Talk:Pilonidal cyst

message: It was discussed by Herbert Mayo in 1830. R.M. Hodges was the first to use the phrase "pilonidal cyst" to describe the condition in 1880. 
:.  Someone please provide sources so we can put this text back into the article. --Una Smith 13:49, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: etymology

message: I don't want to come in and trash good research, but it seems to me there is some confusion, maybe in the use of certain terminology, or perhaps there needs to be seperate pages for some of the information included.  For instance, in saying "The term "pilonidal cyst" can be misleading, as a majority of the time, this is actually an abscess..." perhaps the writer(s) are confusing two things as one.  Pilonidal Cysts DO exist.  It is a growth at the base of the tailbone.  Mostly, the growth is benign and many people who have it may go their entire lifetime without being bothered by it, or even without knowing about it!  However, there are those unfortunate souls who do, for whatever reason, experience a Pilonidal abcsess ALONG WITH the cyst.  My doctor suggested I had caused minor injury to my tailbone (where there is a cyst)which caused inflammation and infection at the site of the cyst which then became infection and an abcess.  Treatment follows for the abcess, which is what causes the pain, not the cyst.  The cyst can be removed from the bone surgically, but it can recur.  This cyst isn't lanced; the abcess is.  To the best of my knowledge, the abcess rarely requires surgery (because it becomes literally impossible to sit long before the abcess can reach such a stage) but, the cyst, being subdermal, does require surgery to remove.Mjoksiglandi 20:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  misinformation 

message: I had my pilonidal cyst removed a few weeks ago. Fairly simple procedure, and the nurse showed me the cyst afterwards. Fairly nasty looking!
… and now I realize, I should've taken a camera so I could put a picture up here. D'oh! Oh well. -- Kesh (talk) 18:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I added one.  JerryTahl (talk) 06:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I hate you. Jtrainor (talk) 03:03, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: People argue about whether Feces or Autofellatio should have a picture, but no one questions this? 134.10.18.182 (talk) 04:26, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

text: I'm going to propose that we either relocate the picture to lower down in the entry, or put it behind a cut. No one should have to look at a close-up photo of someone's anus when clicking onto a page. Bricology (talk) 19:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not near or in the anus.  It's in the gluteal cleft (also known as as the butt crack) well above the rectal area. The picture in the article isn't any worse than the pictures in similar articles, like the Abscess article.  I see no reason why it should be moved down.  JerryTahl (talk) 23:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

text: Why not move the image down further? 98.198.83.12 (talk) 04:07, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  It seems fine the way it is. I noticed something similar to this near my tailbone this morning, and I think that having the picture in plain sight is very helpful for those who came to this page in search of information. Besides, it's not like the picture is sexual, humorous, or even slightly offensive. --Dagonius VI (talk) 22:42, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

text: I agree. Leave it the way it is. It demonstrates quite clearly what the sinus/cyst looks like. If people dont want to see an anus, they shouldn't be looking at this article. Wiki ian 09:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

text: I agree that the picture - especially zoomed in like that - is not a good representation of the subject. --Golbez (talk) 16:49, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay folks this is one of the reason Wikipedians get a bad rep.  99% of users do not expect to see close ups of this taking up their whole sceen when they enter the page.  I have removed the images so my family member can read about their symptoms in peace without throwing up.  Do not put them back until they are behind an expandable cut for medical closeups. 2605:E000:850A:B000:1C44:FBAB:303A:510E (talk) 21:20, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

text:  Also, provide evidence that it is not a photo of YOUR ass being posted for gratification purposes because that's been an issue in the past and if you're insisting so strongly on keeping the image in people's faces it makes us all wonder. 2605:E000:850A:B000:1C44:FBAB:303A:510E (talk) 21:23, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

