Talk:Medical slang

message: This page is mainly a list of terms that are already in the references.  It does add much on the rationale or history of the slang.  Why duplicate them on Wikipedia?  The article on Cockney Rhyming Slang is an example of how a slang article should be done - just a few examples, rather than the whole dictionary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 20.133.0.8 (talk • contribs) 2006-08-24 07:02:54
This page seems to have reverted to being a dictionary rather than containing links to existing online glossaries.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 20.133.0.8 (talk) 14:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The more I think about it, the more I agree with this thread here. As an encyclopaedia, wikipaedia should not be aiming to provide lists of phrases or vocabulary. Other pages about languages, slang or otherwise, 'describe' and give an encyclopaedia account of the language or language subculture. Some of the language pages give "samples" but none seek to provide a comprehensive dictionary or thesaurus list. Perhaps we should restrict our list and provide but a few samples so the general population can get a feel for it, rather than have a translation guide? Orinoco-w (talk) 04:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A much debated issue. See Portal:Contents/List of glossaries and its talkpage. Glossary of graph theory has been suggested as a good example. -- Quiddity (talk) 08:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So I see! Oh - and thanks for fixing up the multiple <ref>s for me. I didn't know you could do that. Orinoco-w (talk) 12:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia is not a dictionary 

message: I've reverted this page to eliminate the copyvio section on "codes" added by anonymous user User:168.28.200.6. It was a copy-paste of an article on MedicineNet, whose content license would not permit that use and subsequent relicensing under GFDL. --FreelanceWizard 21:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyvio revert

message: This article has sources listed at the end but needs inline citations or people will come along and add new examples without sources, and the reader won't be able to tell which are real and which aren't. On another matter it has to be said that this is pushing the definition of an encyclopedia article to breaking point. It's a list and belongs in Wiktionary or somewhere. What would be an article is a discussion of the phenomenon of medical slang, but this isn't it. 81.158.215.229 18:07, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: Slang glossaries violate the following policy:
Wikipedia is not a dictionary
 Wikipedia is not a dictionary or a usage or jargon guide. Wikipedia articles are not:
# Dictionary definitions. Because Wikipedia is not a dictionary, please do not create an entry merely to define a term. An article should usually begin with a  good definition; if you come across an article that is nothing more than a definition, see if there is information you can add that would be appropriate for an encyclopedia. An exception to this rule is for articles about the cultural meanings of individual  numbers.
# Lists of such definitions. There are, however,  disambiguation pages consisting of pointers to other pages; these are used to clarify differing meanings of a word. Wikipedia also includes  glossary pages for various specialized fields.
# A usage guide or slang and idiom guide. Wikipedia is not in the business of saying how words, idioms, etc. should be used. We aren't teaching people how to talk like a Cockney chimney-sweep. However, it may be important in the context of an encyclopedia article to describe just how a word is used to distinguish among similar, easily confused ideas, as in nation or freedom. In some special cases an article about an essential piece of slang may be appropriate.
----
Due to the many AfDs which are initiated to enforce this policy and due to the resistance to such deletion by defenders of the glossaries, I have started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Slang glossaries to rewrite the policy in order to solve this problem and to readdress this question: should slang glossaries by allowed on Wikipedia?  --List Expert 23:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attention: Slang Glossary policy discussion underway 

message: It's not hard to figure out what kind of people are getting their kicks out of this article and the links.  This article is unworthy of Wikipedia and should be deleted.
Actually, there's no way to know who reads the page or why. A recent discussion concluded that the page was worthy of inclusion. Feel free to (re)start the WP:AfD process if you feel otherwise. DMacks 03:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This Page is a Disgrace 

message: It seems that right after this article passed AfD due to Uncle Ed's edits, an IP reverted those edits.  If someone would help redoing this massive deletion, it'd greatly improve this article. johnpseudo 21:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  April edits by 204.52.215.77 

message: I note johnpseudo's removal of a number of unsourced links, but also the removal of several links that have their sources cited. Granted, the sources were various doctors blogs on the internet and not from a peer reviewed journal, but we are highly unlikely to obtain citations from NEJM. The closest we have managed has been the student BMJ and some news services. What sort of level of citation reference material are we requiring here? Orinoco-w (talk) 08:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Self-published sources are unreliable.  So no forum posts or blog posts, and student newspaper editorials are pushing it. johnpseudo 05:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Then why is http://www.medicalspamd.com/the-blog/2007/5/19/medical-slang-how-doctors-insult-their-patients-and-each-other.html okay? Orinoco-w (talk) 12:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

text: It isn't. delete it. johnpseudo 14:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What constitutes good sources? 

message: Some of the material in the BBC report at  http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3159813.stm seems to have been lifted verbatim from this Wikipedia site. Shouldn´t the BBC at least give its source?
93.129.221.147 (talk) 14:51, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for looking out for us, but check the date on that report again. (I didn't get it at first, either.) --Kizor 21:23, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Plagiarism by BBC?

message: Tried to include the following references to additions to the list:
Literary Norfolk http://www.literarynorfolk.co.uk/normal_for_norfolk.htm Medical Abbreviations http://www.medicabbreviations.com/abbreviations/10529.html Medical Acronyms http://www.shartwell.freeserve.co.uk/humor-site/medical-acronyms.htm
but cannot figure out how to do so.
Yada2365 (talk) 22:48, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: citations

message: I changed the definition from a reference to substandard doctors at the N&N to the more widely accepted (Google for evidence, or just ask a doctor) view that this term was invented by doctors at the N&N and refers to low intelligence through inbreeding.
Sorry to see it has been reverted, as the substandard doctor/hospital interpretation may be used by a very small pocket of the medical profession but it is not the wider understanding of the term, and is therefore incorrect.  
I did originally include a citation to this and two other commonly used abbreviations but lost the will to live trying to understand how to mark up the references correctly. Yada2365 (talk) 22:48, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: NFN

message: Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources.  Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you.  Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:40, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Please note: many of the definitions removed were verifiably copied from other sources. (See Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2011 March 29 for a few.) Some of them may have been original. If restoring any of the definitions removed, please make sure first that the content was not taken from another publication. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:43, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Medical slang. 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/20080911033640/http://student.bmj.com/search/pdf/02/07/ed.pdf to http://student.bmj.com./search/pdf/02/07/ed.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050116032903/http://www.totse.com/en/ego/literary_genius/aclamt.html to http://www.totse.com/en/ego/literary_genius/aclamt.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071214010225/http://www.stoppagingme.com/ to http://www.stoppagingme.com/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070814093214/http://www.stoppagingme.com/articles.php?articleId=27 to http://www.stoppagingme.com/articles.php?articleId=27
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) 19:22, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified