Talk:Lupus erythematosus

Article categorization

This article was categorized based on scheme outlined at WP:DERM. kilbad (talk) 02:33, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Que?

Can we get some real content here to help differentiate between these? Good writing is readable by any competent and reasonably well-educated reader, not just a med student. Even a disambig page gets more prose than this. MrZaius^talk 15:44, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree, this really is unusable for the lay person, which is who an encyclopedia is for. I hear people say they have Lupus all the time, it would be good to have a general article on Lupus which expands the different, specific forms in separately linked pages.

This would be like if I viewed the page on 'Tiger' and rather than get the egeneral article we now have, instead have a disambiguation page like this listing 'Bengal Tiger', 'African Tiger', 'Malayan Tiger', etc all in separate articles. It would be very frustrating for someone looking for general information on tigers.

This can be done better, and should be written for those who are not interns of internal medicine or dermatology. 98.172.21.130 (talk) 22:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

This is possibly the least useful page on the entire Internet, much less Wikipedia.aeonite (talk) 00:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I want to find out general information about a common illness and this is what I find? This page is almost entirely useless. This is the first page I have come upon in Wikipedia where I got absolutely nothing out of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cscz28 (talk • contribs) 11:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree, wtf. 128.239.181.99 (talk) 07:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Article content

This article and almost all of the articles that this article links to in the "types" section need much more content, as discussed above. Many are only a sentence or two long and/or simply a collection of links. I combined localized, generalized and childhood discoid lupus erythematosus into a single article because the parent article was simply a page that linked to the other three. Also, the three articles were only a couple of sentences long themselves. If someone wants to revert the articles to the way they were, I will not object. However, I suggest that the articles remain combined until there is enough information in the main article so as to justify separating the conditions into their own articles. The three conditions now redirect to the main article. -- Kjkolb (talk) 11:54, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

The last sentence seems specious and somewhat (pardon the pun) inflammatory: "Lupus erythematosus, much like fibromyalgia is a fake disease, and most people who claim to be affected have severe psychological issues." Rewording and a reference are needed here.

Not in ref

tuberculous skin disease is not in the ref as far as I can see. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:06, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

is there any cure for this disease? ive been suffering for this for years. hope this section gets broader