Talk:Disk diffusion test

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

page title is wiki-lunatic

the page title Agar diffusion test is very unfortunate. It is imprecise and it has an incorrect redirect.

there are two similar terms:

  1. agar plate diffusion
  2. agar disk diffusion, often just referred to as "disk diffusion"

as can be seen, the term agar diffusion test is the worst possible wiki-hybridization of the 2 terms-

the terms 'agar' and 'diffusion' are present in both of them. adding the word 'test' to 'agar' and 'diffusion' is redundant, as it fails to to discriminate between the 2 terms

what makes matters worse/to top the wiki-lunacy off is the fact that even though the page ONLY deals with 'agar disk diffusion', it has a (false) redirect. --Wuerzele (talk) 23:43, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Agar diffusion test. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:14, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Antibiotic sensitivity testing

This article is about an antibiotic sensitivity testing method, which is also covered in the (more appropriately titled) Antibiotic sensitivity testing. I suggest a merger. Graham Beards (talk) 16:37, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose see below. I think antibiotic sensitivity testing should be a summary style article that gives a basic overview of the various AST techniques while standalone articles go into more detail. This article is not in great shape right now, but there is more that can be written, for example about how MIC breakpoints are determined, special considerations for certain bacteria, factors that can lead to incorrect results, the test's history, etc. Spicy (talk) 16:40, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And who will add this? There has not been any significant additions to this article in over three years. Also, antibiotic sensitivity testing does not even link here. With regard to the "various AST techniques" there are not that many - arguably not enough to justify a separate article on each one. Graham Beards (talk) 17:11, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(Redacted) Maybe I will work on this article when I'm done with CBC, but in any case merging it seems to make it less likely that someone will notice the article is lacking and improve it. The amount of detail that I feel an encyclopedia should have on this topic would be undue in an article about AST in general (though maybe I am biased on this subject). AST does link to this article, via Kirby-Bauer antibiotic test. Spicy (talk) 17:54, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your first sentence was very patronising and you might want to retract it. You give me the impression that you might not fully understand merging. Following a merger, the content of this article will be added (avoiding duplication) to Antibiotic sensitivity testing and a redirect will be left here. There will not be an article here, so your comment "to make it less likely that someone will notice the article is lacking and improve it" is pointless. Your views on the amount of detail are interesting, but it would be best if you stuck to our guidelines and policies. Graham Beards (talk) 18:05, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, it was not my intention to be patronizing, and I've redacted that sentence. That was more of a sad reflection on the very poor state of many articles in this field, see for example crossmatching which is an essential technique in transfusion medicine but has been unsourced since 2005. I understand that should the article be merged, it will be combined with the AST article and redirected, but this would present a barrier to anyone wanting to improve coverage of this topic since extensive discussion of the Kirby-Bauer test would be undue in the main article. WP:MERGE recommends against merging if The separate topics could be expanded into longer standalone (but cross-linked) articles. Spicy (talk) 18:40, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is not that much that can be said about the Kirby-Bauer test, let alone extensive discussion! David Greenwood's standard text albeit a little old has less than three pages on the subject. (* Greenwood, David (1989). Antimicrobial chemotherapy. Oxford New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-261817-2. OCLC 19623618.) This could easily be summarised in a couple of paragraphs or so. There has not been much change in the technique since the early 1970s when I first learned it. I am interested in what you think extensive coverage would include. You have not convinced me that a separate article is justified. I hope I am wrong and I will assume good faith but I suspect some sort of ownership by proxy is on the agenda here.[1]. To compare this test with crossmatching is not valid. Whole books have been devoted to that. (Overfield, J (2008). Transfusion science. Bloxham, Oxfordshire: Scion. ISBN 978-1-904842-40-8. OCLC 190870787.. Lastly, WP:MERGE is not a policy or guideline. Graham Beards (talk) 19:23, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding ownership, I really have no interest in preserving the current format of the AST article... one of the reasons why I was so eager to begin the GA review is that I believe that the article needs extensive work to reach GA status (including adding more info on the KB test) which would be better to start on sooner rather than later. I admit, though, that I may have a sort of conflict of interest in wanting to see more representation of my profession on Wikipedia, and perhaps that leads to a lack of perspective on how important this really is. But there are sources that can be used to expand the article... see for example Textbook of Diagnostic Microbiology (2018), starting on page 276: [2] or Koneman's Color Atlas and Textbook of Diagnostic Microbiology (2016) (not on google, sorry) which goes into detail about sources of error, quality control methods and correlation of zone sizes with MIC. Spicy (talk) 21:42, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I know those sources and we don't need that much detail because Wikipedia is not a manual. I think my suggestion will improve the parent article and I am prepared to write the section. I think your immediate reaction to my merger suggestion was premature. Mergers can be reverted if they don't help our readers. Best regards. Graham Beards (talk) 22:02, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have thought about this some more. I admit that my oppose was sort of a kneejerk reaction to the idea that a fundamental technique like this might not "deserve" its own article. I do not think that that level of detail breaches WP:NOTMANUAL, I think there is a way to cover those topics in an encyclopedic manner, like what I have tried to do at Complete blood count (which by the way I am immensely grateful for your help with). But having thought about it, there is a lot of crossover between quality control methods and limitations for the Kirby-Bauer test, E-test, and automated turbidity based methods, so it may be better to cover all of that in one place. I no longer have that strong of an opposition to merging it and as you say it can always be undone. I suppose we can wait and see how the AST article turns out. Spicy (talk) 23:17, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree. The AST article should be written with a merger in mind. It would not be a good idea to refer to this one as the Main Article in the interim. In any case, there is no need to hurry. Best. Graham Beards (talk) 11:23, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merge; independently notable classical phenotypic method. It's true that there is little written on the topic recently, but that line of argument suffers from RECENTISM. I agree that it would helpful to have more helpful content related to the history of the development of the technique, and less of the how to content. So, improve rather than merge, if necessary moving some content from Antibiotic sensitivity testing to Disk diffusion test. Klbrain (talk) 12:10, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Closing, somewhat boldly, on the grounds that this (my) objection hasn't been contested over the course of more than 6 months. Klbrain (talk) 15:36, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Disk_diffusion_test"