Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Ophthalmology task force/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Invitation to an excellent beginning

Let's get all of the people together. I hereby invite everybody interested in Vision and Eye care to contribute to the long awaited wikiproject on Ophthalmology. Many thanks to AED for getting this project page working and sorting out the details. For a start, we need a shortcut to point to this page. Here's a readymade manual of style for starting Ophthalmology articles. For the past 4 months, I have been working to add articles, relevant info and clinical images to the current sections of Ophthalmology - am currently looking to get some more input and requests, so that we can get cracking - to get some really good articles, raise them to featured status and turn the project on Vision & Eye care into a resource which is one of the best in whole of Wikipedia! Cheers!!! EyeMD 05:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Project page

You'll find from the edit history that I trimmed most of the details from the main Project page. Feel free to add these back as needed. -AED 05:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Request for comments

LASIK MD

(Discussion moved from recent archives of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Clinical medicine.)

LASIK MD was recently created by User:Lasikmd. Although it screams "advertisement", I was hoping for a second opinon as to whether it meets the guidelines at WP:CORP prior to consider AfD. Thanks! -AED 05:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

AfD. For sure. But I have a conflict of interest: I turned them down for my LASIK :( -- Samir धर्म 05:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I think the group is worthy of an entry, but the way the article is written is nauseatingly self-congratulatory and more like an advertisement than an encyclopedic article. Also, since it is a Canadian private for-profit health care provider, it is a sort of odd ball. This status, I think, deserves some mention. Nephron  T|C 20:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
I have kept some track of where LASIK is going, and this group has been gunning for mileage and has been heavily advertising in the media. The article has been obviously written by a PR employee of the company, given the copy-paste going on from the website. Quoting WP:CORP - Note 1: Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. The published works must be someone else writing about the company, corporation, product, or service. I strongly recommend AfD for this advertorial. EyeMD 15:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Check out Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LASIK MD. -AED 02:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I was just going to add a notice about the AfD... but AED beat me to it. Nephron  T|C 03:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Excimer Laser Trabeculostomy and Michael berlin [sic]

User:Carl in cali created both Excimer Laser Trabeculostomy and Michael berlin in a total of three edits. Is ELT notable enough for inclusion? If so, should it be moved to Excimer laser trabeculostomy or Excimer laser trabeculotomy? Does Michael Berlin meet the guidelines under WP:PROF? If so, I'll help clean-up the article. -AED 06:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

ELT is an excellent recent addition to the glaucoma treatment, and should be a part of glaucoma treatment. Creating a separate page is not warranted (yet), it can have a redirect link to Glaucoma. EyeMD 09:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

National Institute of Opthalmology [sic]

National Institute of Opthalmology was recently created by User:Nileshgovande. It was his only edit and the article appears to have been largely copied from http://www.nioeyes.com/NIO/aboutnio.html . Should the article be cleaned-up and moved to National Institute of Ophthalmology or should it be blanked and tagged per WP:CP? A Google search reveals that there are other entities with the same name. -AED 06:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The website does not carry a notice of GFDL and thus the article falls under copyvio. Definitely fails WP:CP. The User:Nileshgovande seems to be a PR employee of this private eye practice from Pune, India. EyeMD 09:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I moved it to National Institute of Ophthalmology and reworked it as a disamb page. -AED 05:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Optical Express

Similar to the concerns with LASIK MD, does Optical Express meet the guidelines of WP:CORP? The article's creator is a regular contributor to Wiki, therefore, I don't think the article was created for the purposes of advertisement. -AED 06:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Optometry in Singapore

Optometry in Singapore was recently created by User:Martinkhk. On one hand, I'm not certain that it should be forked from Optometry. On the other, it seems as though there is enough information for it to stand alone. Thoughts? -AED 06:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

It is quite detailed and describes the profession thoroughly. I think it deserves to stay forked, with a link on the main Optometry page. EyeMD 09:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Double eyelid

I just saw that Double eyelid was created as a disamb page stub. Is it really necessary? -AED 02:18, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Merge with redirect. EyeMD 09:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Categories

I was wondering if we might have some discussion regarding what articles should be tagged with Category:Optometry, which should be tagged with Category:Ophthalmology, and which should be tagged with both. Thoughts? -AED 23:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

