Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Ophthalmology task force/Archive 1

I hereby invite everybody interested in Vision and Eye care to contribute to the long awaited wikiproject on Ophthalmology. Should the article be cleaned-up and moved to National Institute of Ophthalmology or should it be blanked and tagged per WP:CP? A Google search reveals that there are other entities with the same name.

Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. This statement is troubling to me in that 1) Visual perception via the visual system seems redundant and 2) it seems to imply that visual perception is one of the senses .

Thank you for your attention. Thoughts? -AED 23:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC) FYI: There is a request to merge Underwater vision into Visual perception.

If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. At the moment, retinal vein redirects to superior ophthalmic vein, but I think this is wrong.

Anybody?! EyeMD T|C 13:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC) I ve recently stumble upon Computer vision syndrome. Many of the topics are now resolved.

-AED 05:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC) (Discussion moved from recent archives of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Clinical medicine.) LASIK MD was recently created by User:Lasikmd. -AED 05:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC) Oculotect does not appear to meet the guidelines at WP:CORP.

I suspect retinal vein should redirect to central retinal vein, which would be the equivalent of the central retinal artery. For the past 4 months, I have been working to add articles, relevant info and clinical images to the current sections of Ophthalmology - am currently looking to get some more input and requests, so that we can get cracking - to get some really good articles, raise them to featured status and turn the project on Vision & Eye care into a resource which is one of the best in whole of Wikipedia! Cheers!!! EyeMD 05:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC) You ll find from the edit history that I trimmed most of the details from the main Project page.

It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Given the sound of the name, it does not even sound like a real disease.

Thank you. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza s proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15.

-AED 06:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC) Optometry in Singapore was recently created by User:Martinkhk. The little in the original article on human corneal ulcers, mainly in the form of the infobox, is still salvagable through the history.

On the other, it seems as though there is enough information for it to stand alone. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I m afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors.

Should old/resolved topics be moved to an archive page? (This might preserve the topics slightly better than deleting them since it would place them in an archive rather than just in the edit history.) Another alternative would be to collapse headers of the sections that are resolved. I m willing to set up either the archive or collapsing of the old topics. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit.

Garvin Talk 01:15, 23 February 2008 (UTC) . EyeMD T|C 09:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC) The Manual of Style (Medicine-related articles) is entering a critical stage: I m informing people to visit the page, make corrections where possible, and then state there support or disagreements on the talk page, so we can see if there is consensus to turn this proposed guideline into a consensus-supported guideline.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 21:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC) Hello, all.

Thanks. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done.

EyeMD 10:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC) Hello. Thanks.

It was his only edit and the article appears to have been largely copied from . I will try to find some pictures for the article.

Is ELT notable enough for inclusion? If so, should it be moved to Excimer laser trabeculostomy or Excimer laser trabeculotomy? Does Michael Berlin meet the guidelines under WP:PROF? If so, I ll help clean-up the article. I need some help with the creation of infobox and referencing, along with general proofreading for grammatical errors thay may have inadvertently crept in.

B2T2 00:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC) As per discussion with AED, I nominated Ocular ischemic syndrome for DYK here. I have removed information concerning the animals, which is appropriately contained in Corneal ulcers in animals.

Here s a readymade manual of style for starting Ophthalmology articles. Feel free to add these back as needed.

Should it be listed as an AfD? -AED 05:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC) I have redirected Keratomilleusis & Epikeratophakia to Refractive surgery, as the topics can be more easily discussed and analysed there. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects.

Although it screams advertisement , I was hoping for a second opinon as to whether it meets the guidelines at WP:CORP prior to consider AfD. I placed a tag on the page since I have no knowledge on the subject myself.

So now all the human ophthalmology articles point to this article (usually through the eye pathology template). I would like to bring it to the attention of this project for a proper article handling.

Is it really necessary? -AED 02:18, 11 October 2006 (UTC) I was wondering if we might have some discussion regarding what articles should be tagged with Category:Optometry, which should be tagged with Category:Ophthalmology, and which should be tagged with both. It is currently nothing more than a disambiguation page which includes the comment: Vision may mean..

