Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles/Archive 1

message: I propose a new part of the Manual of Style, and more specifically of Special Article Styles, about writing medical articles.
It contains a number of topics related to problems that can be encountered while writing such articles. It should give these articles more uniformity and help editors face some challenges in the area, such as writing for the average reader. I long searched for such a guideline, and when I learned it didn't exist yet I started writing it, using existing parts from Wikipedia:WikiProject_Clinical_medicine/Template_for_medical_conditions.
Please discuss below if you think this is a good idea, and give feedback on it's content.
--Steven Fruitsmaak | Talk 11:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is a great idea - in fact, I had thought over the last few days that it would be nice to construct something like this. It's nice that someone had already taken steps in the right direction. I'll give it a look! InvictaHOG 15:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

text: As an alternative, it could be an essay on Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine, since some other projects also have some similar page on their subjects, but none in the MoS (e.g. this one). On the other hand, several other topics have started a MoS entry (like mathematics). I prefer a MoS entry because I think it will create wider exposure and easier access for people looking for it.--Steven Fruitsmaak | Talk 21:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed Manual of Style/Special Article Styles entry

message: They've got too many letters usually, can't be promnounced by humans (you peopole even use the wrong word for viscous -- it means thickness in a flow sense, not all them organs underneath the diaphraghm!! "Molasses is viscous, the liver is an abdominal organ."), and though there are connections with other medical terminology, the Average Reader will not know them. Since we're wriitng for that Average Reader, article titles should mean something to him/her, not merely be a collection of nonsense syllables. 
So in a discussion about which of the technical medical and out of hte Average Reader's ken terms should be used for blood fat problems, the discussion is off the point. The title should be something like, Blood fat disorders. First, it makes immediately clear that we're not talking about thunder thighs (at least not precisely), that it's fat (lipid is a mysterious thing no one amonst the Average populace is too much sure of -- animal, vegetable, or mineral?), and last it's a disorder. Somethings's wrong. 
The first sentences of that article should perhaps introduce the term --
: lipid (means the same thing, but includes all the various forms of fat it can have in the blood), that some instances are deadly dangerous, some likely a problem, some probably merely a curiosity, and othere entirely mysterious.  How does li[pid get into the blood, what are the major forms, how does it leave the blood, why do we even have any (efficiecy of energy storage of course). Absolutely normal stuff most of this. But like most things, it can go awry and we understand some of these and something about how some of them happen. These are the major problems......   And these are a few of the minor problems sometimes seen.....  Overall people can reduce their chances of the bad sort by .... But some of this is hereditary (about this much and heres why it's believed to be so) and we don't know how to manage that part yet. ... 
Our target reader (the Average One) will be able to take from this sort of thing much more than from an article more precise and terse, having used proper terminology. Use it by all menas, but only after taking care not to drown our Average Reader. 
No bricks, please. Just flowers and well wishes. Save that tomato for the sauce. ww 20:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. Although articles generally need a short section intended for the average reader, replacing scientific terms with descriptions based on popular usage will lead to ambiguity. Anyway, "viscous" and "lipid" are commonplace terms which are taught in introductory secondary-school courses, and simply wiki-linking them allows those unfamiliar with these terms to discover what they mean. Nevertheless, excessively pretentious terms should be avoided. Pcu123456789 19:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: scientific names immiscible with the Average Reader

message: I'd tend to put "Epidemiology" up alongside "Cause/(a)Etiology" - the two are both to do with how illnesses take root, after all? I might also move "Pathophysiology" above "Diagnosis", as often diagnostic techniques can be easier to understand with the "basic" (I use the term advisedly!) science already discussed.--Nmg20 17:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This list is only a model and should not, in my opinion, always be followed. Pathophysiology is above diagnosis no?--Steven Fruitsmaak | Talk 18:54, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ordering 

message: When creating the list of references, Wikipedia:Footnotes#Style_recommendations suggests the use of the template:

:...which includes the commented explanation of how to generate footnotes.
:RESIZING (to a standard 92%) with the template mentioned above (perhaps for articles with a long list of footnotes):

:--apers0n 06:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whilst WP:Footnotes does mention this, this is in context of providing help to editors new to the cite.php system, i.e. in Wikipedia:Footnotes#Helping editors unfamiliar with this system of footnotes. The preceeding section, Wikipedia:Footnotes#Style recommendations actually offers the following: . Which has the distinct advantage of not specifying the numerical value of 'small'. Using  is surely inviting the unwarey, inexperienced or vandal to tinker with that '92%' to some indecipherable lower value. David Ruben  Talk  23:57, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What about , which produces the following code:
!-- ----------------------------------------------------------
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Footnotes for a 
discussion of different citation methods and how to generate 
footnotes using the ,  and  <reference /> tags
- ---------------------------------------------------------- -->



