Talk:Microtia

UK

UK Support Forum for People affected by Microtia

http://www.microtia.org.uk

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)

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)

Hello, SoilMan. Here are my thoughts on the three issues you raise:

1. No matter how useful you, or I, or any other editor, thinks any given external link might be to real people, the fact is that external links must comply with Wikipedia rules. You can read the relevant most ones at WP:EL, WP:MEDMOS#External links, and WP:MEDMOS#Audience. In the meantime, please remember that Wikipedia is not a web directory, and that people can use Google or any other internet search engine to find websites that aren't listed here.
2. The "specialists" comment was added recently by an anonymous editor. It may well be unsupported by actual data and just some editor's personal opinion. I have requested references; if none appear after a while, then the statement should be removed. PMID 11465003 suggests that it's at least not an unreasonable opinion to hold, although I don't know whether the article provides any data to support this sentence, or just promotes the personal bias of the authors.
3. The above tag is a project tag. It has nothing to do with how important the condition is to you or any other person. It has to do with where this article falls on the priority list for improvement. More than 13,000 articles have been identified (so far) as being medicine-related and needing support from the WPMED project. It is obviously impossible to improve them all first. Microtia, as a rare condition, is not in the top 50%. It is therefore "low" on the project's priority list. If you want to contest this, then I suggest that you read the project's assessment guidelines first and request a re-assessment. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks "whatamidoing" ... I will take your word for it on these issues. I appreciate the fact that you took the time to respond. Kind Regards SoilMan2007 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 23:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

unilateral hearing loss and school progress

• there are statements about unilaterial hearing loss and odds of repeating grades with out citations. This abstract seems to support that (http://lshss.asha.org/cgi/content/abstract/30/1/26) .... it refers to two other papers from the 80's that support this statement. Regards, SoilMan2007 (talk)