Archives
1

Contents 1 Hope I'm doing this right!? 2 Toenail feature 3 GA Attempt: Solar urticaria 4 Copyvio check? 5 Acne spam 6 Category:Viral skin conditions 7 Drug categorization: consensus sought 8 Solar purpura 9 Roseola 10 Looking for help expanding list of dermatologists 11 Stubs 12 Summary of the letter Z 13 Bolognia push 2009 14 External links for consideration 15 Orphaned articles 16 Elephantiasis nostras 17 Template:Fitzpatrick 6 18 Required pages 19 Bolognia push update

[edit] Hope I'm doing this right!?

I'm an academic librarian not a medical professional, but am collecting information about linear nevus sebaceous syndrome due to a personal interest. Hope the edits were OK! I do try to leave a nice verifiable trail of citations... AnnieJo (talk) 21:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

More - it had appeared that there was no article on linear nevus sebaceous syndrome, but then I found the one on Schimmelpenning Syndrome, which is a synonym. There's a confusing tangle of synonyms and almost-synonyms, but the direct synonyms I know of are:
Schimmelpenning syndrome
Feuerstein-Mims syndrome
Schimmelpenning-Feuerstein-Mims syndrome
Feuerstein-Mims-Schimmelpenning syndrome
Linear nevus sebaceous syndrome (LNSS)
Nevus sebaceous syndrome, linear
Solomon syndrome
Jadassohn nevus phakomatosis

And then you can spell nevus as naevus, and sebaceous as sebaceus...

Then there's epidermal nevus syndrome (ENS), which was originally a synonym but is more often now used in the umbrella sense listed in the current article. And then there's Nevus sebaceous of Jadassohn, which usually refers to just the nevus sebaceous but sometimes to the entire Schimmelpenning syndrome... whew!

Any thoughts on how to sort this out in a technically correct manner, using the Schimmelpenning syndrome article as a base? AnnieJo (talk) 21:24, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you very much for your help with this topic. You are dealing with several issues; therefore, let me try to address them here. As you have noticed, most dermatologic conditions have at least one synonym, if not more, some many more (see Keratosis punctata palmaris et plantaris for example).

• With regard to actual disease synonyms (i.e. terms that are used to refer specifically to the same disease), the following should be done:

• If there is no article, pick the most common name to use for the actual article title. This is subjective, so use your best judgment after reviewing the literature. If there is already an article under one of the names, as in your case, Schimmelpenning syndrome, you can simply use that as the article. Occasionally, because people are not aware of all the synonyms for a particular disease, wikipedia ends up with multiple articles on the same disease under different titles, and in those cases the articles need to be merged.
• Once you have a the base article name chosen, make sure you start the article off stating other names by which the disease is known (see again Keratosis punctata palmaris et plantaris for a dramatic example). Make sure you give citations for all the disease synonyms if not found within the same source (see WP:DERM:REF for more details).
• At this point, once you have your base article unified with all the diease synonyms, then you can go ahead and create redirects for all the disease synonyms.

• For almost synonyms (i.e. disease names that may refer to two or more distinct entities) also include them within the article as a synonym. However, instead of creating a redirect, disambiguation pages should be made for those terms. Disambiguation pages are special articles which link to topics a term might refer to. So, for example, see Punctate keratoderma, which may refer to one of two distinct diseases.
• Additionally, each unique redirect page and the actual article page should be placed in a category. Of course, there are times a redirect should not be categorized, like when it is a redirect based on minor spelling differences. However, see WP:DERM:CAT for more details on when and how to do that.
• Then, once you have your article with disease synonyms, redirects in place, and everything appropriately categorized, update your disease in the list of skin-related conditions so that all the disease synonyms are present. Right now you will notice Schimmelpenning syndrome has no alternative names listed.
• Ok, I hope this helps get you started, and please post any other questions you have here, and someone will respond in a timely fashion. kilbad (talk) 00:08, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I will be back to work on these entries later. AnnieJo (talk) 11:29, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Toenail feature

