Talk:Keratoconus/Archive 1

message: This article was written by Julia Ziobro, keratoconus patient since 1985. (unsigned comment by RodC 13:43, 29 August 2004)
*Let's at least give credit where credit is due. It appears from the history that the article was started by Iain with BillC providing the majority of the content. But who's keeping track anyway? -AED 21:03, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's long since been removed from the article. In all the reliable sources I have read on the subject, I never once came across this statement. I feel pretty sure it's well shot down. --BillC 08:59, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspected this would be the case, because I'd never heard of it described this way, and it just dones't make any sense, to boot.Umlautbob 04:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Keratoconus

message: It's a pretty informative article. Have you read Larry Wall's cornea transplant diary? Anyway, I think the article could be cleaned up a little. The article seems to have as much to do with cornea transplant as it does with keratoconus. Maybe the article could focus more on keratoconus. Not everybody with keratoconus will require a transplant. 
Overall, I think the article is informative and looks promising, but needs a bit of work. I will see if I can find some kind of image for keratoconus. --Barista | a/k/a マイケル | T/C 16:47, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: Good job BillC. It look much improved over the original. I keep meaning to look for a good image of keratoconus. I work for the Ophthalmology dept at a local teaching hospital and we have thousands of teaching photos of various eye conditions. However, I won't know if we have any good images until go through some of them. Most of them are 35mm slides, and the cataloging isn't that great. --Barista | a/k/a マイケル | T/C 23:28, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kudos 

message: " It is sometimes called the "academic's eye disease" because two-thirds of the people afflicted with it have IQs above 130. "
This is interesting. Got a reference somewhere? CW 19:16, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's long since been removed from the article. In all the reliable sources I have read on the subject, I never once came across this statement. I feel pretty sure it's well shot down. --BillC 08:59, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspected this would be the case, because I'd never heard of it described this way, and it just dones't make any sense, to boot.Umlautbob 04:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Academic's Eye Disease 

message: The number of external links in this article grows ever upward; many are links to individual's home pages and blogs. These is likely to end up as broken links, and the content in some of the links is not always encyclopedic material. The article is becoming less like an encyclopedia entry and more like a web page for people to post their experiences with KC. While that's commendable, it is not what is expected in an encyclopedia. I'm proposing that we strike away most, if not all of those links and replace that section with References. In there we can put some more scholarly and verifiable sources. Any thoughts? --BillC 17:37, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links and references 

message: Contact lens is currently nominated to be improved on Wikipedia:Article Improvement Drive. Please support the article with your vote. --Fenice 10:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article Improvement Drive

message: A small caption would be useful for the image in the intro. CG 10:46, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Caption needed 

message: *Regarding: "The German oculist Burchard Mauchart provided possibly the earliest description of keratoconus in a 1748 doctoral dissertation." Consider explaining how he described his findings. -AED 08:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have addressed the above the best I can for the moment. (Still no info about the origin of the word.) There were case descriptions of keratoconus by Benedict Duddel (1729) and Taylor (1766) as well, but details on these are sketchy (as they are also on Mauchart). I have more data on Nottingham, having read a copy of his 1854 book, but to add much more would skew this section a little around him. I also added a sentence on history post nineteenth century, but I am unsure where to take this thought. Go into too much detail about the twentieth century developments, and you end up covering what's in the rest of the article. If you have some ideas, they would be welcome! --BillC 20:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Great work! I'm learning a lot! -AED 21:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: History

message: *Consider changing section title to Signs & Symptoms, or including a section entitled Signs. For example: "As the disease continues, their astigmatism becomes more pronounced and irregular." This describes a clinical sign. What the patient experiences from this (i.e. the blurring of vision) is a symptom. -AED 08:46, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I took the astigmatism mention out of the Symptoms section, leaving it to refer to symptoms alone. Astigmatism is now linked as a clinical sign under Diagnosis. --BillC 10:50, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Symptoms

message: *Consider mentioning the importance of medical history during an eye examination. -AED 08:50, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have referenced the sources for that section, and changed the format slightly. The sources I had however were at variance with the thought that a 'globus' cone was a manifestation of keratoconus. I will continue to look further though, and perhaps you have some more thoughts to add here. --BillC 11:30, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Diagnosis

message: *Consider changing the title of section to Epidemiology per Wikipedia:WikiProject Clinical medicine/Template for medical conditions. This will enable information regarding incidence to be included (e.g. ). -AED 08:35, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Epidemiology

message: *Consider adding mention of other corneal thinning disorders such as Terrien's marginal degeneration. Responds to steroids so is not a non-inflammatory disorder. -AED 23:28, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Related disorders

