. Smartse (talk) 13:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Ocurrence

message: I made quite a few adjustments to the "types" section of the article. I forgot to sign in so they do not show up as made by me. I decided to group all congenital form of hypertrichosis and all acquired forms together. Is anyone opposed to this? --TimHAllstr (talk) 01:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted it because I think there is a better way to do what you did.  There should be an intro section or something similar that describes generalized, localized, congenital, and acquired forms of hypertrichosis.  Each type of hypertrichosis is unique, and therefore they each should have their own section describing them.  The characteristics of each may not be unique.  For example a certain type, type A, may be congenital and localized, while another type, type B, may be congenital and generalized.  Rather than describing what it means to be congenital in both sections, you could describe congenital in an introduction, and simply refer back to it for the specific type.  –Vancemiller (talk) 03:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Unsigned Revisions

message: These two pictures were put on the page without any captions.  It might be useful to identify what these pictures represent so they can be placed in the appropriate section of the article.Vancemiller (talk) 16:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There isn't any information on their description pages which is why I didn't add captions. I just thought that as the photos are on commons they may as well be in the article. Smartse (talk) 17:09, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hypertrichosis does mean harry just in another language.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures 

message: You might want to look at Wikipedia:MOSMED to see how the article should ideally be structured. It might give you some pointer as to what else you can research too. Smartse (talk) 17:31, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: As to be expected in a medical article - there is an abundance of terms that can be wiki-linked to the appropriate articles. I added a few links as I read over the text. I also added a picture which may or may not be of value; I was bored!--JimmyButler (talk) 19:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Manual of style

message: According to the text - the trait is X-linked (located on the X chromosome); however, I'm unclear as to whether the allele is dominant or recessive? The first picture is X-linked recessive (female) and the second is X-linked dominant (male)- contradicting each other?--JimmyButler (talk) 22:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I was unsure about that too, but the article from which those two pictures came from did not have anything about recessive male traits on the X chromosome.  Is that even possible?  Also, if the female has a 50-50 chance of passing the trait on, the current picture of a female carrier does not support that information.  –Vancemiller (talk) 00:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dominant or Recessive 

message: It is a very rare disorder, with fewer than 100 cases documented in scientific publications and by the media. It is thought that it is caused by
The gene MAP2K6 may play role but it may also be due to the change in the chromosome affecting the transcription of genes further away on the chromosome.
You probably should specify what "it" is. --Yohmom (talk) 04:56, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think sufferers may work here, because it's obvious that they're certainly not deriving benefit from their condition, but unnatural would benefit from being replaced by a term that explains the prejudice against them or how they suffer. Strombollii (talk) 01:01, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  It 

message: Since the condition involves hair, it might be useful to include a brief discussion of lanugo, vellus and terminal hair at the beginning.
[]
A peculiar rare familial form of excess generalized downy hair growth known as congenital hypertrichosis lanuginosa accounts for the individuals exploited as "dog-faced boy" or "human werewolf" at circus sideshows. Also rare, but important as a sign of internal malignancy, is acquired hypertrichosis lanuginosa. This "malignant down" usually precedes the neoplasia and has been reported with a wide variety of malignancies.
Circumscribed areas of excessive hair growth may occur following chronic irritation of the skin, by rubbing, as under plaster casts, biting (nervous tic), and following burns and ionizing radiation.
Congenital tufts of hair along tge midline, such as the sacral "faun tail," may be associated with underlying spinal defects.
[]
How are changes in the MMP2 gene related to health conditions?
Defects in MMP2 are the cause of Torg-Winchester syndrome (TWS)[1]; also known as multicentric osteolysis nodulosis and arthropathy (MONA). TWS is an autosomal recessive osteolysis syndrome. It is severe with generalized osteolysis and osteopenia. Subcutaneous nodules are usually absent. Torg-Winchester syndrome has been associated with a number of additional features including coarse face, corneal opacities, patches of thickened, hyperpigmented skin, hypertrichosis and gum hypertrophy. However, these features are not always present and have occasionally been observed in other osteolysis syndromes.
hypertrichosis resources
[]  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vancemiller (talk • contribs) 15:58, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Things to work on... 