--apers0n 10:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: References/ tagging

message: A slightly different topic, but since the page is being worked on:  I also left OMIM out of the "disease" box on Tourette syndrome because the OMIM info on TS is woefully inaccurate.  Sandy 13:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This doesn't seem to belong here...--Steven Fruitsmaak | Talk 21:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: um ... the proposed template includes the infobox, which includes OMIM.  No?  Sandy 21:09, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But this discussion is not about the Infobox itself. I don't understand what you are arguing, are you proposing any change to the project page here?--Steven Fruitsmaak | Talk 21:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Slightly different topic

message: In the beginning of the page I've made some references to other policies and guidelines on wikipedia. If anyone could put more references in the rest of this page, this would be greatly appreciated! After all, we do want to cite our sources, no...?--Steven Fruitsmaak | Talk 00:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help needed 

message: There has been a movement to un-do reliable sources as a guideline, and it now has a disputed tag.  (For disclosure, I am in favor of keeping WP:RS).  I believe the section of RS which applies to medical articles is very helpful, particularly in distinguishing information published in  the popular press without the benefit of good peer review or medical consensus, and pseudoscience, from good, peer-reviewed sources.  Should we consider including any of the verbiage from there in MEDMOS?  (Copied below).  Sandy (Talk) 16:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've copied parts of it: don't think arvix is very relevant (as compared to PubMed), and that last section was also not very relevant. I guess now the entire thing needs a good rewrite or review?--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 21:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reliable sources

message: The "Quick list of sections" for use in medication articles seems a bit strange to me, particularly the presence of "Diagnosis", "Treatment" and "Prognosis" headings, and the lack of a "Indications" heading (although this can often be covered in the lead). Were these intentional or did they slip past? (I am, however, adding my support below – to me this is a minor glitch, not something I "take issue with" or find incompatible with MEDMOS becoming a guideline.) Fvasconcellos 00:09, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sections

message: This proposal has been floating about, under different names, for quite a while.  Is it time to develop consensus as to whether it should become a guideline, rather than a proposal?  Are there any members of the Medical Projects who oppose this as a guideline?  Sandy (Talk) 15:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've alerted some projects I considered related, hopefully people will come to express consensus. Please discuss below.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 21:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at other articles in the sidebar at WP:MOS, it appears that Joke is correct.  Sandy (Talk) 16:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, and so it was moved. Thanks.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 16:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

text: *I see someone's just removed this section. I do think there is some merit in covering how one discerns which articles to use, the types of articles there are (e.g. large scale studies, case notes, reviews), why review articles are often better than the more basic research papers as a source for Wikipedia, whether to cite the papers/books you actually read or to cite the seminal paper you've only read about, etc. Some of this overlaps the science-related articles MoS. Colin°Talk 18:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I am not totally clueless.  I do understand the use of epidemiology in some circles for genetic disorders (mostly from the clinical side).  I see both uses in the medical/research literature, although mostly "incidence" for the journals I scan.  It may not be the best example.  The question was, "should clinical terms be used in all cases, in particular with all genetic disorders?"  Is a "clinical bias" always the best way?  What happens for articles that span interests?  Remember, medical genetics and human genetics do not have the same viewpoints.  I tried looking at Down syndrome and how it could written with the clinical medicine format, but it simply didn't work.  Of course, that could also simply be my own inadequacies.  TedTalk/Contributions 20:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Appologies to Ted. I misunderstood your example. Colin°Talk 23:12, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

text: It is worth pointing out that the article has changed considerably since this guideline was first "put to the vote". It would certainly need a new round of opinion-seeking and the more views put forward, the better. Colin°Talk 22:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It does still need some work - I reverted some massive changes earlier today - some of them were good, but the changes went too far without talk page consensus on several issues.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal or guideline

message: * My compliments to Steven for his hard work on this, something I vaguely remember starting off in 2004 but never quite completing. It offers sensible advice and a reasonable standard. Of course I take issue with the eponym thing - but as an avowed eponymophiliac I could do no different :-). JFW | T@lk 23:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at other articles in the sidebar at WP:MOS, it appears that Joke is correct.  Sandy (Talk) 16:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, and so it was moved. Thanks.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 16:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments and suggestions

