Talk:Nintendo thumb

• Haha I think this is the best redirect, ever. Troubleshooter 19:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Thank you! InvictaHOG 21:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• I have reverted this page to a separate article. Nintendo thumb seems to be more than merely trigger finger. Anthony Appleyard 05:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Wrong use of Nintenditis.

• Yeah I think Wikipedia has it wrong, It's when you are over addicted and you can't eat, sleep or go to the toilet. You can pass out to sleep and people can feed you. Also The part about not going to the toilet doesn't mean you hold it back, you still go as if you thought you were on a toilet. Nintenditis is very bad for health, sickening wise. Nintenditis is not an Injury it is an addiction type. 58.111.77.219 (talk) 08:00, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
• Okay so I looked at it again, The redirect of Nintenditis is wrong, Nintendo thumb is correct but this is not Nintenditis. 58.111.77.219 (talk) 08:02, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Foundations II

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 June 2022 and 12 August 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ayaide, S.panahi UCSF PharmD, Juan.GilReynoso, Nishatj (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Ngutierrez3, Asayena, Swatanabe2024, JRamos24.

— Assignment last updated by Swatanabe2024 (talk) 16:31, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

"The first case dates back to 1990. The patient was a 35 year old woman who experienced severe pain in her right thumb after playing her Nintendo uninterrupted for five hours."Nishatj (talk) 22:42, 25 July 2022 (UTC) == Foundations II 2022 Group [16] proposed edits ==

Proposed Edits: Juan.GilReynoso (talk) 21:14, 25 July 2022 (UTC) - Provide images - Provide data showing number of hours it takes to develop this. - Analyze What Nintendonitis is and how it relates to Nintendo Thumb. - Research What other video game controllers can cause this issue.

Provide images

- Provide data showing number of hours it takes to develop this.

- Analyze What Nintendonitis is and how it relates to Nintendo Thumb.

- Research What other video game controllers can cause this issue. S.Panahi (talk) 21:24, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

References

Foundations II 2022 Group [16] proposed edits

Proposed edits Juan.GilReynoso (talk) 21:30, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

-Provide images

- Provide data showing number of hours it takes to develop this.

- Analyze What Nintendonitis is and how it relates to Nintendo Thumb.

- Research What other video game controllers can cause this issue. S.Panahi (talk) 21:31, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Group 15 Peer Review

Persons A, B, C and D: Do the group's edits substantially improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review "Guiding framework"?

• LEAD: There are a few consequences and symptoms such as tendinitis and bursitis that are not mentioned in the rest of the article. The lead should contain an overview of the article and so I suggest you re-review the lead or add another section to your article! Other than that, the lead portion of the article contains a good brief overview with up to date references. It also isn't too long or too complex.
• CONTENT: All content is relevant, up to date and no information is missing under headers.
• TONE and BALANCE: The article remains neutral by focusing solely on Nintendo thumb as an injury and not focusing on the company or its response.
• SOURCES and REFERENCES: A good amount of varied references from journal articles to BCC. A very minor suggestion, but I believe that you could find pub med articles to replace references 6 and 7. While the MedlinePlus does come from the NIH, a respectable resource, journal articles may strengthen these.
• ORGANIZATION: I think the flow of the article reads really well and it is adequately broken down into sections.
• IMAGES and MEDIA: Your images are within wiki guidelines, I would just suggest making them larger as it looks disproportionate to the body of text. Also separating the images so they are not right next to each other can help break up the text blocks.

Persons A, B, C and D: Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement?

• Yes, this group has achieved their editing goals. I would suggest adding more photos especially of the controllers themselves. It could be a helpful way to display the buttons and joysticks if a reader is unfamiliar with them.
• Because it is a rare condition, it is difficult to attribute exactly how many hours of game play is needed to develop Nintendo thumb or related conditions. I do think that the group adequately summarized the key cases for Nintendo thumb as well as other e-game related injuries
• As for their last two goals, the group most definitely achieved this by thoroughly looking into Wii related injuries as well as mentioning Nintendonitis

Person A: Does the draft submission reflect a neutral point of view? (explain)

• The group's article thoroughly covers Nintendo related injuries but does not solely focus on them from a legal, or economic standpoint which could introduce some bias. I appreciate that not only Nintendo but PlayStation and Blackberry were named and introduced into the article. There is no argument presented in this article, it only summarizes facts and medical professional's diagnosis of Nintendo thumb.

Swatanabe2024 (talk) 17:18, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Dr. Watanabe for your helpful comments and tips.

We will definitely double check the lead section and improve it accordingly.

We will add pictures of controllers so the audience would be able to recognize them visually.

When it comes to resources, unfortunately there is not much about this specific injury! We did our best to include best secondary resources that are available to public, but I totally agree with your point.

Thanks again. S.Panahi (talk) 20:24, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Just finished editing based on comments. The Lead should be in a better shape now. In terms of some consequences like bursitis, if we haven't talked about it as much, it's because there is a whole Wiki page about it. We still have brief explanation and pictures to illustrate these consequences.

Thanks S.Panahi (talk) 21:42, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Question 1) Do the group’s edits substantially improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review “Guiding framework”?