Mongoloid cuticle is up for deletion. The AfD appears to have been motivated primarily by a lack of sources in English under that name (a direct translation from the Chinese sources). Do we have any related articles? Does anyone know what the English term is for a genetically inherited split fifth toenail? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you are looking for "Inherited accessory nail of the fifth toe," which can appear as a split nail. See [1] for more details. Hope that helps. kilbad (talk) 18:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Sounds exactly right. Thanks! WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Np. However, I do not have a source for the term "Mongoloid cuticle," so I cannot verify whether it is synonymous with the term "inherited accessory nail of the fifth toe." kilbad (talk) 18:17, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] GA Attempt: Solar urticaria

Greetings. I have been working on the article about solar urticaria for some time now and was planning on putting it back up for GA in the near future. I was wondering if anyone that is part of the dermatology task force would be willing to review the article. It would be greatly appreciated. NYYfan1 (talk) 01:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I can take a look at it this week. I will post some feedback here in a day or two. ---kilbad (talk) 02:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much. NYYfan1 (talk) 23:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, here are my thoughts. If you look at Wikipedia:Good article criteria, this would be my assessment on each of the points:

1. Is the article Well-written? I think the spelling and grammer are generally ok, but the flow of the article from sentence to sentence is a little choppy, and at times lacks structure. Also, make sure the article lead can "stand alone" on its own, but also that everything in the lead is found somewhere in the body of the article.

2. Is the article Factually accurate and verifiable? Perhaps you could pass on this point; however, make sure you are using reliable secondary sources (see WP:DERM:REF for more information), and try to cite every sentence so readers know where the information is coming from.

3. Is the article Broad in its coverage? I think you have done a nice job covering the important points, and I think you would also pass on this point. Now I think it is just a matter of refining the style (i.e. structure, layout, flow) of the content.

4. Is the article Neutral? I think it is. Pass.

5. Is the article Stable? I think the article fairly stable, without any ongoing edit wars or content disputes. Pass.

6. Is the article Illustrated, if possible, by images? Yes. Pass.

• At this time, I would give you a 4/6 for the reasons given above. Hope that helps. ---kilbad (talk) 14:45, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind me butting in with some advice... I think the coverage still needs some improvement. I highly recommend taking a look at the excellent review article Botto NC, Warshaw EM. (2008). "Solar urticaria". Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology 59(6): 909–920. This review gives a good overview of the subject, and covers some aspects that are missing in the article. For example, SU is mediated by immunoglobulin-E, which doesn't seem to be mentioned in the article. The history goes back further than what the article describes as well. Another review article that doesn't seems to have been used is Roelandts R. (2003). "Diagnosis and treatment of solar urticaria". Dermatologic Therapy 16(1): 52–56. How about Roelandts R, Rychaert S. (1999). "Solar urticaria: the annoying photodermatosis". International Journal of Dermatology 38(6): 411–418. All of these reviews will provide useful info to help provide a more complete overview of all aspects of the disease. If you like, give me a ping, and I can give the article a thorough copyedit after these sources have been consulted and included. Sasata (talk) 16:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

• You are never butting in, and I am so glad to see you active here. ---kilbad (talk) 01:48, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you all for the help. I'll do my best to improve the areas suggested and incorporate the sources. NYYfan1 (talk) 02:30, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

BTW, you needn't actually name a source for every single sentence. That's discouraged even in featured articles. If an entire paragraph comes from the same source, then listing it once in the paragraph is enough. Remember also that "Good Articles" are really supposed to be "Good Enough" articles -- not "practically perfect", or "featured article except that we haven't actually checked every detail of every style guideline yet". WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the comment. I did not realize that citing each sentence was discouraged. I appreciate the clarification. ---kilbad (talk) 02:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Copyvio check?

