Talk:Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|||
| Article policies
|
||
| Archives: 1, 2 | |||
| Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: December 9, 2013. (Reviewed version). |
| Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease has been listed as a level-4 vital article in Biology. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as GA-Class. |
| This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health 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 Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.
|
This article is substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication. Please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of the following source:
|
Contents
Citation format[edit]
I'm thinking of slowly going through this and updating from GOLD 2013 to GOLD 2017. The current format uses the long citation in the text and repeats it for chapter 1, chapter 2, etc, giving the page ranges of the chapters. Would anyone mind if I moved the long ref to the end (under "Works cited" or similar), then added short cites (GOLD 2017) with page numbers using {{sfn}}? This would mean we not only avoid repeating the long citation, but we could also add page numbers instead of ranges. SarahSV (talk) 00:09, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
- In the absence of objections, I'll slowly start converting. SarahSV (talk) 02:21, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
- fwiw i strongly prefer the standard format. that way the link clickable link is there as one reads, as opposed to the SfN style, in which a click keeps you trapped in the article and requires a second click once you jump. I don't care where the one full length version is - for the rest, the "ref name" repeaters are not longer than the sfn format. if you want to do specific page numbers that can be with ref name + the template:rp. Jytdog (talk) 02:28, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
- The current version keeps on repeating the long citation, ch 1, ch 2, and still no precise page numbers. {{Rp}} is untidy looking, and it splits the ref up—half the information when you click down, and half in the text. SarahSV (talk) 02:43, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
- I agree that one citation to the whole work will be better. I agree that page numbers are better. Not sure what you mean by "click down". If you hover the cursor over a ref it pops up, and then you can right click on the links in the ref to open it in new tab, and you never have to leave the spot in the text where you are. That is how i use refs anyway. That is impossible with Harvard refs....
- These style matters are never easy. Which is a reason why WP:CITEVAR says keep it the same unless you get consensus, as you know. But perhaps others here will want to go with harvard refs. Jytdog (talk) 03:08, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
- The reader will hover and click through if they know to do that, or will click down, but either way may not notice {{rp}}. So then they're without the page number. I'm only suggesting {{sfn}} for the GOLD report, by the way, because it's used so often. I'm not suggesting converting everything. SarahSV (talk) 04:06, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
- The current version keeps on repeating the long citation, ch 1, ch 2, and still no precise page numbers. {{Rp}} is untidy looking, and it splits the ref up—half the information when you click down, and half in the text. SarahSV (talk) 02:43, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Okay, no response, so I will start converting to refname=GOLD2017, with {{rp}} for page numbers. This will avoid the long citation being repeated for chapters, but it will mean (a) the ref name (eventually) being repeated a lot, and (b) the ugly numbers after the refs. SarahSV (talk) 20:58, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
I've done a few, but it's ugly. The report will be cited a lot, and {{rp}} will be repeated throughout the text, especially given the desire to repeat refs after every sentence. Are you sure you prefer that to GOLD 2017, 6, using {{sfn}}? Pinging Doc James. Here's an example of the latter. It's neat, there are no long cites to repeat, you've got precise page numbers rather than chapters, no mess in the text with {{rp}}, and the link takes you to the report at the end. SarahSV (talk) 03:40, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
- User:SlimVirgin we have installed the "cite journal", "cite book", and "cite web" templates in more than 150 languages. I am not supportive of adding more templates as they will than need to be installed for translation to work smoothly. Installing these 3 templates was a huge amount of work. Thus I restored the prior formating. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:21, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
- Doc James, can you say what you mean by more templates? I used the cite book template that was in the article already, with the addition of {{rp}}. Is it {{rp}} that you object to or something else? SarahSV (talk) 05:45, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
- Yes "rp" is another template to confuse the translators and another template that likely will not work in all the languages we are translating into. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:47, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
- I agree. I don't like {{rp}} either. But we do need to provide page numbers. The chapter page ranges are too large. Would you support using {{sfn}} to produce a clickable link, "GOLD 2017, 1", to the full citation at the end? If not, what do you suggest? SarahSV (talk) 05:50, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
- I do not see a problem with having a 10 to 20 page range. A lot of journal articles are of this length and we do not state the exact page number within them. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:21, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
- I agree. I don't like {{rp}} either. But we do need to provide page numbers. The chapter page ranges are too large. Would you support using {{sfn}} to produce a clickable link, "GOLD 2017, 1", to the full citation at the end? If not, what do you suggest? SarahSV (talk) 05:50, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
- Yes "rp" is another template to confuse the translators and another template that likely will not work in all the languages we are translating into. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:47, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
- Doc James, can you say what you mean by more templates? I used the cite book template that was in the article already, with the addition of {{rp}}. Is it {{rp}} that you object to or something else? SarahSV (talk) 05:45, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
- User:SlimVirgin we have installed the "cite journal", "cite book", and "cite web" templates in more than 150 languages. I am not supportive of adding more templates as they will than need to be installed for translation to work smoothly. Installing these 3 templates was a huge amount of work. Thus I restored the prior formating. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:21, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Okay, understood. The length of the report (123 pages) means we should treat it as a book. So to summarize (if I've understood correctly):
- Doc James wants to keep the lead free of sfn for translators, but wouldn't mind it elsewhere, and doesn't want rp anywhere
- Jytdog does not want sfn anywhere and doesn't mind rp.
