Talk:Tooth impaction
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
"As a general rule, all impacted teeth must be removed unless and otherwise contraindicated."
editThis article states " As a general rule, all impacted teeth must be removed unless and otherwise contraindicated." I would like to point out that there is a significant body of evidence against this view: see cochrane review from 2012 [[1]]. I'd like to see the different views presented better, see also wisdom tooth#Treatment controversy for an example of what I mean... We still have several mainstream oral surgery textbooks that make statements like this, they should update themselves with modern evidence based medicine...Lesion (talk) 16:32, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Edits by NicoleK1222 on 25 February 2019
edit- patology is a typo error: the correct is pathology. Hence, the correction was due.
Great! - modelling and modeling are synonyms. Hence, both uses are correct. Also, the original title uses modelling. No good reason to replace modelling by modeling.
Reverted
- patology is a typo error: the correct is pathology. Hence, the correction was due.
- As explained in Colon (punctuation)#Usage, a colon is used to indicate that the sentence that succeeds it will describe or explain the sentence that precedes the colon. This is the same as stating that the succeeding sentence is subordinated to the preceding one. Another way to look at it is by replacing the colon (:) by the subordinating conjunction because and then checking if the syntagmatic whole is preserved: if it is, then the use of a colon is correct. Let's see:
- all impacted teeth must be removed except, in certain cases, canine teeth because canines may just remain buried and give no further problems
- removal of an asymptomatic, pathology-free, impacted tooth isn't a medical consensus because watchful monitoring may be a more prudent and cost-effective strategy
- Since the colon can be replaced by because, the use of a colon is correct, in such context.
- Since the colon can be replaced by because, the use of a colon is correct, in such context.
- On the other hand, the use of a semicolon in such context is wrong: as mentioned in Semicolon, semicolons shan't be used to replace a subordinating conjunction because the semicolon "is a punctuation mark that separates major sentence elements. A semicolon can be used between two closely related independent clauses, provided they are not already joined by a coordinating conjunction". In other words, semicolons are used between coordinating sentences, they connect independent elements instead of those connected by a subordinating conjunction/relation. Reverted
- On the other hand, the use of a semicolon in such context is wrong: as mentioned in Semicolon, semicolons shan't be used to replace a subordinating conjunction because the semicolon "is a punctuation mark that separates major sentence elements. A semicolon can be used between two closely related independent clauses, provided they are not already joined by a coordinating conjunction". In other words, semicolons are used between coordinating sentences, they connect independent elements instead of those connected by a subordinating conjunction/relation.
- When I typed the text "watchful monitoring may be a more prudent and cost-effective strategy and open path for a future placement of implant" I meant "watchful monitoring may be a more prudent and cost-effective strategy and open the path to a future placement of implant". Turning "and open path for the future" into "and an open path for the future" causes "watchful monitoring" to become the open path itself,
Facepalm instead of being the reason why such path was opened. fixed by rewording.
- When I typed the text "watchful monitoring may be a more prudent and cost-effective strategy and open path for a future placement of implant" I meant "watchful monitoring may be a more prudent and cost-effective strategy and open the path to a future placement of implant". Turning "and open path for the future" into "and an open path for the future" causes "watchful monitoring" to become the open path itself,
- Modeling is the US spelling, modelling is British English spelling. It would depend on how the rest of the article is writtent, if US english predominates then changing to modeling would be appropriate. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 08:11, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
- I'm aware of this variation between en-US and en-UK, but the word modelling is in the title of the cited scientific work and must thus be preserved as explained in MOS:CONSISTENCY: "quotations, titles of works (books, films, etc.) should be as given in the source".►Sampayu 15:20, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
- Not convinced by that one. To follow that logic through if one source said modelling and one said modeling the article would have to use both spellings. Consistency of spelling applies to the whole article, and generally speaking the spelling that the article already also uses should be maintained. Exceptions might be if a topic was closed related to a region, e.g. an article closely related to the UK, then British English would be more appropriate. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 16:18, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
- I'm aware of this variation between en-US and en-UK, but the word modelling is in the title of the cited scientific work and must thus be preserved as explained in MOS:CONSISTENCY: "quotations, titles of works (books, films, etc.) should be as given in the source".►Sampayu 15:20, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
- Modeling is the US spelling, modelling is British English spelling. It would depend on how the rest of the article is writtent, if US english predominates then changing to modeling would be appropriate. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 08:11, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
This is the logic that I fundamentally follow (and the reason why I agree with the Manual of Style): if the original title of e.g. a cited paper is in Italian, we cite it in Italian because we're not the authors of the work, we can't just cite the title translated to English if it's originally in Italian. For instance, the article Corsica has references in both Italian and French: the titles of such references are in their respective languages.
Dialectal variations of the English language are expected to follow the same logic: if the original title of a cited source is e.g. in British English (British variation of the English language), we're expected to cite it as it is (in British English, which is the original dialectal variation), because we're not the authors of such work, we shan't change the title nor translate it to e.g. US English as much as we shan't translate it to e.g. Portuguese, French, Italian...
This logic is also supported by ISO 690, which is an authoritative standard adopted worldwide and is a standard for national standards on bibliographic referencing.
That said, the description of the scientific work (its title, authors, DOI code et cetera) is featured at the footer of the article: it's not at the body of the article's text, thus it's neither "polluting" nor affecting the consistency of the article's text. Hence, preserving the title in its original language (or dialectal variation) doesn't affect the consistency of the body of the article.
It makes no sense to me that one should modify the original title of a supporting source whose bibliographic data is located at the article's footer. What the ISO 690 recommends is that we preserve the original title and, if really necessary, add a translated version between brackets. E.g.: Rito sommario nella procedura penale [Summary rite in the criminal procedure].►Sampayu 03:14, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Generalize to teeth in general
editThe article reads as though half was copied from a source about impacted canines, and half from impacted wisdom teeth. It’d be great if someone could sort that out. Calumapplepie (talk) 17:55, 3 August 2020 (UTC)