message: # Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 21:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: The proposal contains much useful information, but I am against making it a guideline in its current state. It needs major cleanup, specifically:
* Resources need to be separated out from the rest of the article instead of being scattered throughout. You've got some useful tips like "don't use disclaimers" and "avoid citing the popular press", but in between there's these huge lists of sections & templates which break up the text and make it impossible to follow. All the do's and don'ts should be together, and the resources (infobox templates, resource templates, drug article sections, disease articles sections) should be in one place, ideally on another page.
* Redundant information from other guidelines should be removed unless there's a specific reason why it applies to medical articles. For example, the top ten tips should not include "be bold" and "look for the appropriate category". On the other hand, I have no problem with the disclaimer tip, since that addresses a problem which is particularly common in medical articles.
* Unnecessary detail should be removed. Does it matter if disease naming was discussed at some NIH conference in 1975? I've read that section several times and I still don't know if a Wikipedia policy on disease names exists. 
* Less of a wish-list, more of a practical guide. Is anyone going to completely re-organize a perfectly good medical article just so that the top level headers conform to the list given in this guideline? If not, is the list anything more than a wish-list that's cluttering up the page? What we need is a practical guide for the editors of medical articles, which will be used by them because they find it useful.
In short, I propose some ruthless pruning before making this a guideline. KonradG 16:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *I see someone's just removed this section. I do think there is some merit in covering how one discerns which articles to use, the types of articles there are (e.g. large scale studies, case notes, reviews), why review articles are often better than the more basic research papers as a source for Wikipedia, whether to cite the papers/books you actually read or to cite the seminal paper you've only read about, etc. Some of this overlaps the science-related articles MoS. Colin°Talk 18:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I am not totally clueless.  I do understand the use of epidemiology in some circles for genetic disorders (mostly from the clinical side).  I see both uses in the medical/research literature, although mostly "incidence" for the journals I scan.  It may not be the best example.  The question was, "should clinical terms be used in all cases, in particular with all genetic disorders?"  Is a "clinical bias" always the best way?  What happens for articles that span interests?  Remember, medical genetics and human genetics do not have the same viewpoints.  I tried looking at Down syndrome and how it could written with the clinical medicine format, but it simply didn't work.  Of course, that could also simply be my own inadequacies.  TedTalk/Contributions 20:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Appologies to Ted. I misunderstood your example. Colin°Talk 23:12, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

text: It is worth pointing out that the article has changed considerably since this guideline was first "put to the vote". It would certainly need a new round of opinion-seeking and the more views put forward, the better. Colin°Talk 22:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It does still need some work - I reverted some massive changes earlier today - some of them were good, but the changes went too far without talk page consensus on several issues.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Oppose

message: Hi there; been editing several articles within medical fields, but there's some strange happenings with some articles with regards to PubMed and eMedicine articles. The majority of information that can be gotten publicly through these resources is not enough to get a rounded article on such a matter, due to the lack of figures attained during a study or experiment, aims and soforth. 
While eMedicine does provide full figures and analysis, some features require an eMedicine subscription, as well as the majority of articles having information which has not been updated for several years; making verifiability somewhat more difficult. I admit that the current situation on Journals makes it difficult to get detailed information, particularly for people who are researching outside the confines of doctor-hood or medical school.
I think there should be a guideline section for eMedicine/PubMed/Public Journal site which encourages people to use the full data and results if possible, particularly avoiding some PubMed articles if the only information is a summary, albeit somewhat vague. This would make it much easier.. particularly in rapidly improving fields to mark both the validity and change of results over months, years and so on.  JCraw 16:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  eMedicine/PubMed References 

message: At the risk causing further trouble, I've had a go at reformatting this article at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (medicine-related articles)/temp. I've examined the other MoS articles and attempted to follow their example in terms of style and scope. This is a style guide, so, for example, discussions of verifability, choosing reliable sources, and notes on "how we got here" don't belong. Such details should either be included in existing policy and guideline articles or incorporated into other Project guidelines and essays. I've removed stuff that is repeated or covered in greated depth elsewhere. I've condensed the big tables and removed the cookie-cutter text. Naturally, I've taken the opportunity of introducing my own opinions and don't expect everyone to agree. I welcome your opinions. Steven Fruitsmaak is apparently enjoying a holiday so I'd certainly like to wait for him to return before making any substantial changes to the article proper. Colin°Talk 23:12, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There was no need to wait, this should be improved and edited by any one of us. I appreciate the efforts but I feel that to much valuable information was left out in that new version. I'll look at the concerns outed (thanks for that feedback btw!) and try to address some of them.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 20:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I've had a go at it. Could someone fix the nutshell layout? Please comment.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 22:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed "Diagnosis", "Treatment" and "Prognosis" from the quick list of sections for drug articles, and added "Indications" as per my comment above. Fvasconcellos 23:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reformatting this article