- I would like to use sfn for the GOLD report (and books if used repeatedly), and I don't like rp.
Doc James, are you willing to allow sfn if we keep it out of the lead?
Jytdog, are you willing to allow sfn for reports and books used more than once, if the long cite is kept in the text rather than at the end? And with no short cites in the lead. (Note: the only report is GOLD 2017, because it will replace GOLD 2013 and GOLD 2007.)
See Parkinson's disease for an example of what I'd like to do, where short cite 90, with page numbers, points to long cite 35. But journal articles are long cites only.
In the meantime, to make progress, I will start adding GOLD 2017 with chapters, and page numbers commented out to help editors (but note that this doesn't help readers). Then we can take our time to choose the best system. SarahSV (talk) 17:05, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
- What is the difference between Template:Sfn and Template:Harv?
- I am okay with one of these used in the body but not the lead. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:20, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
- Okay, thank you (re: in the body, but not the lead). Re: the difference, they are almost the same. Harv can be used in the body to create Harvard refs (Smith 2017, p. 1) in brackets. Sfn is used for clickable footnotes, and it has a period at the end, whereas harv doesn't. SarahSV (talk) 18:40, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Recent revert[edit]
Doc James, can you explain the revert? I changed: "When compared to tiotropium, the LAMAs including aclidinium, glycopyrronium, and umeclidinium, appear to have a similar level of effectiveness" to "A 2015 network meta-analysis indicated that aclidinium, glycopyrronium, tiotropium, and umeclidinium were more effective than placebo." And added a quote from the source to support it. SarahSV (talk) 03:10, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
- Sure. The more interesting bit of this meta analysis is not so much that they are better than placebo but that they are similar to the current standard therapy tiotroprium.
- Thus the conclusions are "The new LAMAs studied had at least comparable efficacy to tiotropium, the established class standard." Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:14, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
- My sentence included tiotropium. But what I was really getting at with the edit was two things: (1) you restored "the LAMAs including". Which LAMAs other than the ones named? And (2) "have a similar level of effectiveness" could mean "they're all the same and they're wonderful." In fact, the source says "more efficacious than placebo". I think it's important to say that. SarahSV (talk) 03:20, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
- How about this? "When compared to tiotropium, the LAMAs aclidinium, glycopyrronium, and umeclidinium appear to have a similar level of efficacy. A 2015 network meta-analysis indicated that all four were more effective than placebo." SarahSV (talk) 03:24, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Chronic bronchitis and emphysema[edit]
"Traditionally two common types of COPD were known as chronic bronchitis and emphysema"
https://books.google.com/books?id=li1VCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA913
WHO says "The more familiar terms “chronic bronchitis” and “emphysema” have often been used as labels for the condition."[1]
User:Mikael Häggström the definition you added was an older one?
Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:29, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
Video sources[edit]
Are the sources for the two Knowledge Diffusion videos available anywhere? File:Chronic bronchitis.webm and File:Emphysema.webm. SarahSV (talk) 15:53, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
What about the Dutch hypothesis?[edit]
I found an article called the "Dutch hypothesis" in the list of orphaned articles. According to its last paragraph, it's one of the four main hypothesis for the pathogenesis of COPD. I find that strange, since it's not listed in here at all, despite this being considered a GA-class article. I'm no medical professional, so I don't know the proper way to incorporate it into the article, especially since there's no section comparing COPD hypothesis by name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthew V. Milone (talk • contribs) 20:52, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
- Dutch hypothesis has it all. Not sure whether this is still considered a valid theory. JFW | T@lk 22:23, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
- Wikipedia good articles
- Wikipedia CD Selection-GAs
- Natural sciences good articles
- All Wikipedia vital articles in Biology
- Wikipedia level-4 vital articles in Biology
- Wikipedia GA-Class vital articles in Biology
- Wikipedia GA-Class level-4 vital articles
- GA-Class medicine articles
- Top-importance medicine articles
- GA-Class WikiProject Medicine Translation Task Force articles
- Top-importance WikiProject Medicine Translation Task Force articles
- WikiProject Medicine Translation Task Force articles
- GA-Class pulmonology articles
- Top-importance pulmonology articles
- Pulmonology task force articles
- All WikiProject Medicine articles
- GA-Class Occupational Safety and Health articles
- High-importance Occupational Safety and Health articles
- WikiProject Occupational Safety and Health articles