message: We should try our best to use reviews to work on topics to start.  Here is a German one (google translates) . And another from 2002 . We can help you get full copies if needed.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you access  for us?  Thanks–Vancemiller (talk) 23:29, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

text: Is anyone able to access full PubMed articles?  An article like  would really aid us in the completion of this article. –Vancemiller (talk) 02:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Some reviews

message: I believe it would be much easier to fill the holes in our article if we had access to the full PMID journals. If anyone could help, it would most likely allow us to better this article to at least GA status. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TimHAllstr (talk • contribs) 20:05, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Which do you need?  We've all offered to try to get them. Strombollii (talk) 03:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Seconding Strombollii. You might also want to try this thing called the public library. Interlibrary loan can work wonders, although it actually requires effort. --Yohmom (talk) 04:11, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You need to however turn on your email in preferences.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:23, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: PMID full journals

message: I have started a section on hirsutism. I agree that it is important to include in our article, however, there is already another article based on hirsutism alone. How much information do you think it is necessary to put on this article? Do you still believe it is necessary to mention more than briefly if there is already another article on hirsutism?--TimHAllstr (talk) 01:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have written a summary of hirsutism on the page, is it missing anything or is the information believed to be sufficient?--TimHAllstr (talk) 00:39, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No as under some classifications hirsutism is a type of hypertrichosis, a section under classification should be written summarizing it.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:40, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Hirsutism in the article

message: Would someone be able to access pub med article 18340416 for me?--TimHAllstr (talk) 14:20, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes but would need an email address.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:11, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've enabled email with my account but I'm not sure as to how you will be able to find my address...So to make things simple just send it here.  mailto:vancemiller@gmail.com –Vancemiller (talk) 17:30, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Have sent you a couple and here is an online one free http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17760904 Let me know if they work. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:26, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm reviewing the articles you just sent, thanks.  I can't seem to figure out how to access the online one, the link takes me to an abstract with only the authors listed. –Vancemiller (talk) 19:50, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Which PMID? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:58, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  This one: . –Vancemiller (talk) 20:03, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Pub med article

message: VanceMiller and I have separated the causes and ocurrence sections from the classifications. There are still subheadings, which we will fix. We are just curious to know if anyone has an idea for a format of the epidemiology section.--TimHAllstr (talk) 14:27, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The statement: Hypertrichosis is either congenital (present at birth), or acquired later in life, found in the introduction does not indicate that it is a formal means on classification; however, you have based your organization of the article on this bit of info. Does your current method of organization (based on method of contraction) serve as a "formal" means of classification or is it your way of grouping the disorder? If it is the former then you may wish to emphasize that in the introduction. If not, then we need to seek guidance on the correct classification. Then there is the aspect of local or general body distribution. It is mentioned in the introduction but I don't see a follow through in the classification. Is that a formal means of organization - if so perhaps it could serve as a way to structure the multitude of diseases in a more inclusive category with less subheadings? It seems, at present, your biggest barrier is organizing the "headings" in effort to avoid creating a list. Once you create the accurate "grouping", then locating information and working on prose can begin. Somewhere - Someone -has a logical means of organization. Perhaps a quick view of Encarta - Britannica - World Book - might give you insight into a logical method of grouping? Happy Holidays!--JimmyButler (talk) 17:43, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The current style of grouping is our way of doing it. It seemed logical to group the disorders by a common characteristic which they share. Is there a better way of doing this? –Vancemiller (talk) 18:05, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Formatting