In the US, these two fields overlap, with Ophthalmology encompassing almost all of Optometry. However, in India, optometry as a specialty is nascent, with most of the training programs focussing on training assitants to Ophthalmologists. The separate degree of "Doctor of Optometry" as well as a a separate licensing body doesn't exist here. As such, a dual categorisation of articles would mean duplication of the tags. Just my 2 cents. EyeMD 04:49, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree. I think Category:Optometry should encompass things that are unique to optometry. There is no need to categorize myopia, hyperopia, astimatism, presbyopia, keratitis, conjunctivitis, etc, etc. with both. -AED 04:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
All these are within the purview of Ophthalmology as well. Refraction (and glasses, both of which are done by Ophthalmologists as well) and refractive surgery is needed for refractive errors, all ophthalmologists and specifically corneal specialists treat keratitis by meds & surgery, all ophthalmologists treat conjunctivitis. As I said, almost everything in Optometry is encompassed in Ophthalmology. These instances that you mention are not unique to Optometry and do need to be categorised to Ophthalmology. EyeMD 05:13, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
I think you misunderstood. I was stating that "myopia, hyperopia, astimatism, presbyopia, keratitis, conjunctivitis, etc, etc." do NOT need to be categorized under Category:Optometry. -AED 05:21, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I did. That's why my reply alluded to their relevance to Ophthalmology. So, what specific articles do you think should have the exclusive Optometry category tag? One, I think, could be the Optometry article itself, and its related country specific articles, like the one in Singapore that we discussed recently. I should be working back on my laptop soon than the cybercafe, after the hard disk crash. This week has been without any major work from me and the to/do list has become much larger. EyeMD 13:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Regarding: "what specific articles do you think should have the exclusive Optometry category tag?" Not many. Optometry organizations, Behavioral optometry, probably Vision therapy should be in Category:Optometry. (I'm not even certain that the category is needed.) In the context of this Category:Ophthalmology and this Project, I believe "ophthalmology" refers to the broader concept of "the study of the eye" of which optometry is part of. I think understanding this will help ODs who might want to contribute realize that this has nothing to do with a "turf war". -AED 16:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree; i gave up trying to dual-categorise articles. Does wikipedia support the linking of categories? Or is it possibile to include Optometry as a subgroup of Ophthalmology (if its scope on here is as broad as 'study of the eye'? I think it is important to keep both categories - someone is much more likely to be told they have myopia, for example, by an optometrist Fillup 21:09, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
"[[Category:Ophthalmology]]" can be added to the bottom of the Category:Optometry page to make the later a subcategory of the former. I'm happy to do it if that is the consensus here. -AED 03:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Agree. I think that reflects the correct situation. EyeMD T|C 15:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Underwater vision

FYI: There is a request to merge Underwater vision into Visual perception. I'm not sure there needs to be a separate article about "underwater vision" but I'm not sure where it should go. Thoughts? -AED 03:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

They should stay separate - the merge is not required as the topics are disparate. Visual perception is about photochemistry, neurological and psychological aspects of vision in humans. Underwater vision is a physical concept of visual distortions expected for aquatic life and divers - it is of sufficient scientific interest to deserve its spot on Wikipedia. EyeMD T|C 07:24, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
You may want to post this at Talk:Visual perception#Merge. -AED 07:41, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Vision / Visual perception

EyeMD's comments above have me wondering if the Vision article needs to be addressed. It is currently nothing more than a disambiguation page which includes the comment: "Vision may mean... Visual perception via the visual system; one of the senses". This statement is troubling to me in that 1) "Visual perception via the visual system" seems redundant and 2) it seems to imply that visual perception is "one of the senses". In my opinion, getting light images to the brain is vision; the brain interpreting those light images is visual perception. (The existence of disorders such as blindsight and prosopagnosia emphasize that vision without visual perception is possible.) If Vision were expanded, how would it address the subject? -AED 06:20, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree - Vision (disambiguation) page should be holding the various other meanings of vision. The visual perception article contains most of what vision should have, since it is contains the literal meaning and explanation of phenomena associated with vision. We could move the visual perception article contents to vision. EyeMD T|C 03:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure all of Visual perception needs to be moved, but some of it certainly should. "Vision" is sometimes used to mean "Visual perception", so that should be included on the disambiguation page, too. -AED 06:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

List of Celebrity Laser Eye Surgery Patients

List of Celebrity Laser Eye Surgery Patients was just recently added to LASIK. Is there any reason this shouldn't be nominated for deletion? -AED 00:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Trusopt

Should Trusopt be merged with and redirected to dorzolamide? I thought I read somewhere that the generic name is to be used for Wiki articles. -AED 05:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree, indeed. Go ahead. EyeMD T|C 11:36, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Oculotect

Oculotect does not appear to meet the guidelines at WP:CORP. Should it be listed as an AfD? -AED 05:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Redirected Keratomilleusis & Epikeratophakia to Refractive surgery.

I have redirected Keratomilleusis & Epikeratophakia to Refractive surgery, as the topics can be more easily discussed and analysed there. EyeMD 12:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Keratomileus is actually spelled with one l and already existed, so I redirected there. I created a new article for Epikeratophakia, as it is too specific to cover in the refractive surgery article. --WS 13:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

User talk:EyeMD/Manual of style - medicine

I'm wondering why your layout doesn't follow WP:LAYOUT and WP:MEDMOS? You have:

  • References
  • Footnotes
  • See also
  • External links

Rather than:

  • See also
  • Footnotes
  • References
  • Further reading
  • External links

Sandy 12:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Changes to manual of style done as suggested, thanks. EyeMD 07:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Articles for deletion

DYK nomination for Iridodialysis

As per AED's suggestion, Iridodialysis is nominated for DYK here.... EyeMD 10:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Project directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 00:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Did You Know entries

As per discussion with AED, I nominated Ocular ischemic syndrome for DYK here. EyeMD T|C 09:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:MEDMOS needs YOU!

