Talk:Adhesive bandage

From WikiProjectMed
(Redirected from Talk:Sticking plaster)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Comments

Why no black bandaids?

Question: In avoiding a American centric perspective has this moved into the realms of a british centric perspective, odd , or am I insane. I know that personally I have heard bandages called all manner of things but never a sticking plaster...--68.226.22.197 05:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Usually in the us at least they are called "plasters", but "sticking plaster" helps differentiate from things like plaster of paris.he big help. [[File:Caitlynn|thumb|alt=he is the help of god and his in finchen is was good.

Article name

I would like to move this article from Sticking plaster to Adhesive bandage. Basis: google test:

Results 1 - 10 of about 165,000 for "adhesive bandage"
Results 1 - 10 of about 107,000 for "sticking plaster"

--Serge 18:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded 24.91.126.96 01:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History?

When was the first kinds invented? The Band-Aid article says that it was invented in 1920, but is that to say that the Band-Aid brand was the first of its kind? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Go to www.bandaid.com 192.91.171.42 (talk) 15:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Vetrap does not belong here

Vetrap redirects to this page, and it is listed as one of the examples. But Vet Wrap is not an adhesive bandage, but a self-adhering bandage. It does not stick to things ('adhesive'), but rather sticks only to itself and not to other things. Thus it can be used to wrap an animal's legs and will stay in place, but does not stick to their hair. T-bonham 08:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bandaid was the first bandage, go to the website www.bandaid.com to see more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.209.29.135 (talk) 00:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a company's advertising is a trustworthy source. FreeFull (talk) 14:01, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Plaster in a Can

I think a mention about Spray Plaster should be added to this article.

MOS:RETAIN

Demands that this article remain at its original title. The original non-RM move and conversion to American English was made out-of-process and contrary to English varieties guidelines. The first variety is retained, especially in the event of a dispute. Please read MOS:RETAIN. RGloucester — ☎ 16:35, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The variety was changed to one that fits WP:COMMONALITY better 8 years ago following discussion on this very talk page. It was directly in process for the time. The idea was proposed, evidence was given, and the only other input was agreement. That's how a requested move works, regardless of any templates, etc, which didn't yet exist. One cannot apply current standards to something that old.
The only thing out of process here is the movement without discussion of an article that had a stable title (itself a policy!) for the better part of the decade. Either way, this demands more discussion than your arrogant move. This should have been a proper WP:RM. oknazevad (talk) 16:53, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There was no discussion. There was one comment by one user, a unilateral move, and then a one-word comment by an IP months later. That's no discussion. The policy on the matter is clear. RGloucester — ☎ 17:47, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking over this situation I'd like to remind everyone that move warring is disruptive and not how disputes are handled here. WP:RETAIN is meant to preserve the existing variety of English for the purposes of consistency and simplicity. Yes, normally this means we don't change the original variety of English just for the sake of changing it, because obviously no variety is more "correct" than another. However, regardless of how anyone feels about it today, the article was moved in 2006 with no objections until this month. It can be argued that the move was improper per RETAIN, but this doesn't give anyone the license to move war over it when that claim is being contested with another part of the same MOS section on English varieties. We operate based on WP:CONSENSUS, and if you're unable to form a consensus for your argument you need to seek out some additional dispute resolution. Discuss the issue and cease the move warring. Swarm we ♥ our hive 06:03, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 15 July 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Apparently someone moved this. (non-admin closure) Red Slash 04:03, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Sticking plaster → Adhesive bandage – Restore the long time stable title of this article that better fits WP:COMMONALITY (as the "plaster" use is largely unknown in American English, while the "bandage" name is used in both major varieties). The title was established following a brief discussion back in 2006, but was unilaterally moved today citing WP:RETAIN, which actually calls for not changing ENGVARs unilaterally from an established variety, especially without discussion. In short, I wish to respect the consensus previously established and that was stable for almost 9 years, as opposed to the one that was around for 2. --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 05:01, 23 July 2015 (UTC) oknazevad (talk) 16:53, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong oppose per MOS:RETAIN and MOS:ENGVAR – The original variety, as the article was created, was Sticking plaster. The article was written in British English. The article was then unilaterally moved, years later, to adhesive bandage, and mass-converted to American English. There is the briefest of "discussions" on the talk page, which consists only of Google hits reported by one user, and one reply by a suspicious IP that occurred months after the actual move. Notably, the mover did not engage in any discussion, nor was RM process followed. No wider discussion was submitted. In fact, this "discussion" was not a discussion at all. It was merely one user unilaterally changing the variety, "lauded on" by an IP months later. Regardless, the premise of "Google hits" is false, given that the relevant guideline is WP:RETAIN, which says to retain the variety of English used in the first version. There was no consensus to change the variety, no reason to do so. Google hits are not a sound judge on matters of English varieties, which is why we have ENGVAR. "Adhesive bandage" simply isn't used in Britain. Strictly speaking, the plaster is not a bandage, but a dressing. WP:COMMONALITY does not apply, as "adhesive bandage" is not the common name in any variety of English, let alone across all varieties. If anything, the American common name is "band-aid". There simply is no justification for such a change. RGloucester — ☎ 17:40, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, didn't someone intelligent say at the humour discussion