message: This page lists how to format an article.  Please have a look at other GA and FA to get an idea of how to format the sections.  Causes should for example be discussed in general with a section on: genetics, medication, environmental factors.  How common the over condition is should be discribed under epidemiology.  How prevalence varies globally and by ethnicity should be discussed in both the epidemiology and the causes sections.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:22, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Are all of the sections required?  I've included all of them on my sandbox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vancemiller/sandbox) and will begin to fill them in. I'm unsure of what to put in the classification section and the symptom section... The symptoms are described in the classification section. –Vancemiller (talk) 23:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: After much consideration; I too am a bit perplexed as to how best to organize this article. It appears to be a topic on a symptom rather than a specific disorder. Unfortunately it is a symptom with numerous causes; thus does not pigeon hole into the typical format used by other medical articles. This is likely why it has remained untouched for so long and why it is likely not to conform to rigid standards for GA for medical articles. The creation of so many subsections makes for cumbersome reading, no doubt the outcome of attempting to combine the multitude of causes into some level of organization. Since time is fast expiring with no clear solution in sight; it is likely that I will be the one grading this paper. Therefore, I suggest rather than adding even more subheadings; go through and verify and cite the information that is currently included. Then perform the best copy/edit that you are capable. When I grade research papers; verification of information is the make or break factor. I will print out a copy and subject it to the standards for a research document at an AP level. A gallant try my friends; the article is vastly expanded and I trust factually accurate. I too thought it would be an excellent selection; I also admire you for your courage (the medical articles are held to the highest of standards for obvious reasons). None-the-less, you could have gone with a cute, furry, animal; I will consider your willingness to take a risk when I'm scrutinizing your work.--JimmyButler (talk) 18:28, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it in not a nicely defined disease but is like a little like chest pain, abdominal pain, conjunctivitis or head ache.  A section on differential diagnosis should replace one discussing cause / classification per say.  I shall be working on addressing these sorts of conditions in the future as they are sort of the basis of my profession.  How does one approach a symptoms on its way to a diagnosis.  An important question indeed.  People do not start with a diagnosis but a symtoms and some never do end end with a diagnosis. Think abdominal pain not yet specified.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:MEDMOS]]

message: Minor Concerns
* If you review the edit history; you will note the numerous minor edits I felt necessary. All of them were to reduce excessively verbose statements. As discussed in class; efficiency is appropriate for encyclopedic articles. Efficiency in writing is important; unless your teacher demands a minimum number of words!
* The statement in the introduction refers to werewolf syndrome. The cited source makes no reference to "syndrome" only that they were viewed as werewolves. A syndrome is a specific medical term; not to be used lightly.
* These forms of hypertrichosis are less common than acquired forms. After a review of the source; an import aspect missing in this statement is that the condition is "extremely rare". That can not be deduced in this comparison.
* Hypertrichosis lanuginosa: only 50 know cases reported since the middle ages! The extreme rarity of the case is worth mentioning. I see; we discover this later in our reading. I guess the organization of this will always be problematic - no fault of your own.
* Nevoid hypertrichosis: you emphasize that it is not connected to other diseases; however, the connection to spina bifida is note-worthy. What I'm seeing is a rather stark listing of the various types; when in realty their is a great amount of information that goes unremarked in your article. Any one of the forms you've listed would have served you well as a stand alone article. Instead. we have a list which may or may not relay the essential information associated with the disorder. Under a GA attempt - this would relate to "Well Researched". This skimming of the details relates back to the theme of this article and the attempt to describe a symptom and not an actual disorder. Perhaps down the road - stubs will be created for the numerous disease you've introduced here.
* Hypertrichosis is often mistakenly classified as hirsutism. Hirsutism is a type of hypertrichosis exclusive to women and children, resulting from an excess of androgen sensitive hair growth. I think the contrast should be established with an addendum like this "whereas hypertrichosis affects only non-androgen dependent body hair".
* Patterned forms of hypertrichosis cause hair growth in patterns. I would like to see this more thoroughly explained. I'm assuming normal hair growth is random; however, I'm so very curious as to what constitutes a pattern. Are the patterns random? Is there a theme as in the shape of a "?" or "666". It begs for elaboration. I do believe one of your references mentioned a "Fawn tail".
* Organization: You have made considerable improvements to conform to Wikipedia standards for medical articles. The article is still cumbersome; forcing one to skip about to seek answers. This is again - no fault of yours - simply the outcome of cramming so many disorders under one heading and having to address disorders that do not belong (Hirsutism).
* There are vast sections of text that could benefit from an illustration. Visual appeal is subjective; however, encyclopedias must take that into account. I suspect there are specialist that would release pictures of the specific forms, if you had inquired.
* In the research the information regarding "frequency" failed to make it into the article. Perhaps an Epidemiology Section could add further to the chaos on the page.
* External Links section.... only one on the Burma Family. You should remove this section or provide reputable external resources.
The See Also section may need some attention. I didn't see anything in Skin Lesions that was relevant nor Skin Disease... and don't say "It was already there!"
::But it was already there!  The "external links" and "see also" sections definitely received the least of our attention.  It is our own fault for not finding out how they should be used. –Vancemiller (talk · contribs · email) 00:44, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This article would probably do better as a list of all the subtypes of hypertrichosis with each type having its own article. –Vancemiller (talk · contribs · email) 00:44, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This was definitely a beast that both Vance and I did not foresee; however, I am proud of our contributions and hope to one day bring this article to at least GA status soon. I will do my best to address as many of the concerns that you have named if we have any time at all. Thank you.--TimHAllstr (talk) 00:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  My Perspective 

