Talk:List of wilderness medical emergencies
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of wilderness medical emergencies article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
 | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Similar existing article
editSee Hazards of outdoor activities. Should we merge somehow? —hike395 (talk) 07:53, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
- Without actually looking at the link, I would offer the observation that a hazard and a medical emergency are two different events, entirely. Hence, probably not. I can't see that working unless one of the lists was not what it said it was.For instance, Mama Bear is a hazard. Lacerations, incisions, profuse bleeding, puncture wounds, pneumothorax and compound fractures of the tibia are wilderness medical emergencies. Get my drift?GeoBardRap 21:28, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
- Take a look at the link --- the other article contains both background hazards (like animals), and medical issues (like ankle sprains) —hike395 (talk) 04:47, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
- Maybe, but neither page is "medical advice". The deletion proposal basically suggests that WP can have no coverage of any medical topic. There is no "advice" whatsoever on this page and nothing here even comes close to the legal or common usage of the term "advice". It seems that WP has become a complete waste of time if we have to belabor this point and I have better things to do than argue this kind of thing. Consider me to be part of the great Wikipedia Alumni Association. GeoBardRap 23:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
- I agree that neither article offers medical advice. Please consider staying: you handled the prod template correctly, and it should now be a closed issue (unless the other editor wishes to take it to AfD). —hike395 (talk) 03:56, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- Maybe, but neither page is "medical advice". The deletion proposal basically suggests that WP can have no coverage of any medical topic. There is no "advice" whatsoever on this page and nothing here even comes close to the legal or common usage of the term "advice". It seems that WP has become a complete waste of time if we have to belabor this point and I have better things to do than argue this kind of thing. Consider me to be part of the great Wikipedia Alumni Association. GeoBardRap 23:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
- Take a look at the link --- the other article contains both background hazards (like animals), and medical issues (like ankle sprains) —hike395 (talk) 04:47, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Please do not place incorrect templates without discussion.
editPer the boilerplate of the template, I removed it as objectionable. The template is not proper because it was based on the notion that a list of emergencies constitute "advice". I suggest reading Black's Law Dictionary and related court cases. Statement of a potential type of emergency situation is not "advice". Note this page was largely developed as an alternative to overt advice articles which this editor brought to community attention as overt violation of policy. Nowhere was the templating editor to be heard during that case. Now out of the blue, apparently new to this topic, someone now seeks to propose deletion of an article simply because it brings up emergency situations. There is no demonstration of any advisement language whatsoever.
Advice such as existed on the other page is language such as "make sure to do x,y and z" when confronted with a rattlesnake bite victim. That would ba advice. There is probably plenty of such writing still on WP, please go deal with that kind of article rather than a simple almanac or encyclopedic presentation of information thanks.
GeoBardRap 23:13, 16 August 2011 (UTC)