Talk:Brachial plexus injury
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|Ideal sources for Wikipedia's medical content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Brachial plexus injury.
On merging brachial plexus injury mechanisms and causes
I contributed the mechanisms of brachial plexus injury to inform people how the injury can occur. throughout the article, i cited information where it was necessary Donthatemebro (talk) 17:48, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Some text from original contributors taken from http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/brachial_plexus/brachial_plexus.htm (public domain). In restructuring this article, this site has been cited were appropriateWotnow (talk) 23:03, 11 October 2009 (UTC)Wotnow
On merging Brachial plexus injury and Brachial plexus lesion articles
I am inclined to concur that it would be advantageous to merge the two articles (Brachial plexus injury and Brachial plexus lesion. On reviewing the two articles, I considered finding and adding citations for both articles, and then seeing where that led. However, I found it easier to start with the Brachial plexus lesion article for no other reason than that it had a handy structure. I therefore worked on the lesion article, and then sought to incorporate relevant text from the injury article. Having done this, I added citation tags to the injury article, to prompt input which can be utilised in any subsequent merger. In the lesion article, have cited only material at hand, and if I haven't physically read it while doing this exercise, I've added a citation tag. This doesn't mean I doubt the veracity (nor in the injury article). It means only that I don't have the citation ready-to-hand.
I would suggest keeping the Brachial plexus lesion article for no other reason than that it has some structure which facilitated further expansion, including input from the injury article. I hope this is of some help.Wotnow (talk) 16:11, 8 October 2009 (UTC)Wotnow
I have now fleshed this article out, adding citations, links, comments and sections, thus providing some structure. I would suggest this article is now at a point for comparison with the Brachial plexus lesion article. I am still of the opinion that perhaps the lesion article should be the one to remain. Nevertheless, the exercise of fleshing this one out has helped to identify useful information, hence the utility of the exercise.Wotnow (talk) 03:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC)Wotnow
Articles now essentially identical, and ready for merge
I have now updated both this Brachial plexus injury article, and the Brachial plexus lesion article so that they are identical apart from the article name. This should make it easy to merge. The only question will be which article is merged into which. I would suggest that the answer to that is whichever term is used most commonly. I have the impression from this exercise that perhaps the term 'injury' is used more commonly than 'lesion'. I note too that the ICD system uses the term injury. Obviously, the article can still be improved upon. However, it may be prudent to do a merge sooner rather than later, while the text in both is identical.Wotnow (talk) 10:38, 11 October 2009 (UTC)Wotnow.
I reviewed the Help: merging article, and saw that for uncontroversial mergers, it is okay to be bold and simply do it. Since the merge proposal had generated little discussion, and no controversy, I thought I might as well do the merge once I had the text in both articles identical. In the end, none of the content from the lesion article was lost, and indeed it contributed to the injry article. As noted above, it seemed to me from the exercise leading up to the merger, that the term brachial plexus injury is used more often than brachial plexus lesion, especially perhaps by lay-people, but also taking into account the ICD use. I therefore kept the 'injury' title. If it transpires that the term should be changed (which at this stage I doubt), I daresay it's a straightforward enough process to do that. I hope this was of some help.Wotnow (talk) 12:05, 11 October 2009 (UTC)Wotnow