Can someone with a copy of Fitzpatrick's Dermatology in General Medicine (2003) please turn to page 700 and figure out whether the long structured list at Hyperhidrosis#Classification is a copyright violation? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:23, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I placed that information there, which was taken from a combination of two tables on that page. If you feel it is a copyright violation, please feel free to remove it. I certainly was not intending to violate Fitzpatrick's copyright. If you have additional question, I would be happy to respond openly here. ---kilbad (talk) 23:17, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Without knowing what the originals looked like, I can't tell you whether or not it's a copyvio. In general, you can't just copy a long list straight from a source, but did you really "copy" it, or did you use information from the two tables to create your own list? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The list is not a straight copy of the text, as some of the names are formatted and ordered differently. However, are you associated at an institution where you could request the book on loan? That way you could take a closer look? ---kilbad (talk) 13:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Even if it isn't a copyvio (and it may be getting close to the line) when an article contains a long list referenced to a single source, it makes it difficult to integrate information from other sources. It's usually best to keep citations as modular as possible. --Arcadian (talk) 13:44, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you both for the comments, and I understand your point about keeping citations as modular as possible; therefore, if one of you wants to remove, truncate, or modify the list in any way, I would have no objections. ---kilbad (talk) 16:58, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Acne spam

We have an odd article at 5 Alpha Phyto-Technology. Mr Google says that the name is a commercial product for treating acne in women. The contents of the article don't particularly mention it. Can someone that knows way more about this than I do merge whatever's good to the real article (I assume that we have one) about acne, and perhaps prod the "name brand" afterwards? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:03, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

The topic of acne vulgaris and related treatments is somewhat disorganized at this time, in my own opinion. Currently, there are the are two main articles, acne vulgaris and acne scarring, which should probably be merged as previously proposed. Then perhaps we can merge in 5 Alpha Phyto-Technology; however, I have not personally heard of that therapy. ---kilbad (talk) 20:49, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe that "5APT" is just the latest in a long line of cosmetics. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:49, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Viral skin conditions

I removed West Nile Virus from this category. Then I noticed that an editor is adding a large number of diseases to this category. I think that adding any infection that may sometimes present a rash is a disservice to the category topic. Rmhermen (talk) 04:40, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I think you are making a fair point. I should only be including primary viral skin conditions within that category. I apologize for the mistake. ---kilbad (talk) 20:01, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

For those people that aren't watching the main project's talk page, there's a question at WT:MED#Re_Category:Viral_skin_conditions about whether or not this category should be renamed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:27, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Drug categorization: consensus sought

Should the 2nd, 3rd and 4th levels of the Category:Drugs by target organ system mirror the Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical Classification System exactly, or be consolidated when possible?

Please read the more thorough description of this issue at WT:PHARM:CAT and post your comments there. Comments are much appreciated! Thanks ---kilbad (talk) 00:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Solar purpura

Hello. I recently added some information to the stub solar purpura, and I would appreciate feedback from a member of the Dermatology Task Force. I'm new to Wikipedia (and not a medical professional). Thanks. Connwriter (talk) 14:03, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The information looks fine. However, make sure you are citing all the information you add. Thanks for your contributions! ---kilbad (talk) 17:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. I cited a reference where you indicated one was needed. Connwriter (talk) 18:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Roseola

Roseola could use some attention. I think it's supposed to be a plain redirect to the proper name, or perhaps a disambiguation page, but it appears to have turned back into a stub. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• The terms "roseola," "roseola infantum," "exanthem subitum," and "sixth disease" are synonymous. To give you a specific source linking the single word term "roseola" to the others, see PMID 10969859, Evaluating the Febrile Patient with a Rash, from which the following quote is taken, "Roseola, or exanthema subitum, is caused by human herpesvirus 6." This is also supported by Andrews' and Bolognia (see WP:DERM:REF for full citations). Therefore, I would support a merge and redirect to Exanthema subitum. Would you favor that action? ---kilbad (talk) 01:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. I'll set it up. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Looking for help expanding list of dermatologists

I am looking for a few editors who would be willing to help me significantly expand the list of dermatologists. Would any of you consider working on this project? ---kilbad (talk) 21:46, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Stubs

Over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting we usually try and keep stub categories below 800 articles, you may have noticed that the Cat:Dermatology stubs is over 1200 so we are looking at trying to split it. There is a current proposal here to split it but if some one could have a look over the proposal to see if it is the best way to go to fit in with this projects future plans we would be grateful. Waacstats (talk) 07:50, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Summary of the letter Z

Note I will copy/paste the previous info here towards the talk page of the subpage of dermatology missing articles.Calaka (talk) 08:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Bolognia push 2009

Please help make sure wikipedia has articles on every dermatologic condition. There are many new articles and redirects to be made, and we at WP:DERM are looking for more help! ---kilbad (talk) 15:10, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I can help out. I'll start with the letter M, and underline it on the "progress" list to ensure there's no duplication of efforts. Sasata (talk) 15:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget to add your names to the participants' list as well. ---kilbad (talk) 15:51, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] External links for consideration

Please consider these external links as being of possible help within the scope of this task force.