The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. Thanks! -AED 05:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC) User:Carl in cali created both Excimer Laser Trabeculostomy and Michael berlin in a total of three edits.

-AED 06:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC) National Institute of Opthalmology was recently created by User:Nileshgovande. Let s get all of the people together.

I ll wait for a response to this post or on my talk page. For a start, we need a shortcut to point to this page.

I moved the corneal ulcer article to Corneal ulcers in animals because the vast majority of the information pertained to non-human animals, and I was afraid it was going to confuse anyone looking for the human condition. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007.

(The existence of disorders such as blindsight and prosopagnosia emphasize that vision without visual perception is possible.) If Vision were expanded, how would it address the subject? -AED 06:20, 22 October 2006 (UTC) List of Celebrity Laser Eye Surgery Patients was just recently added to LASIK. EyeMD T|C 14:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC) Can anyone who knows about eye anatomy write stub articles on the central retinal vein and the bulbar sheath? This is to fill in the redlinks at Template:POTD/2007-07-12.

The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. I m not sure there needs to be a separate article about underwater vision but I m not sure where it should go.

On one hand, I m not certain that it should be forked from Optometry. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement.

The superior ophthalmic vein, as far as I can make out, is the equivalent of the opthalmic artery, though there is also the inferior ophthalmic vein. I d like to hear from EyeMD or AED since they represent the majority of posts to this page.

Thoughts? -AED 03:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC) EyeMD s comments above have me wondering if the Vision article needs to be addressed. In my opinion, getting light images to the brain is vision; the brain interpreting those light images is visual perception.

It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. But some expert help would be greatly appreciated here.

--Joelmills 02:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC) Article creation relevant to humans is started - Thanks for letting me know at the WP:Eye talk pages for the Wikiproject on Ophthalmology. Many thanks to AED for getting this project page working and sorting out the details.

--Voidvector 16:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC) My wife (who is a UK consultant eye surgeon) has commented that the definitions used in Eye injury for perforating and penetrating injury are the wrong way round at least compared to standard UK usage: viz that in the UK penetrating means a single hole into the eyeball (not through and through) whereas perforating means more than one hole. -AED 06:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC) Similar to the concerns with LASIK MD, does Optical Express meet the guidelines of WP:CORP? The article s creator is a regular contributor to Wiki, therefore, I don t think the article was created for the purposes of advertisement.

Bulbar sheath might be easier or harder, as it appears to merely be the connective tissue sheath around the eye - should be enough for a stub. I didn t want to change the template, but perhaps someone should, or take over corneal ulcer (which is now a redirect) and write an article on corneal ulcers in humans.

Badbilltucker 18:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC) Is anyone here familiar with the University of Waterloo School of Optometry, and perhaps even more importantly, are there any editors who attended this school? − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 10:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC) I mentioned this on the article talk page 12 days ago, but I decided I should mention it here also (as an afterthought, sorry). Thanks.

Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals.

Any chance someone could check and correct it (I don t know whether the US usage is the opposite as for pavement etc.) --BozMo talk 08:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC) Corneal ulcer was re-written by me. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters.

Carcharoth 09:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC) I m not sure that this project is still active, but if anyone s home: The first sentence of Lattice degeneration links to Retinal atrophy, which automatically redirects to Progressive retinal atrophy, which is apparently a disease found in dogs. Is there any reason this shouldn t be nominated for deletion? -AED 00:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC) Should Trusopt be merged with and redirected to dorzolamide? I thought I read somewhere that the generic name is to be used for Wiki articles.

Needs help with referencing.. EyeMD 12:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC) I m wondering why your layout doesn t follow WP:LAYOUT and WP:MEDMOS? You have: Rather than: Sandy 12:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC) As per AED s suggestion, Iridodialysis is nominated for DYK here..

Visual perception via the visual system; one of the senses . Thoughts? -AED 06:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC) I just saw that Double eyelid was created as a disamb page stub.

However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. Is this a reasonable redirect? Should the Lattice degeneration article link to something else? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC) This talk page has gotten cumbersome.