Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Clinical medicine/categorizations

message: I was so shocked to see that this category did not yet exist that I created it, but maybe I went to fast and did something wrong? --Steven Fruitsmaak 00:29, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hepatology

message: Has using the National Library of Medicine classification system been considered? It is very extensive, used across the world, and it seems to be available for public with some conditions. BjarteSorensen 12:55, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: My two cents is that the conditions imposed are not compatible with the GFDL so it's not suitable for use here. Alex.tan 15:02, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re-inventing the wheel? 

message: In going through the psychiatric categories it occurred to me that one thing we could do is to make a category for each of the signs and symptoms. Thus we could have categories for “weight loss”, “cough”, “crepitations” and “formal thought disorder” for example.  If we then include these category for each disease where they are found anyone could then look up the category “cough” and get a list of all articles where this was a symptom and where it had been added as a category in the article. This would be a much better method than a Google search. This would be helpful for professionals and non-professionals alike. This would mean a lot of extra categories but at least this is a guaranteed way of the symptoms ending up on the list as long as they are included in the article as categories. As long as each new symptom category had “Category:Symptom” at the bottom and each new sign category had “Category:sign (medicine)” you could then look up those categories to get a full list of the current subcategories.
The alternative would be to create lists but these need to be done manually and would be more likely to have errors.  What does everyone think of this idea? --CloudSurfer 04:49, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Symptoms and Signs 

message: Please see mental illness for an example of how a classification table can ease a reader into the Wikipedia category system as a method of browsing a subject. I would appreciate any comments on this approach as to its worth (or otherwise) and how it could be improved. --CloudSurfer 00:15, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categorization table 

message: I hate categories that are concatenations, only because it makes so much work to do by hand. Even two words, like Neuroanatomy ("Neurology & Anatomy") are a pain to mechanize in a search. That's a real book, BTW, and it's identical to Pharmacology. It makes more sense, mechanically, to redirect Neuroanatomy to ("Neurology & Anatomy") than to put the single word into an article's list of categories, because a computer wouldn't know where to break "NeuroAnatomy" if someone were to do the boolean search. Brewhaha@edmc.net 07:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I hate NeuroPsychoPharmacology 

message: The above article appears to have a very useful outline that was abandoned in favor of the Health sciences article for some reason. Does anyone know if this outline was expanded in some other page, or think that it might come in handy for some of the subjects tackled by this Project? Edwardian 05:10, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: See Outline of health sciences (and Outline of health). In the beginning, the page was created by Larry Sanger along with about 50 other pages, one per major subject, as wish lists of articles needed for those subjects. Thus, they were lists of red links.  As Wikipedia's coverage grew, the links all turned blue and the lists were forgotten. In late 2005, independent of the above message, someone came across them and decided to rename them to Lists of basic topics (such as List of basic health sciences topics), and moved them to the main namespace. As the lists grew to be more comprehensive, they were renamed to "Outline of". There are now about 650 of them. The Transhumanist 18:55, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia:Health Sciences basic topics

message: Does anyone have any use for this list or recommendations for where it might be placed? I'm happy to delete it if anyone thinks it's taking up too much room here. Edwardian 07:54, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Various articles labeled as "medicine"

message: I stumbled upon the category "general surgery"; I would like to rename it to "abdominal surgery". 
Moreover, I think in the scheme of this project, "gastroinstestinal surgery" cannot coexist with "thoracic surgery": I think there are only 2 options,
1. "abdominal surgery" and "thoracic surgery". I prefer this one because it is the most common division, I think.
2. "gastrointestinal surgery" and some other category designating surgery of the lungs (and other elements of the thorax (?), like the phrenic nerve, upper plexus brachialis,...).
--Steven Fruitsmaak 13:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  General surgery 

message: Hi everybody,
while editing oral rehydration therapy, I noticed it was in both categories therapy and medical treatments. However, cat:therapy is mostly populated by non-medical therapies, like Tai Chi, tantramassage, etc.
Would it be an idea to remove all strictly medical therapies from cat:therapy to cat:medical treatments?
grtz, --Steven Fruitsmaak 19:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:Therapy and Category:Medical treatments 

message: Shouldn't many articles in category:diseases be in category:human diseases? --Steven Fruitsmaak 15:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No - I think the usual default should be for reference to us humans - wikipedia is afterall a human endeveour about us and our knowledge. Hence social interaction, myocardial infarction, pneumonia, vaccination all largely apply to us humans without any need to qualify, e.g. pneumonia (human). David Ruben  Talk  13:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What about Pneumonia? --apers0n 17:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

text: For me, the connotation is that articles in Cat:Diseases could also occur in animals, however most articles are only about the human disease.--Steven Fruitsmaak | Talk 00:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cat:human diseases and Cat:diseases 

message: #I would pull AIDS medicine back from being a subclass of virology - treating AIDS is about a lot more than just treating HIV!
#Stroke medicine is a subset of neurology; if neurology is not a subset of internal medicine (see previous discussions above), it should be moved there.
#"Intensive care medicine" is generally called "Critical care" in the US, and is considered a subclass of pulmonology. Another subclass of pulmonology is sleep medicine, which is missing altogether.
--DrGaellon (talk | contribs) 16:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A couple of modifications

message: OK, I made a few changes - hope they were't too bold. First, pretty much all of pathology was missing from the existing scheme, so I fixed that. I moved basic science like "virology" and "parasitology" out of Med>IM>Infectious disease, since to my knowlege there are not many clinical ID poeple who "only" treat viruses or parasites etc - they are more appropriate for the basic science catagory. Medical microbiology is a potentially full-time, board-certified subspecialty of clinical pathology in the US though. I moved the "intensive care" entries to medicine and peds. I removed derm from IM (the way it is in the US anyway). I added subcatagories of radiology and also radiation oncology. The relationship between medicine, IM, medical subspecialties, and verious forms of primary care medicine is a bit confusing - I put in the version that made sense to me. I'm not sure how we resolve the neurology dilemma - perhaps make it a subcategory of medicine but not IM?-Rustavo 20:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: My changes

message: I combined "oral pathology" and "dental pathology" to "oral and maxillofacial pathology" as that is what is actually studied. - Dozenist talk 00:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, and I realized prosthdontics should probably have subdivisions for fixed vs. removable, so I added that.  Lastly, I did not know where dental hygienists and dental assistants would go on the list. - Dozenist talk 00:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Dentistry

message: http://tools.wikimedia.de/~daniel/WikiSense/CategoryTree.php?&wikilang=en&wikifam=.wikipedia.org&cat=neurology
Why doesn't the category tree under the category of neurology make as much sense as that?
It looks to me like someone introduced a bug when they spread that deprecated tool around, and while I'm at it, when I go to edit the last section of a page, the wiki consistently tells me it doesn't exist. Brewhaha@edmc.net 04:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Teknikal ishuuz