Talk:Pseudobulbar affect: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 03:50, 21 January 2013

Psychology B‑class Mid‑importance

	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
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Medicine: Neurology / Psychiatry B‑class Mid‑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
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Neurology task force (assessed as Mid-importance).
	Psychiatry portal This article is supported by the Psychiatry task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

merger proposal

I suggest a merger proposal with Labile affect. These are two articles about the same thing, and actually, this article looks like it is copied & glued from the labile affect article. Unless anybody has any good arguments against it, I'll do it tomorrow.
PS My choice would be to merge into this article, because the "google test" gives many more hits for "pseudobulbar affect" than for "labile affect". Lova Falk talk 15:54, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed and done. (I originated the page) --PaulWicks (talk) 17:50, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

from Pathological laughing and crying to here. Pete.Hurd (talk) 02:38, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

I agree with above suggestion, but not sure how to do. Assistance is appreciated.meleik —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.231.185.213 (talk) 00:31, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Emotional incontinence

I know this isn't a discussion board, but that phrase is hilarious. Oh, and I agree with the merger proposal.209.6.52.213 (talk) 16:42, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FDA approval and "preferred term"

Second paragraph under "Terminology":

The antecedent to pronoun "this" is unclear.

Do predictions, especially ones about preferences, belong in an encyclopedia? The same purpose can be fulfilled by stating: "In deliberations over treatments, the FDA uses the term _______ to name what is being treated, thereby suggesting that the term is or will be a medical standard."