message: The following lines were removed by Snowfire:
:* Be careful not to define a person or group of people by their medical condition. For example, seizures are epileptic, people are not.  	 
:* For more information, see Guidelines for Non-Handicapping Language in APA Journals.
I don't see why the second guideline was removed. It wasn't discussed. It contains much standard advise on careful language when writing about medical conditions.
As for removing the first guideline, I'm extremely disappointed at the lack of participation in discussing MEDMOS. Perhaps the talk-page section title didn't help? The first guidelines is overwhelmingly supported by professional and charitable bodies (I can supply refs if required). I don't believe MEDMOS should be "neutral on the issue". Snowfire - you've just come from a discussion on "Diabetic" where I accept there isn't strong felling against the term (though both Diabetes charities and journals disapprove of the term as a noun). However, there is no strong feeling for the term. If it is possible to write articles in a clear and no-clumsy way without causing offence to people-groups then that should be done. One way of doing that is to advocate person-first as a preferred writing style. Colin°Talk 09:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of guidelines careful language 

message: Goodness, Radiant, just because we all got busy elsewhere and failed to finish up something that's almost there?  OK, what else do we need to do?  List—anyone?  I'll add my comments later tonight or tomorrow as I have time.  How about if we discuss, finish, then poll for support again? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I must say consensus may not have been reached, but discussion is certainly ongoing, and this (proposed) guideline is frequently cited. I say let's revive, discuss any points of contention, and finish this already! Fvasconcellos 15:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I don't want to irritate Radiant :-)  Should we revive then discuss, or discuss then revive ?  I feel badly that I dropped the ball several months ago due to travel, while Colin had done lots of work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we're OK to revert back to a proposal as long as activity resumes and also quickly seek "broader input via a forum such as the village pump". I'd rather we had some indication of project consensus before going that public. Colin°Talk 15:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

text: If others agree, I'm OK with reviving it while we discuss; I agree it did enjoy consensus, even though we dropped the ball on the final push and poll. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just bumbled in here: to understand the issues, it would be appropriate to display the ongoing discussion here, in one body. Is that possible? Tony 03:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, you lost me—I archived the talk page today, is that what you're referring to?  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:36, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical ? 

message: I'd also like us to decide what to do about Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Reliable sources. Is this useful? If so, should it remain where it is and be better linked to from project pages? Or should be fold it into MEDMOS even though, strictly speaking, it isn't a "style guide" issue? Colin°Talk 15:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whatever we decide, I'd like it to be more prominent.  We can't have medical articles written based on AnyJoeBloeWebsite.com or SupportGroupforConditionX.com; also, I need to review if we've said something about  because I get so tired of pruning EveryDarnSupportGroupInTheWorld from External links.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, though some organisations do have high quality patient/professional resources that I do think meet WP:EL. They should be linked directly rather than just to the home page. BTW, the Reliable Sources page has a shortcut from WP:MEDRS but this isn't obvious since the "historical" header removed that info. Colin°Talk 15:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My thought is that, if they're already in the DMOZ link, we don't need them.  If it meets EL and isn't at dmoz, we can include them, but someone should really submit the link to DMOZ.  Example:  Tourette Syndrome Association meets RS and EL, and is an organization recognized worldwide, but I don't include its link at Tourette syndrome.  If an org is that important, it should have its own article—Tourette Syndrome Association—in which case, it's a See also and not an External link.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Where are we on forums? I've seen a few over time and usually nuke them on sight, but I'm always afraid of incurring the wrath of a well-intentioned editor... Do we have a definitive position on this? I don't believe WP:EL mandates avoiding them. Fvasconcellos 15:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I nuke on sight; don't meet WP:RS, and should be at the dmoz link.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent, then; if you and JFW agree that's more than enough. Fingers will remain poised on Large Red Button. Fvasconcellos 16:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Do we mention it in our RS?  I'll read everything again and catch up tonight.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I was asking specifically with regard to EL, and, man, do I need to catch up on my guidelines; sorry about that. I do think they are separate issues, but it would be nice if this guide could cover ELs and RSs as applied to medicine articles, even if that is not a stylistic issue. Do you think this would stray from the guideline's purpose too much? Fvasconcellos 16:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Pros and cons of including that kind of info here or elsewhere; if we add it here, we need guideline consensus on one page, if we place it elsewhere, we have to reach consensus on several pages.  Not sure which process will be better, easier.  IF any one point is holding us up here, I guess we could make it a separate page, so we can get this done ?  I'm trying to think in terms of expediency now.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reliable sources, dmoz and forums 

