Talk:Epworth Sleepiness Scale

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Medicine Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

scale or instrument ?[edit]

e.g., longitude is measured in a cm scale but the instrument is a tape measure.

So, what is the epworth? scale or instrument?

Jclerman 19:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Epworth Sleepiness Scale" is the proper name I've seen used for it. Check the references to see what proper names other use. I think Wikipedia should document the verifiable proper name, and it doesn't matter that much whether the proper name matches or conflicts with some vocabulary. Now the thing this name refers to is probably (I guess) an instrument (a series of questions which a patient answers) which yields a result (a number) which is measured against a scale (one range of numbers indicates one severity of the condition, another range indicates another severity). Using this vocabulary in the article may make it clearer. --Jdlh | Talk 19:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright issues[edit]

i've removed the sentence:

Note: The Epworth Sleepiness Scale is the intellectual property of Dr. Murray Johns and is protected under international copyright laws. See ESS Terms of Use for licensing information.

because it's vague and sounds more like an advertisement than anything else. Intellectual property is an oxymoron (self-contradiction) according to Richard Stallman and Johns does not make this claim anyway as far as i can see. Instead, he does seem to have a rather bad misunderstanding of copyright, unless by "ESS" he just means the particular document (the questionnaire). However, his 1991 article says that ESS is a method. The wording of ESS itself says that it is a scale. Copyright only limits copying of a text, not the copying of the ideas in the text or their application in some real world context. (Patents, trademarks and trade secrets cover different things to copyright.) If a researcher interviews some subjects and gives them an exact word-for-word copy of Johns' original text, then that would (IMHO, but IANAL) be a copyright violation. On the other hand, if a researcher reads Johns' original text and then writes a test which has the same basic idea and method (just one question with eight situations and a scale from 0 to 3) with independent wording, then that would be perfectly OK with respect to copyright. Cases in between would depend how much the text is "necessary to express the idea" rather than "arbitrary, aspects of style". In any case, this is getting off the topic in terms of what we can/should put in the wikipedia article.

Secondly, i've removed the quotation of the questionnaire itself, since it is clearly more than a brief quotation, which would be allowable under the fair use criterion. A full quote is not a brief quote.

i suspect that someone thought that by paraphrasing Johns' rather strange copyright statement, it would be OK to copy the text of the questionnaire. AFAIK, that doesn't help at all, especially in this case where Johns clearly views his text as a copyrighted text rather than a text that is de facto part of the public domain since it is intended for scientific use.

In any case, i've added an external link to the questionnaire itself.

Anyway, i need some sleep :P, otherwise i might have to fill out the questionnaire... Boud (talk) 23:09, 2 October 2009 (UTC) Boud (talk) 23:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 08:07, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Epworth sleepiness scale → Epworth Sleepiness Scale — Relisting. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:24, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This page was moved to the current title in 2008 "per WP:NAME," however this is a proper and copyrighted name according to the official site (http://epworthsleepinessscale.com/), and should be moved back. davewho2 07:41, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Per, Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(common_names)#Standard_English_and_trademarks, you shoudl find reliable, independent sources that demonstrate your preferred capitalization is morte common. — æk ^Talk 04:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't necessarily have a preference in this matter. It appears that it was moved by mistake in 2008. Nevertheless, the following sources should be considered:

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/narcolepsy/DS00345/DSECTION=tests-and-diagnosis

http://www.umm.edu/sleep/epworth_sleep.htm

You will also find that a majority of the published articles at [1] use the capitalization as copyrighted.

davewho2 09:40, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose, because we don't care. We write our titles in sentence case pending a compelling reason to do otherwise. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 20:43, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a bit of a dodgy interpretation of MOSTM. We do capitalize proper nouns. MOSTM is talking about special formatting such as "TNA iMPACT!", which departs from ordinary English. Capitalizing the first letters of each word in a proper noun phrase seems perfectly standard to me. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The contextual adjunct nouns in an eponym are generally common nouns. Compare Richter magnitude scale and Mercalli intensity scale. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 19:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This appears to be a proper noun phrase; a Google Books search produced numerous sources using the phrase with all the words capitalized. --RL0919 (talk) 07:23, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Epworth Sleepiness Scale. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150226064109/http://epworthsleepinessscale.com:80/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/a-new-method-for-measuring-daytime-sleepiness-the-epworth-sleepiness-scale2.pdf to http://epworthsleepinessscale.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/a-new-method-for-measuring-daytime-sleepiness-the-epworth-sleepiness-scale2.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:24, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Broken Link[edit]

Just wanted to let you know that the second listing under the "References" section returns a 404 (page not found). Thanks. 174.21.134.121 (talk) 06:22, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]