message: Is there some other meaning? Terminal means like to be fatal Victuallers (talk) 09:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Terminal hairs are thick, long, and dark, as compared with vellus hair. Vancemiller (talk contribs  count email) 14:17, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Terminal does NOT mean fatal. lol! Terminal means when something ends. If your hair falls out when it is 20cm, that is your terminal hair length. When it stops growing. Same meaning as any other way it is used. 119.92.93.84 (talk) 03:42, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Terminal

message: This line:
"This condition is usually accompanied by gingival hyperplasia.[3]" redirects to Gingival enlargement, where in the first paragraph, it states:
"This [page] is strictly a clinical description of the condition and avoids the erroneous pathologic connotations of terms used in the past such as hypertrophic gingivitis or gingival hyperplasia."
So I'm wondering, should this link be removed since it doesn't link to a useful page?  217.166.94.1 (talk) 12:01, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I take your point, but I had no idea what gingival hyperplasia was until I read the explanation at the Gingival enlargement article.  So I think the link is helpful.  Note that article does explain gingival hyperplasia specifically in the first section after the lead.  Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 14:39, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps some other sort of definition can be given.  "Gingival," "hyper," and "plasia" are all medical terms that mean "gums," "many," and "growth" respectively (all together, overgrowth of the gums).  Thus gingival hyperplasia isn't a specific disease, but rather a broad disorder that may have many causes.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 22:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Gingival Hyperplasia link

message: Is the star-wars character based on this? --41.151.124.43 (talk) 18:49, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chewbaca 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Hypertrichosis. 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/20100311165126/http://www.hirsutism.info/hirsutism.html to http://www.hirsutism.info/hirsutism.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111007072523/http://dermatologytimes.modernmedicine.com/dermatologytimes/issue/issueDetail.jsp?id=10462 to http://dermatologytimes.modernmedicine.com/dermatologytimes/issue/issueDetail.jsp?id=10462
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) 09:51, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: After reading on Wikipedia that the first recorded case of hypertrichosis was Petrus Gonsalvus in the fifteenth century, I thought you might find the following observation interesting. 
Hypertrichosis was first mentioned in the book of Genesis in the Bible in chapter 25 when fraternal twins were born to Isaac and Rebekah. It states in verse 25 that the first child born was covered in red hair, so they called him Esau which means hairy. There are also further allusions to Esau's hairiness in chapter 27:11-12 where it states that Esau is still hairy, so I guess he had congenital hypertrichosis.
Hope you find this interesting and update your historical recordings of the condition accordingly. 
Regards, Lee McLaurin, grantlee2.mcl@hotmail.com 101.191.237.112 (talk) 02:54, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  First Recording of Hypertrichosis.