message: I've had a look at the headings for drugs and there is very little consistency amongst articles. Also there are differences between this style guide, the boiler-plate text and WikiProject Pharmacology's Style guide. I suggest that for now, there is no consensus as to the best top-level-headings and their order. Any listing in the style guide should therefore be purely suggestive rather than enforcing. Here's an alternative, shorter list. The headings are wikilinked here for convenience but should not be linked in any actual article:
* History
* Indications (available forms, if notable)
* Contraindications
* Adverse effects (including withdrawal)
* Overdose (including toxicity)
* Physical and chemical properties
* Pharmacokinetics (absorption, distribution, metabolism and excretion)
* Pharmacodynamics (mechanism of action)
* Interactions
* Legal status (including illicit use, off-label usage or unlicensed preparations if notable and sourced)
* Veterinary use
* References
* External links (avoid if possible)
Alternatives for the "big words" would be good, but I haven't found any that satisfactorily replace them. A recent discussion on WikiProject Medicine on "Rx Dosage Instructions in Wikipedia" indicated that we should not give the dosage. I agree with this. It is not encyclopaedic or relevant to the general reader, and is subject to vandalism by anons. It is straying into giving medical advice. Some aspects of dosage may be notable. For example if one drug is much more effective than another so can be taken in a lower dose. Another example is where a drug must be taken three or four times a day and compliance then becomes an issue. These examples may find a place in the History section when discussing why this drug is an improvement or has been replaced. Colin°Talk 13:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wholeheartedly agree—in fact, I've cited this as guideline more than once :) Fvasconcellos 16:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

text: OK, I've been bold and updated the list with the above. The previous longer list didn't enjoy any actual usage. There's still plenty room to tweak this both pre and post guideline status. I've also made the "no dosage" bit a little stronger. Colin°Talk 18:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Drugs

message: ====Classification====
I'm wondering about whether to keep "Classification" as the first top level heading, or whether it should be there at all. Older text in the guide clarified this section: "Describe the varieties of the condition, and explain how they are differentiated." However, I'm struggling to find an article that has this section, other than Tourette syndrome. And in that article, I'd argue that the classification was more for where TS fits within tic disorders as well as a place to explain a few terms (a glossary). It doesn't describe varieties of TS, other than to say there is a range of severity. Some conditions do have significant varieties but I don't know whether this is the best place to distinguish them before you've even described the symptoms. It might vary depending on whether the varieties are extreme or subtle. Colin°Talk 16:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure what to do about that; it certainly provided a handy place for me to park that info (what other section would I put that info in?).  If you're following the current dilemma at Fetal alcohol syndrome and Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder, that might be another example worth considering.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just found an article that uses Classification as described: Epilepsy. Clearly for some conditions, the classification and varieties are important. For others it is a total non issue. The headings we list should be useful for most articles on disease/disorders. I'm only wondering at this stage. But clearly if it is rarely used, that's a good sign it shouldn't be in this list. That doesn't preclude its use - we aren't forcing a limited set. Colin°Talk 17:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What if we leave it, with a note that not all sections apply to all conditions?  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Diseases/disorders

message: I'm wondering about whether to keep "Classification" as the first top level heading, or whether it should be there at all. Older text in the guide clarified this section: "Describe the varieties of the condition, and explain how they are differentiated." However, I'm struggling to find an article that has this section, other than Tourette syndrome. And in that article, I'd argue that the classification was more for where TS fits within tic disorders as well as a place to explain a few terms (a glossary). It doesn't describe varieties of TS, other than to say there is a range of severity. Some conditions do have significant varieties but I don't know whether this is the best place to distinguish them before you've even described the symptoms. It might vary depending on whether the varieties are extreme or subtle. Colin°Talk 16:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure what to do about that; it certainly provided a handy place for me to park that info (what other section would I put that info in?).  If you're following the current dilemma at Fetal alcohol syndrome and Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder, that might be another example worth considering.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just found an article that uses Classification as described: Epilepsy. Clearly for some conditions, the classification and varieties are important. For others it is a total non issue. The headings we list should be useful for most articles on disease/disorders. I'm only wondering at this stage. But clearly if it is rarely used, that's a good sign it shouldn't be in this list. That doesn't preclude its use - we aren't forcing a limited set. Colin°Talk 17:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What if we leave it, with a note that not all sections apply to all conditions?  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Classification