message: *The term "development" may be confused with "cause". Given that Cause follows this section, consider changing the title of section to Prognosis per Wikipedia:WikiProject Clinical medicine/Template for medical conditions. -AED 08:28, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Prognosis

message: *Consider changing the order of the information presented from broad to specific: Cause is somewhat of a mystery, but probably arises due to a number of different factors (i.e. genetic and enviromental). Mention general corneal changes next. Mention cellular changes last. -AED 01:36, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cause and pathophysiology

message: *Consider mentioning "corneal ectasia". Keratoconus was or  still is a corneal ectasia depending upon the source. -AED 23:20, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *I dropped the word ectasia in. I did not however go into the Smolek paper, preferring to avoid the detail about (no) increase in surface area. --BillC 17:23, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Miscellaneous

message: These were the recent changes:
* Created a Symptoms seection, and limit discussion in it to what the patient's experiences. This section is currently unreferenced.
* Created a Signs and diagnosis section, it not really being possible to separate the two.
* Moved the section on corneal hydrops to Prognosis for the time being.
* Moved the explanation of 'the visual disortion experienced by the patient' to Pathophysiology and cause.
Some review of these sections will be needed.
--BillC 19:53, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The associations with allergies and eye-rubbing are already in the article. -AED 18:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reordering 

message: This eye condition is rather unsightly.  I do not recommend a picture like this be featured on the main page, as it may prevent visitors from returning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.109.170.225 (talk • contribs) 
Gross!  --M4-10 07:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Slightly wonky?! eughh, it's freaking me out, it looks like a Madonna boob ca. 1991.  I'm not saying change it though. --Deglr6328 18:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh, and there's also a painting of a nude woman in the 'Did you know?' section. If anything that may be more inappropriate to some, hehe. Cowman109Talk 18:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: So Ugly

message: Why isn't this page protected seeing as it's a featured artical for today? Loserdog3000 16:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For some reason or another they haven't been protecting featured articles lately so people spend all day reverting vandalism. It's getting quite annoying. ~ Wave of Mutilation 16:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The theory being that we get an influx of new users who run across the featured article and find it really cool that they can edit it.  Whereas if we locked down everything with high visibility we wouldn't get the same kind of introduction into Wikipedia's "you can edit everything" culture.  --Cyde↔Weys 16:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It just seems new users are just seeing racist or petty vandilism. Loserdog3000 16:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Nearly reached 100 cites of that subpage now  according to "What links here" :) GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 20:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, now you see why I wrote it ;) Raul654 20:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Featured articles are never protected, because although they receive substantially more traffic, they also receive substantially more good traffic by people with useful contributions. Deco 20:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unprotected?! 

message: Is it possible to get an image of an eye with this condition where the eyelids are not retracted? At the moment, this image may be misleading, as people may not realise the eyelids have been manually retracted. Carcharoth 21:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I made a minor edit to the image. It's more difficult to alter the lower eyelid. Some users, however, object to this type of editing. Ideally, look for a better free image. Shawnc 04:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That does look better, but that was really only addressing the concerns of people who were repulsed by the stretched eyelids as well as the conical shape (I wasn't repulsed by either, for the record). Once I realised that the eyelids were retracted, I thought: "I wonder what it looks like without the eyelids pulled back" - so that does need a new picture entirely. Is the original uploader of the picture still around? Carcharoth 06:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture with eyelids not retracted? 

message: Hi! I've translated the whole text of the article into Russian. Alas, most of the images here are "local", belonging to the english Wikipedia. It would be great to have them in the Commons! 
--CopperKettle 09:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: P.S. It turned out that most of the images were successfully allowed to be inserted into the russian wiki. Only the "Intacs" image did not. --CopperKettle 09:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Please add the images to the Commons, so they could be used in the Russian [[ru:Кератоконус]] page and other non-english wikipedias

message: I added the image to the right to the article, at the signs section, please feel free to move it or remove it in order to keep the featured status, but please notify me at my talk page, thank you Maen. K. A. (talk) 21:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a good image, but lens is misspelled. Since it's an SVG image, it should be easy to correct and reload over the orginal. —BillC talk 23:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've seen this image before, and wondered: isn't the stroma getting thinner in keratoconus? As I remember, it does; then this image might give a false impression of it getting thicker. Best regards, --CopperKettle 06:49, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I corrected both issues hope its good now??, and thank you both :-) Maen. K. A. (talk) 10:22, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you! Really appreciate your contribution! --CopperKettle 14:32, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you too :-) MaenK.A.Talk 16:14, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Image