Talk:Microtia
 | Medicine Start‑class | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
Comments about external links, request for citation, and article importance
- I think the external links are just fine and very useful for people who have children with this problem. Even though I am in the US, I appreciate the value of this. This can be more global in nature by adding other links for other areas.
- who wrote "this surgery should be performed only by specialists in the technique" and can you provide citations. I agree with this statement but HMOs don't want to pay the extra money for a specialist in this technique. A citation for this could be very helpful.
- I take issue with those who labeled this as low importance. I will remove this designation because this is a very important issue for those who are afflicted with this problem. SoilMan2007 (talk)
UK
UK Support Forum for People affected by Microtia
External links
The external links policy at Wikipedia specifically bans links to online discussion groups unless the whole article is about that discussion group. Please do not add links to chat groups or local organizations. External links should be "encyclopedic" and "worldwide." You might find it helpful to read the discussion at Talk:Devic's disease to learn more about how these policies are applied. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- WhatamIdoing, in what sense is information about places to seek treatment for Microtia not relevant information about Microtia? Are you saying that it's OK to describe the disease but information about sources of treatment is inappropriate? By the way, the second link you removed was to not to a talk group. It was to a group that provides treatment worldwide. 76.24.213.203 (talk) 20:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
The standards for external links do not merely demand relevancy. Yes, links must be relevant, but they must also be encyclopedic and worldwide. A link to an outfit which provides services in a single city is not really a "worldwide" link, is it? And the link in question doesn't really tell you anything encyclopedic about microtia, does it? As far as I could see, the BabyFace link basically communicates very little information beyond the perfectly obvious: "Surgery is available from surgeons in hospitals."
Links are supposed to be "encyclopedic in nature" and respect the "worldwide audience" that Wikipedia attracts. Another way of looking at this is asking yourself, "How useful is this link to a fourteen-year-old British student who is writing an essay for school?" Please read the external links policy (and perhaps the specific rules for medicine-related articles) for more information. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- You are incorrect about what is on the Little Baby Face Foundation website. What it says is that if you can't afford this surgery and you are anywhere in the world, they will pay to bring you to New York, perform the surgery, and fly you home. Some of the people researching Microtia are students doing homework. Some are people actually looking for information about Microtia for real reasons. 76.24.213.203 (talk) 20:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Did you read the policies?
Did you read the bit that says, "Wikipedia is written for the general reader. It is an encyclopaedia, not a comprehensive medical or pharmaceutical resource, nor a first-aid (how-to) manual. Although healthcare professionals and patients may find much of interest, they are not the target audience." Or the bit that says a clear sign that you're including inappropriate content is when you "add "helpful" external links, such as forums, self-help groups and local charities"?
I want to be perfectly clear here: I don't make these rules. If the Baby Face link had actual, encyclopedic content about microtia, then it could be listed. But it doesn't, so under the current policies, it goes away. If you don't like the policies, then please go to those committees and convince them to change the rules. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)