text: And I would encourage you all to re-read Wikipedia policy:  "When multiple options are equally effective at portraying a concept, the most offensive options should not be used merely to "show off" possibly offensive materials. Images containing offensive material that is extraneous, unnecessary, irrelevant, or gratuitous are not preferred over non-offensive ones in the name of opposing censorship. Rather, they should be judged based solely on other policies for content inclusion.  Per the Foundation, controversial images should follow the principle of 'least astonishment': we should choose images that respect the conventional expectations of readers for a given topic as much as is possible without sacrificing the quality of the article. For example, editors selecting images for articles like Human body have thousands of images of naked bodies and body parts available to them, but they normally choose images that portray the human body in an unemotional, non-sexual standard anatomical position over more sexual images due to greater relevance to the subject—the more sexual one is not given special favor simply because it is more offensive. Similarly, editors at articles like Automobile do not include images of vehicles with naked women posing near them, even though such images exist and "Wikipedia is not censored", due to concerns about relevance. Wikipedia is not censored, but Wikipedia also does not favor offensive images over non-offensive images."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:850A:B000:1C44:FBAB:303A:510E (talk) 21:30, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture for the article 

message: The pain associated with pilonidal cysts is underrated in the article.  I had to take Hydrocodone four times per day to treat the pain--and that only took the edge off the pain.  The pain became so bad that my body twitched, my muscles spasmed, and I had to sleep off much of the pain.  Perhaps this is a rare case, but I believe that the pain should be emphasized more prominently in this article.  Afghanistan Veteran (talk) 03:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I can agree. I'm recovering from one as I write this, and I can tell you, the pain is stunning for a few days. Doctors have confirmed that these kinds of cysts can often be excruciating. Worth noting. Black Max (talk) 22:38, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Pain

message: do we have a source for the treatment section?  i'm just a little curious because i just had a pilonidal cyst removed last week and was looking for information on recovery times, and when i looked at the treatment section it didn't seem right to me.  i have a gauze packing and no one was instructed on how to change the gauze and i was given no instructions on how to do it myself.  is this information up to date?  or should i be suing for malpractice? maybe it could be more detailed?Killemall22 (talk) 07:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, never consider suing for malpractice because of something you read on the internet. Secondly, did you have it removed, or simply lanced? The difference is if there is a small hole with gauze in it, or if half your butt is missing and covered in gauze. If it's the latter, surely you have a checkup date scheduled with the doctor of hospital. But again, really, ask your doctor first about anything. --Golbez (talk) 03:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe you have a "closed" wound, in which the doctor will replace your packing as needed. This is different from the healing procedure described in the article for an "open" wound, in which the wound heals from the bottom up. --Dave.Hulick (talk) 02:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I took out a statement about Bascom condemning excision because the references I saw on the web seem to have him using a midline approach but still doing excision, thus not condemning it at all.  --Vannin (talk) 21:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  treatment

message: Is it correct to say that "pilonidal cyst" is exactly synonymous with "pilonidal sinus"? I would think that, in general, a cyst is not the exact same thing as a sinus, even if the phenomena are related (e.g., causally). --Keith111 (talk) 23:22, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't say it's synonymous; it says it's "also referred as", which is true, the terms are used interchangeably in all lay contexts. --Golbez (talk) 23:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Synonym list in opening paragraph 

message: that this talk page is to discuss improvements to the Pilonidal Cyst article. It is not a general discussion board or forum for discussion of pilonidal cysts or for sharing one's own personal experiences with the subject. Thank you. Stonemason89 (talk) 19:49, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Just a reminder

message: Creating a "Famous Sufferers" section referenced by a sensational link to snopes.com...  just wondering if this was meant to inform or entertain, and whether it's customary. 71.246.150.103 (talk) 17:19, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This does seem rather seedy and unnecessary. I am going to remove it. Andyparkerson (talk) 03:22, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Disagree. Limbaugh is perhaps the only "celebrity" who is known for suffering from a pilonidal cyst. Moreover, he used it to avoid service in Vietnam. It's definitely worth mentioning, though it should be objectively handled and not sensationalized. Also, linking to Snopes.com is not automatically "sensationalizing" the subject. Black Max (talk) 22:35, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Rush Limbaugh section