This article is a mess.. I came here looking to find info on skin ulcers... can't find it, except for a link at the bottom that refers back to this page -_-'
Then I started looking for vesicles, but I also got redirected here... Also, all foreign articles (other language wikis) are now broken because they can't link to the specific subjects because all of this is just mashed together. 62.195.40.242 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:48, 5 April 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Yes, it is terribly written. There needs to be a simply statement at the top that says "usually meaning, 'affecting the skin'". This is another example of professionals (we assume) - bloviating, using industry-specific terminology and failing miserably to get their point across. The average reader will get nothing from this clump of words. And I seriously doubt if anyone else will either. Worthless. 98.194.39.86 (talk) 10:49, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I found this article really interesting and helpful and it reminded me a lot of things about basic dermatology that keep coming up in various articles about dermatological conditions. This is supposed to be an introductory guide about basic meanings and it does very well in that scope. I don't understand why some people are mean towards it- whoever wrote it put a lot of work to put all these information together, although of course the article is not perfect 10:09, 13 June 2017 (UTC)109.148.85.46 (talk)2A02:587:4525:EF00:2596:96E8:4C9A:74E3 (talk) 09:24, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As a pathologist, I came across this article when trying to explain to my son about Demodex follicularis as a human symbiote looking for pictures of the mite sitting in a hair follicle. The article seems to be a hybrid between a basic introduction for the general public and dermatology for medical students. The anatomy section is well written but to a level that medical students would need to pass their anatomy and dermatology exams. The references show a wide range of spread from public access sites offering advice to advanced texts.
Organising dermatology into a simply accessed format is hard. One of the difficulties with dermatology reflects the numerous antiquated compounded latin names of many diseases which are descriptive and reflect clinical appearances (as partly described in this article)and add to the mystique of the dermatologist! Even more confusing is that many of these potentially clinically discrete entities conditions rely on not just the clinical appearance but on body part(s) involved, rapidity of development and duration of the lesion, extent, any other symptoms elsewhere in the body, age, sex, race, geographical locality together with biopsy results. The biopsy appearances naturally attract another barrage of antiquated terms which again are not specific in many cases when taken in isolation. Many diagnoses require additional investigations to confirm e.g. serology, immunofluorescence etc. Diagnoses are usually made (or confirmed) by integrating all the clinical and pathological data.
This article could usefully be re-engineered into two separate articles to cater to the different audiences who may happen upon it.
109.148.85.46 (talk) 10:09, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to move epidemiology towards the end, like WP:MEDMOS#Sections usually has it.
A bit more 'lumping together' would appeal to me. For example, I might turn most of the "Conditions of..." into a section titled something (in plain English) "Conditions affecting a single layer of the skin". Similarly, perhaps a large "Autoimmune" section would be appropriate. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:15, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think those are all good ideas. Also, I think a section on nosology might be good too. I will wait for some more feedback, and then implement everyones' suggestions. ---kilbad (talk) 17:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How about a WP:OOK page? I am inclined to think there is a risk of making this a very long article, it should be an overview and avoid extensive lists or in-depth treatment of more specific areas. RichFarmbrough, 00:24, 22 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]
I suggest that Kilbad publish a complete textbook on the matter, and leave Wikipedia for those of us just wanting to get a quick understanding of the topic. This is absurd. 98.194.39.86 (talk) 10:54, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Repository for facts that may be used at some point
For example, in different dermatologic texts, the papule is variously described as no greater than 1 centimetre (0.39 in) in size, less than 0.5 centimetres (0.20 in), smaller than a pea, or ranging in size from a pinhead to that of a split pea.[1] In 1987, the International League of Dermatologic Societies published a glossary of basic lesions that has been a step towards standardization of this basic nomenclature,[2]
but there is still no strict set of definitions that have been universally agreed upon.[1]
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Genetics and skin disease and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 30#Genetics and skin disease until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 06:10, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
