Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Ophthalmology task force/Archive 3

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:44, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Insert non-formatted text here

Want to edit page but have questions

Hi WikiProject Medicine,,

I had a few questions about editing content on the page for "LCA-Vision."

Is it possible to change the title of the entry to LasikPlus instead of LCA-Vision?

I noticed that LasikPlus redirects to LCA=Vision, which is not the approprite public facing title for the company.

I am new to this, so please let me know. I don't want to violate any guidelines. Thanks.

AngelaYang08 (talk) 18:02, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Here are directions on how to move a page, or change the name of an article. I don't know anything about the LCA-Vision or LasikPlus, but if you are sure that it is not correct, you can change the redirect from Lasik Plus to a more appropriate article. If you do this, you may need to defend the move with a reference (otherwise, someone might just move it back). Alternatively, if they are very closely related subjects, you can create a section in the LCA-Vision article to describe the differences and similarities. Hope that helps. Rytyho usa (talk) 00:11, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Ophthalmology articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Ophthalmology articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:26, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Citation templates now support more identifiers

Recent changes were made to citations templates (such as {{citation}}, {{cite journal}}, {{cite web}}...). In addition to what was previously supported (bibcode, doi, jstor, isbn, ...), templates now support arXiv, ASIN, JFM, LCCN, MR, OL, OSTI, RFC, SSRN and Zbl. Before, you needed to place |id={{arxiv|0123.4567}} (or worse |url=http://arxiv.org/abs/0123.4567), now you can simply use |arxiv=0123.4567, likewise for |id={{JSTOR|0123456789}} and |url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/0123456789 → |jstor=0123456789.

The full list of supported identifiers is given here (with dummy values):

• {{cite journal |author=John Smith |year=2000 |title=How to Put Things into Other Things |journal=Journal of Foobar |volume=1 |issue=2 |pages=3–4 |arxiv=0123456789 |asin=0123456789 |bibcode=0123456789 |doi=0123456789 |jfm=0123456789 |jstor=0123456789 |lccn=0123456789 |isbn=0123456789 |issn=0123456789 |mr=0123456789 |oclc=0123456789 |ol=0123456789 |osti=0123456789 |rfc=0123456789 |pmc=0123456789 |pmid=0123456789 |ssrn=0123456789 |zbl=0123456789 |id={{para|id|____}} }}

Obviously not all citations needs all parameters, but this streamlines the most popular ones and gives both better metadata and better appearances when printed. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:10, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Nystagmus

Hi, just to let you know - it seems that quite a long time ago it was suggested to merge articles on nystagmus, comments on Talk:Pathologic_nystagmus indicate support for such move. Maybe somebody who knows something about eye conditions could settle that debate? ~~Xil (talk) 18:43, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Looks like this merge has happened. Rytyho usa (talk) 00:17, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Interesting artist with afterimage and sterescopic paintings

Could you create an article about this artist? [1] [2] --Thgiled (talk) 08:46, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

As someone else pointed out on your talk page, there is a article-requesting page. If you feel so passionate about this artist, collect references and learned to edit Wikipedia yourself. Posting the same thing to multiple article talk pages isn't going to help you much. Fred Hsu (talk) 03:24, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Low vision

An article that the task force has been involved in editing, Low vision, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 20:36, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment on the retina

A comment from someone with suitable knowledge of the retina, and possible sources for an article will be appreciated here. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 14:22, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

It looks like that discussion has closed and has since become archived. Rytyho usa (talk) 02:33, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Various problems of Similar articles

I'm not sure where to put this but this may be the best place for it.

I've been through the archives and I can't see any discussion of this and thought that it is vital to be brought up.

I also specifically went through List of articles within the scope of this task force so that I don't off-track into matters unrelated.

Problems:

• Major redundancy, repetition, and incoherence.