• Adult Skin Problems Pictures Slideshow: Photos and Images from WebMD
• Journals < Dermatology in the Yahoo! Directory
• Dermatology Information, Dermatology Videos, Disease Information
• Journal of Investigative Dermatology
• Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology - Home
• The American Journal of Dermatopathology
• Dermatology Online Journal
• DermatologyTimes - Dermatologic News and research spanning clinical, cosmetic specialties
• Journal of Investigative Dermatology
• Archives of Dermatology, a monthly peer-reviewed medical journal published by AMA
  

-- Wavelength (talk) 22:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Websites for academic journals generally make very poor external links. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

That leaves the first and third on the list of ten. -- Wavelength (talk) 02:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned articles

I have just found these orphaned articles, which may or may not be of interest to editors of the list.

• Skin infections and wrestling -- Skin prick test -- Skin window technique. -- Wavelength (talk) 16:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• I am working to linking/integrating these articles into the existing dermatology content. ---kilbad (talk) 19:37, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Here are some more.

• Squamous cell papilloma -- Statis dermatitis -- Suction blister -- Umbilicated lesions. -- Wavelength (talk) 00:58, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Two more are Hand infection and Periungual wart. -- Wavelength (talk) 05:16, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Elephantiasis nostras

I added three new sections to the stub elephantiasis nostras, and I'd welcome feedback from a Derm Task Force member. Thanks. Connwriter (talk) 22:52, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Fitzpatrick 6

{{Fitzpatrick 6}} this is a fast cite template for Fitzpatrick. EG. {{Fitzpatrick 6|184}} gives McLean, David I.; Harley A. Haynes (2003). "Chapter 184: Cutaneous Manifestations of Internal Malignant Disease: Cutaneous Paraneoplastic Syndromes". in Freedberg et al. Fitzpatrick's Dermatology in General Medicine. (6th ed.). McGraw-Hill. ISBN 0-07-138067-1. . Rich Farmbrough, 00:43, 14 December 2009 (UTC).

Awesome! Can you make on for Bolognia? ---kilbad (talk) 00:56, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I will have a look shortly. Rich Farmbrough, 05:33, 14 December 2009 (UTC).

I made {{Bolognia 2}} which has the chapter headings, but the authors are not available in an easily retrievable form. I set it up for chapter 1 to show how it is done, in template:Bolognia 2/first and template:Bolognia 2/last. I made the diagnosis section "Chapter 0". Thus

• Stingl, Georg (2008). "Chapter 1: Introduction to Basic Science". in Bolognia et al.. Dermatology (2nd ed.). Elsevier Limited. ISBN 978-1-4160-2999-1. 

but

• Bolognia et al., ed (2008). "Chapter 2: Anatomy and Physiology". Dermatology (2nd ed.). Elsevier Limited. ISBN 978-1-4160-2999-1. 

[edit] Required pages

I have created a list of "required" pages (maybe not the best name) Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Dermatology_task_force/Required_pages here. It is a re-factoring of the index from Buxton (2003). Rich Farmbrough, 05:33, 14 December 2009 (UTC).

Rich, thank you so much for your interest in this project. I will definitely spend some time with the list you have created, and make sure all those red links turn blue! After just briefly looking over the list, I think we will find most of the conditions already present on Wikipedia, just under a differently spelled name, without quotes, etc. Thanks again!!! ---kilbad (talk) 13:37, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Bolognia push update

Thank you all for your help on the Bolognia push. We have made a lot of progress, and I just wanted to take this opportunity to thank the community. ---kilbad (talk) 02:45, 22 December 2009 (UTC)