Talk:Diabetes/Article Structure

message: The subject deserves an array of articles and not a single one to be comprehensive and to make a good reading. Once again we bump into the issue of "reflecting scientific knowledge" and "being understandable for general public". I'm afraid it cannot be reconciled.
This page should probably be an opening portal to other articles on diabetes describing dozens
of related subjects in greater detail. (see History of Poland for example). We should direct patients and interested lay public to suitable sections/separate articles.
:There already exist a panapoly of supporting articles on various aspects of DM. See the links in the text, many of which have survived the recent major rewrite for some examples. This article, before Jeeves major changes, did not reflect scientific knowledge in any detail whatsoever. It included a good deal of statement, at a very high level of abstraction from the detailed scientific knowledge -- relating to curability, the known consequences of failure to treat or manage DM, and a survey of the available medications and what they do. 
:As an opening portal, or alternatively, an article of first reference, an article about DM should in my view address a number of issues even if not exhaustively. Among them would be to equip the Reader with a 'high abstraction level' understanding of what DM is, of the current state of treatment, of the prospects of improved treatment, and sufficient warnings about dangers (eg, of quackery) to increase the Reader's ability to detect BS. 
:To the extent that this results in a longer article than some would like, I think that unavoidable. DM is complex -- physically and medically across many physiological and specialty boundaries, not well understood even now, has no straighforward palliative treatment, expensive, and epidemic. No such subject is addressable succinctly. ww 14:02, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  rewrite 

message: I believe this article has failed to make it to the featured article section a couple of times. To qualify, major changes might have to be made such as separating parts to their own articles and lots of copyediting but I believe it can be accomplished soon if we beat at it a little longer. Alex.tan 11:52, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Alex, I agree that we can do it if we keep trying. Sigh... ww 14:03, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured article ... 

message: Hey this is what I want to do:
Add Diabetis Type 1 to the Autoimmune disease category, but only type one and it needs to say Daibetis Type 1 on the Category page, also the link on the page should take you to the daibetis type 1 section of the diabetis page. Also it would be good if the category of Atoimmune diseases did not appear at the foot of the diabetis page as not all of diabetis belongs to that category. Some of this might be possible or not, anyone?, this is User:mexaguil 219.88.206.183 11:14, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the time is coming that we need to split this article anyway. The article as a whole should be about diabetic emergencies and end-organ damage, with subarticles on DMI and DMII that emphasise on pathogenesis and specific therapies (e.g. islet transplants for DMI). 13:34, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Something that might be possible=

message: The recent extensive revisions of this article have had the beneficial effect of clarifying the structure and removing a goodly portion of the low growth weeds. 
Unfortunately, in rereading the article (assuming as well as I can manage a "naive" perspective), I have come to the conclusion that the revisions have had the unfortunate effect of changing it from an (somewhat) useful article of first resort (somewhat) suited to the Average Reader, to a "high level DM overview" -- with pointers. 
This is unfortunate, and some additional work is needed as the Average Reader is not the sort of person who can assemble a mental picture of a technical topic from various articles pointed to in passing. This is a skill which is rare enough amongst those specifically trained to develop it (eg, physcians), and very much less present in the general populations. If nothing else, insufficient context is currently available to give such a Reader an understanding of which linked to articles are necessary for an initial understanding and which can be deferred. Which is to say, that "context" and "perspective" have been lost/reduced as a result of these revisions. 
The previous article, with all its vices (plentiful) was better on these points. 
Please note that this objection is not a technical one, nor an encyclopedic one (except perhaps that an article of first resort on important topics should perhaps be an official rubric for encyclopedias), but a writing/teaching/understanding one. Non-technical readers have entirely characteristic properties and behaviors and limitations (a personal empirical observation, professionally) and WP writers/editors must -- to do their jobs well --recognize this and compensate for it. The article in its current state substantially fails to do so; the prior verison did so (somewhat) better and so the recent edits are wrongfooted. 
I would undertake revisions to this effect on my own hook (on the general principle of "Be Bold!"), but so many editors have become involved with the article that I am inviting discussion before even really thinking about it. Comments, please! ww 16:25, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The first pair of sentences in the article are pretty nasty...Midgley 10:23, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: recent refactoring wrongfooted; needs rerefactoring

message: These two articles have been separate since 2002. Most of the information is duplicate from the present article, but given the many changes in all three articles the information has become inconsistent. Either all three articles are merged, or the general article has to bee thinned out. I would think that given the fact that both forms of diabetes have important issues in common regarding diagnosis, treatment, and complications, I would favor merging. Andreas 14:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would be against any merger. I think that the parent article should be thinned out. DM1 and DM2 are more than enough for individual pages. And they are quite different in their epidemiology, history, diagnosis, and treatment. If the articles don't reflect that, they should be altered rather than be merged, IMHO! InvictaHOG 17:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

text: agreed - no merge.  they are very different topics.  this article (the main DM page) is way too verbose, complicated, and bulky anyway. Tmkain 03:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duplicatiohn with [[Diabetes mellitus type 1]] and [[Diabetes mellitus type 2]]