Talk:Lupus erythematosus: Difference between revisions
m Signing comment by 210.213.124.203 - "→Que?: " |
No edit summary |
||
Line 42: | Line 42: | ||
::The ICD 10 seem to indicate that this heading only refers to the skin related lupuses? And excludes SLE. I guess we should have this page reflect that.[[User:Jmh649|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Jmh649|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Jmh649|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Jmh649|email]]) 03:10, 19 May 2010 (UTC) |
::The ICD 10 seem to indicate that this heading only refers to the skin related lupuses? And excludes SLE. I guess we should have this page reflect that.[[User:Jmh649|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Jmh649|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Jmh649|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Jmh649|email]]) 03:10, 19 May 2010 (UTC) |
||
IT'S NOT LUPUS! |
Revision as of 02:18, 6 September 2010
{{WikiProject banner shell}}
to this page and add the quality rating to that template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.Medicine: Dermatology Stub‑class Mid‑importance | |||||||||||||
|
Article categorization
This article was categorized based on scheme outlined at WP:DERM. kilbad (talk) 02:33, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Que?
This article needs attention from an expert in Medicine. Please add a reason or a talk parameter to this template to explain the issue with the article.(March 2009) |
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. MrZaiustalk 15:44, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree, it needs to be written for the non professional. when I typed in Symptoms of lupis, I was brought to http :/ /arthritis.about. com/od/lupus/a/guidetolupus. htm (take out the spaces I added) sorry Wiki, but you do this to often, quoting from the med books and chem books, instead of having someone do the translation from "I have a doctorate in: xxxxx" to the "what is xxxxx, i'm in grade school and my best friend just told me this is why she is sick" version. this is what I hate about Wiki, you try to show how educated YOU are, rather than helping to EDUCATE others!
hi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.213.124.203 (talk) 17:27, 9 August 2010 (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 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.198.237.217 (talk) 12:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Shortened
As Lupus erythematosus is a collection of disease IMO this page should be kept short and users directed to a subpage which will than discuss the specific condition in detail. Pubmed does not really comment on this condition alone.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:06, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- The ICD 10 seem to indicate that this heading only refers to the skin related lupuses? And excludes SLE. I guess we should have this page reflect that.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:10, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
IT'S NOT LUPUS!