Yes, the edits added substantially improve the article. They have filled in the gaps about what Nintendo thumb is and how it is caused. It also includes a timeline of when the first case was found since Nintendo consoles have been around for a while now. There were also other gaming related injuries that were included as well such as the Wii-itis and PlayStation thumb. The lead section is easy to understand and lays out the framework well for the article, the only thing that could be added is when Nintendo consoles where first made. The article is well balanced as well, no one section is larger than the other. It also is written from a neutral point of view since the article is just giving details about Nintendo thumb and other related injuries. All the content is up to date and relevant to current gaming related injuries as well as the main topic of the article. There are secondary sources backing all new content and the sources are current. The images added are consistent with the topic and add a visual for the gaming related injury. This article does link to other articles so it can be easier to find.

Question 2) Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement?

The group has achieved its overall goal for improvements. It is a well written article sharing multiple sources, different injuries related to the main topic, and is well balanced. I would maybe try to add some information about the WII related injuries at the beginning of the article since it is a larger topic in your article.

Question 3) Are the edits formatted consistent with Wikipedia’s manual of style?

The articles edits are formatted consistently with Wikipedia's manual of style. There are no headers left without any information under it, the contents of their article are formatted in an easy way to follow, and they have multiple different sources that are current to added strength to the information they wrote about. There are links to different articles which helps clarify topics that are not well known. Images added are also properly cited are and follow wiki edit guidelines. Ngutierrez3 (talk) 17:41, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback! I agree that adding when Nintendo consoles were first made could add some relevant background context, so we will do that. Adding a line about Wii-related injuries in the lead can also help prime the reader for what's to come, which is a great idea. Thank you!

Ayaide (talk) 20:29, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

August 1, 2022

1. ALL group members should respond to the following prompts (EVERY person in the group should respond to BOTH questions for this part), with specific examples:

· Persons A, B, C and D: Do the group’s edits substantially improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review “Guiding framework”?

The article "Nintendo thumb" is organized in a manner that aligns to the guiding framework of Wikipedia because it includes an easy to read leading section, clear structure, balanced coverage, contains neutral content, and provides reliable sources. The leading section contains the background information of what the topic is about so that readers have a better understanding of what is going to be discussed in the article. The contents are divided into a clear structure by the generalization of the topic of Nintendo thumb and how it came to be, and then specializes into more specific case reports. The group improved the article substantially by providing supporting case reports for the readers and clarifying relevance of the topic.

· Persons A, B, C and D: Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement?

This group seems to have achieved a proficient understanding of their topic and have exhausted their resources on such a specific topic nonetheless. I think that they went a good route in including specific case reports so that I can envision what Nintendo thumb is all about.

2. Each group should divide up the prompts below so that a different person responds to each question (one person per question for this part). Please sign your comments with your name and account name so that you receive credit.

· Person A: Does the draft submission reflect a neutral point of view? (explain) Sharyse

· Person B: Are the points included verifiable with cited secondary sources that are freely available? (explain) Josh

· Person C. Are the edits formatted consistent with Wikipedia’s manual of style? (explain) Nicholas

· Person: D: Do the edits reflect language that supports diversity, equity, and inclusion? (explain) Asa

The edits are inclusive in regards to incorporating a variety of age and genders, such as a "38 year old man" or "44 year old woman". However, I think we should edit the language to reflect saying terms like "male and female" instead of "man and woman". Asayena (talk) 17:51, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback, Asayena! We will go ahead and make the changes to make the language more inclusive. This is important as it highlights the difference between gender and sex. Nishatj (talk) 21:02, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Q1: Do the group’s edits substantially improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review “Guiding framework”?

The article is well written, concise but full of information as well. It is easy to read and has a clear organization that breaks down the material well. The pictures are used well to provide examples of the injuries, and does act to enhance the article. The organization of this article is a great strong point that makes the article better. Also the links to relevant articles helps to give more context.

Q2: Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement?

The group has successfully expanded on the information presented in the article. They've given significantly more background as well as expanded on cases and similar injuries.

Q3: Are the claims included verifiable with cited secondary sources that are freely available?

The secondary sources provided are freely available and information is verifiable from these sources. There's good use of medical journals to further explain and back claims about injuries, as well as good use of new articles to back claims of cases.

JRamos24 (talk) 17:56, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your productive comments, Josh. We really tried highlighting the example so injuries, so viewers are aware of what to expect or what to look out for if they happen to be experiencing any of these complications. One thing we can improve on is perhaps ensuring every type of injury is well explained in lay language and not just highlight a few. Juan.GilReynoso (talk) 20:58, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

References

References #1-7 have been reviews by Ayaide. There were no predatory references or duplicates identified. Access dates were added.

Ayaide (talk) 16:49, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

References 15-21 were reviewed by Juan Gil Reynoso. No predatory publishers or duplicate references were identified therefore no references were removed, replaced, or consolidated. Juan.GilReynoso (talk) 17:13, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

References #8-15 have been reviewed by S.Panahi UCSF PharmD. No predatory references or duplication was identified. The correction on the date of the source was performed. All PMIDs are in place for research articles. all of provided links are active. S.Panahi (talk) 17:15, 4 August 2022 (UTC)