The Manual of Style (Medicine-related articles) is entering a critical stage: I'm informing people to visit the page, make corrections where possible, and then state there support or disagreements on the talk page, so we can see if there is consensus to turn this proposed guideline into a consensus-supported guideline.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 21:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 18:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Optometry at University of Waterloo

Is anyone here familiar with the University of Waterloo School of Optometry, and perhaps even more importantly, are there any editors who attended this school? − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 10:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Corneal ulcer article

I mentioned this on the article talk page 12 days ago, but I decided I should mention it here also (as an afterthought, sorry). I moved the corneal ulcer article to Corneal ulcers in animals because the vast majority of the information pertained to non-human animals, and I was afraid it was going to confuse anyone looking for the human condition. So now all the human ophthalmology articles point to this article (usually through the eye pathology template). I didn't want to change the template, but perhaps someone should, or take over corneal ulcer (which is now a redirect) and write an article on corneal ulcers in humans. The little in the original article on human corneal ulcers, mainly in the form of the infobox, is still salvagable through the history. Thanks. --Joelmills 02:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Corneal ulcer is a very debilitating pathologic condition in humans, leading to tremendous human suffering as well as economic loss. Its impact is felt all around the world, especially in agrarian societies. Children become bilaterally blind with this condition and suffer for life. I need someone to work for corneal ulcer article! Am still quite busy in real life to devote much time to this article. Help!! EyeMD T|C 13:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Article creation relevant to humans is started - Thanks for letting me know at the WP:Eye talk pages for the Wikiproject on Ophthalmology. I have removed information concerning the animals, which is appropriately contained in Corneal ulcers in animals. I will try to find some pictures for the article. I need some help with the creation of infobox and referencing, along with general proofreading for grammatical errors thay may have inadvertently crept in. Anybody?! EyeMD T|C 13:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Computer vision syndrome

I've recently stumble upon Computer vision syndrome. Given the sound of the name, it does not even sound like a real disease. I placed a tag on the page since I have no knowledge on the subject myself. I would like to bring it to the attention of this project for a proper article handling. --Voidvector 16:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually this article is already listed under this project. you can ignore my prior message. --Voidvector 16:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


Correction to Eye Injury please?

My wife (who is a UK consultant eye surgeon) has commented that the definitions used in Eye injury for perforating and penetrating injury are the wrong way round at least compared to standard UK usage: viz that in the UK penetrating means a single hole into the eyeball (not through and through) whereas perforating means more than one hole. Any chance someone could check and correct it (I don't know whether the US usage is the opposite as for pavement etc.) --BozMo talk 08:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Referencing expert needed

Corneal ulcer was re-written by me. Needs help with referencing... Thanks. EyeMD T|C 14:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Appeal for new articles

Can anyone who knows about eye anatomy write stub articles on the central retinal vein and the bulbar sheath? This is to fill in the redlinks at Template:POTD/2007-07-12. At the moment, retinal vein redirects to superior ophthalmic vein, but I think this is wrong. The superior ophthalmic vein, as far as I can make out, is the equivalent of the opthalmic artery, though there is also the inferior ophthalmic vein. I suspect retinal vein should redirect to central retinal vein, which would be the equivalent of the central retinal artery. But some expert help would be greatly appreciated here. Bulbar sheath might be easier or harder, as it appears to 'merely' be the connective tissue sheath around the eye - should be enough for a stub. Thanks. Carcharoth 09:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


Retinal atrophy

I'm not sure that this project is still active, but if anyone's home: The first sentence of Lattice degeneration links to Retinal atrophy, which automatically redirects to Progressive retinal atrophy, which is apparently a disease found in dogs. Is this a reasonable redirect? Should the Lattice degeneration article link to something else? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Should this discussion page be archived?

This talk page has gotten cumbersome. Many of the topics are now resolved. Should old/resolved topics be moved to an archive page? (This might preserve the topics slightly better than deleting them since it would place them in an archive rather than just in the edit history.)

Another alternative would be to collapse headers of the sections that are resolved.

I'm willing to set up either the archive or collapsing of the old topics. I'll wait for a response to this post or on my talk page. I'd like to hear from EyeMD or AED since they represent the majority of posts to this page. Garvin Talk 01:15, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Neither of those people appear to be active editors any longer, so I don't think you should expect a response from them.
Have you considered having the project merged back into its parent, as an alternative to merely archiving this page? This was recently done for two other projects under WP:MED, and there was talk of re-absorbing some of these 'dead' projects as task forces. (Apparently that process involves moving a few project pages and changing all of the {{OphthoWikiProject}} tags on talk pages to tags that say {{WPMED|eye=yes}}, or something like that. It looks like there's about 100 tagged pages, so this shouldn't be too awful. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree with the archiving for obsolete talk items. Good to be back here :-) EyeMD T|C 20:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Ophthalmology_task_force/Archive_1&oldid=262874412"