Wikibooks talk:Health science bookshelf

Note to Alan: 'Back Pain'
You added a section on 'Back Pain' to the Anatomy & Physiology section. Needless to say, this subject has nothing to do with the section on Anatomy & Physiology. I moved your book to the 'Alternative Medicine' section, since it is, as you write there, a book written by patients focusing on self-help therapies. As such, it belongs in the 'Alternative Medicine' section, not under 'Anatomy & Physiology', and, with all due respect, not under 'Clinical Medicine' either. --Daniel575 15 Aug 2005

It doesn't belong in the Alternative Medicine section unless it is (supposedly) an alternative to medical science. If the book does not reject medical science, and is a self help book, there should be a self help section (possibly with a warning about the dangers of self help). 59.100.150.141 (talk) 15:58, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Added "Category:Medicine" on all pages; divided main page into three subjects (anatomy, clinical, alternative)
--Daniel575 14:57, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I'm Daniel ( http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/User:Daniel575 ), from The Netherlands. I started working on the medical section of Wikibooks this morning; been writing for about 4 hours now. I pretty much reorganized http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Medicine_bookshelf and merged http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Medicine into this site (if you go to Medicine now, you'll be redirected to Medicine_bookshelf). Medicine_bookshelf had a better beginning. I edited the Internal Medicine section and took out some of the specialties listed there and gave them their own categories (neurology, cardiology, pulmonology etc.). Started working on a few articles also, but first I'm mainly adding links to external pages (Merck Manual, which is my personal favorite; it's the Bible of Medicine as far as I'm concerned), and after that I plan on adding links to appropriate pages on Emedicine ( www.emedicine.com/specialties.htm, you probably know it).

When the categories have been created sufficiently, I'm going to let the real specialists do the rest. But the way things looked this morning was really awful. The Medicine site was basically empty except for a few words with no links in them; most of the links from Medicine_bookshelf were nonexistant; and sometimes I found texts that were basically written without any consideration for an appropriate categorization. Most of the categories inside the specialty pages I created were written based on the index of subjects in the M-Manual. I'm not sure whether this is allowed; after all, I am not really copying any content, just the subject titles. Do you know whether this is allowed? I changed the names of most subjects somewhat, but nevertheless, I'm not sure whether it's allowed. We cannot copy any real content ofcourse (that would be just too easy), but it's definitely a useful book.

Others interested in this page: you're all invited to discuss here. If nobody minds, I'm going to continue creating some index pages for several specialties, which will take some time, ofcourse. I created a pretty basic index for Neurology today, which is a good beginning.

Attention Daniel575: Orthopaedic vs Orthopedic
I started with the Orthopaedic Surgery module. Since I am from India (Our English is more British oriented than American), I am more comfortable with Ortho paed ic than Ortho ped ic and thats how I started out with the module. Since you had already a page on Orthopedic Surgery, I didn't change that and went on with my contributions to rearranging the module. Now I find that most of the pages in wikibooks and all its sister concerns prefer orthopedic over orthpaedic. That leaves me confused!!

Convention is better over individual preferences ...thats what seems to be nagging me. If I have to change I better do it now at an early stage. I would like to get your opinion on this before I go ahead and take a decison.

Anybody else who has got an opinion is most welcome to air them here!

Bduttabaruah 05:14, 25 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I think I have waited enough. I realised that British English (BrE)differs from American English (AmE) in many ways(Please read American and British English differences for a more detailed elaboration on the topic). At the end of the day, there is no doubt that usage of AmE is becoming more prevalent, but at the same time BrE has its own place in the world. Neither of the two will or necessarily should be predominant. Each region will develop its own style and the use one particular form will become more widespread. I believe it will be a mixture of both AmE and BrE. As far as use of medical terms is concerned I decided to stick to the easier naming and spelling convention as the terms are long and difficult. Henceforth I propose the use orthopEdic over orthopAEdic in Wikibooks.


 * BDB 16:44, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Most of the pages are linked through using the spelling "orthopaedic", which I'm sure will be easily recognised by anyone more familiar with the spelling "orthopedic". It seems sensible to go with something that can easily be used consistently throughout. Probably best to do the easiest thing to make all pages consistent - ie change all pages so they begin with "Orthopaedic Surgery/". If there's really a demand to change the spelling later, it will at least then be easy enough to get a bot to do the work, Jguk 18:54, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

By far, most books and articles we use in medical school in europe spell latin based words the BrE way. This is also the spelling more similar to the latin spelling used in the anatomy books world wide, aswell as in elderly books on other native languages.So I think it is a great idea to by routine include both BrE and AmE.

Module Merge list
I'm sure there are others, but here is a module that needs to be moved into this bookshelf somewhere:


 * Van Der Woude syndrome

Do with it as you can, and add a   markup tag if you don't think it is needed on Wikibooks. Thanks. --Rob Horning 18:33, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Spanish wikilink
You could add a link to the spanish medicine books; the link is  Estantería de ciencias de la salud .

Other languages
Add a link to Sanscienca librobretario.


 * Add it . --Mac (talk) 10:04, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Alternative Medicine
Alternative medicine does not belong in the "Health Science" section, since it opposes science. Can someone move it to the humanities section where it belongs? And add a warning? 59.100.150.141 (talk) 15:58, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Sanscienca librobretario ciencias de la salud

Medicine English
I suggest a book aboub medicine English (and the same for other languages, i.e. Spanish). --Mac (talk) 09:58, 27 October 2008 (UTC)