1. Esotropia, Exotropia, Esophoria, Exophoria - what is/are the distinctive difference(s) between the first two and the last two? The only thing I could make out was that the latter are conditions where "fusion" is possible (thus Diplopia is "uncommon") whereas the for the former it is not, yet it does not state that Diplopia is "not uncommon".
2. The former 2 of the aforementioned 4 articles are "forms" of Strabismus and taken that the latter are the opposit they would therefore not be forms Strabismus, right? The problem here isn't that it does not state in the latter articles that they are not Strabismus, but rather that it's unclear about what they are/are not. In only one of them (Exophoria), it states that it is a "form" of Heterophoria, again, from the first sentence of that article and the one from Strabismus doesn't make a huge difference other than stating that Heterophoria is a horizontal misalignment of the eyes.
3. As Exophoria is stated as a "form" of Heterophoria, shouldn't therefore Esophoria also be stated as such? In fact why is Exophoria stated as such in the first place when it went from referring to vertical misalignment of the eyes ("inwards", "outwards") to being horizontal misalignment of the eyes ("higher", "lower")? WHAT?
4. The opposite (in terms of direction) of Heterophoria would be Hypertropia (as it states), but then why does Hypertropia redirect to the same article of Heterophoria? If it's not worthy of it's own article, as it's been covered by being briefly mentioned in the opening sentences, then is it even worthy of being linked to anything even if it is a redirect?
5. I keep seeing "misalignment of the eyes = Strabismus" over and over again, so if one was to click on the Strabismus article they should see links to all the articles mentioned above, right? But instead all you see is those articles with their names changed, added-to, subtracted, substituted, and replaced, with things that make no sense or that are just redundant and repetitive, and some of the articles aren't mentioned whatsoever. The ones that are mentioned aren't linked. Also shouldn't "Strabismus" be a dictionary term in a sense?
6. Another one to jump into the already over-crowded bouncy castle is Heterophoria. The only way this tries to differentiate itself from anything mention before is by the reason of why/how the misalignment comes to be. The reason is that the sensory and motor system is not the same for one eye as it is for the other. BUT then it jumps back into this whole mess by stating in the next words of the same sentence that this only happens because of the absence of 'fusion' thus back to square one with Esotropia, Exotropia, and Esophoria, Exophoria. Furthermore it adds to the chaos by saying "Heterophoria may lead to squint or also known as strabismus." - but isn't Strabismus "the misalignment of the eyes"? Which it expresses in it's opening sentence and thus creating a paradox for itself.
7. Hypophoria tries resurrect Hypertropia that was killed by being redirected to Heterophoria, so then shouldn't Hypertropia actually redirect to Hypophoria instead? As much as an innocent mistake this looks like to be, I think it was done deliberately based on incorrect knowledge as nothing was posted in the Talk page of Hypertropia nor mentioned the redirect/merge in the History of it either, as well as cover Hypotropia with the single sentence of "Hypotropia is the similar condition, focus being on the eye with the visual axis lower than the fellow fixating eye."

• Lack of references and citations

I really don't know whether Medical Articles are exempt from the need of references and citations but this seems to be the case. Esotropia has none whatsoever, Exotropia is lacking in them, and Esophoria and Exophoria are just stub articles at most. Many other of articles mentioned have these general problems.

The only one that makes any sense is Hyperopia, ironically as it has nothing to do with Strabismus (in it's definition). The article also makes use of references and very sensibily clarifies itself from something it is mistaken with by saying "Hyperopia is often confused with presbyopia". The only thing that would be 'off' about Hyperopia is that it's name resembles too many of those already mentioned above and I don't know much about etymology, orthography, etc. but I don't think the naming of these medical condition is done right, not that it's Wikipedia's problem but I'm just saying.

Possible Solutions:

1. More references and citations
2. Use "not to be confused/mistaken with...", "...is often confused/mistaken with", "...is similar to...", "the opposite of...is..." more.
3. I'm not sure of Wikiversity is supposed to be more 'technical' or something but I often find the articles on there more easy to read due to it being more of the simple clear English nature than some Medical or Scientific articles on Wikipedia. Maybe a look over there could help with some ideas to fix up here.

I came across the problems above when I was thinking to myself whether or not people who have Strabismus/a strabismus condition can see 3D visuals from 3D TVs. I can see that task force doesn't deal with Stereoscopy as that is dealt with by the Physics task force, so instead the task force deals with Stereopsis, but I couldn't find anything that could tell me about the people could can't see 3D media. Ironically the section of the article that should have Strabismus or the like mentioned in it is the shortest and incomplete of all. No article mentioned in this talk mentions if people with a cross-eyed condition can see 3D TV visuals (Stereoscopy) or not. Not even Stereoblindness mentions Strabismus/cross-eye or 3DTV's.

I have no medical expertise in ophthalmology or anything related to it and I'm a newbie at Wikipedia so my word here probably wouldn't mean much and I also don't want to drop a lot whole bunch new to-do's in anyone's laps. I mean, looking through the archive there are some fairly old problems as it is e.g. whether Eye, Human eye, Naked eye, and Mammalian eye should be separate or made as headers or what, etc, etc. Ciao. Irfan2009 (talk) 02:10, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Blind Foundation for India

This Stub needs improvement. Bearian (talk) 17:03, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Phoropter and Refractor (ophthalmic instrument) merger discussion.

FYI, there is a merge discussion on Talk:Refractor (ophthalmic instrument). Cheers, --Animalparty-- (talk) 02:05, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Expert attention

This is a notice about Category:Ophthalmology articles needing expert attention, which might be of interest to your WikiProject. It will take a while before the category is populated. Iceblock (talk) 20:54, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Persistent hyperplastic primary vitreous vs Persistent fetal vasculature

I have just created an article Persistent fetal vasculature which was earlier referred to as persistent hyperplastic primary vitreous. Both the terms are widely accepted. The possibilities now are:

1. Redirect Persistent fetal vasculature to persistent hyperplastic primary vitreous
2. Merge and move contents of persistent hyperplastic primary vitreous to Persistent fetal vasculature
3. Let two articles on similar subject develop in parallel

I invite opinion in this regard. Diptanshu^Talk 15:33, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Your opinion is required: Talk:Keratoconus#Treatments

Your opinion is required regarding treatments of keratoconus. please see Talk:Keratoconus#Treatments. please note that this is our only FA article. k18s (talk) 20:12, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Also see Wikipedia:Featured article review/Keratoconus/archive1. k18s (talk) 20:19, 31 August 2015 (UTC)