"This title has been stable since 2002. It cannot be changed per WP:TITLEVAR. MOS:RETAIN does not apply to article titles, and certainly doesn't apply to articles that have been stable since 2002. Even if it were to apply, please note what it says: "An article should not be edited or renamed simply to switch from one variety of English to another". RGloucester — ☎ 00:42, 14 April 2015 (UTC)"

....Oh wait, that was trying to move an article that was started in American English and moved to British English, back to American English. That is a completely different case, as, as you said, you "completely despise" America, and American English. So, it's completely ok to move back an article to British English, but perish the thought the other way?? ~~ipuser 90.192.101.114 (talk) 23:03, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • So in other words this whole thing is a completely bad faith WP:POINTy mess. Not surprised. oknazevad (talk) 23:47, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The title was stable for eight years. Calidum T|C 18:39, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Sticking plaster. It's as good a name as either, and it was the original. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:24, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I dispute that it's "as good a name" as it is practically unknown in AmEng, and other varieties. Whereas "adhesive bandage" is common to all major varieties. And was the stable title for almost 9 years. oknazevad (talk) 19:32, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Adhesive bandage" is not common or known at all in British English, nor even in American English, where they are usually called "band-aids". "Plaster" is also used in Australian and New Zealand English, and also in other Commonwealth countries. Regardless, MOS:RETAIN is clear that the original variety should be retained, in prose and in title. WP:COMMONALITY clearly doesn't apply. In Britain, the plaster is not considered a bandage. A bandage is a wrap that holds a dressing in place. A plaster is considered a dressing, not a bandage. Bandages never required adhesive, because they are wraps. The purpose of a plaster is that it is a dressing that doesn't require a bandage. More on this matter can be seen at the relevant NHS page. In addition, Ngrams shows that "sticking plaster" has been more common than "adhesive bandage" in total usage for ages, barring a decade. Now, the two titles remain neck-and-neck, with "adhesive bandage" declining in total usage. Overall, there are many reasons why sticking plaster must remain the title, least of all MOS:RETAIN. RGloucester — ☎ 19:36, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • It is most definitely not used in all Commonwealth countries. "Sticking plaster" is never used in Canada. I'd need to see evidence of the sweeping claim that this is used all over the Commonwealth, since it clearly isn't. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 02:34, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Title: as Adhesive bandages, as per Commonality. In the US, a plaster is reserved for a hard plaster cast or splint.Kehkou (talk) 22:06, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I support adhesive bandage. This was the title for a very long time, and, if you read the comments on the very beginning of the talk page, this article may have started it's life as "band-aid" thus being written in US-English, before being thrust into british english, then being moved back to US english where it was stable for 8 years. In every discussion where british editors move an article from it's original American spelling, and a proposal is made to return it to American English, then editors, often led by RGloucester, come from the hills to explain why it should be kept as per WP:ENGVAR and WP:RETAIN. Well by WP:TIES it's an American invention as well, and there are 5 times more Americans than British, so, by common use and Ties it should be in American English, right? ~~ipuser90.192.101.114 (talk) 07:56, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • It was created at "Sticking plaster", which is shown in the edit history. WP:TIES doesn't apply, because there are no strong national ties. All countries have plasters. TIES only applies if one country has stronger ties than any other country, and that's impossible to argue here. All of your arguments are fallacies that ENGVAR and RETAIN was designed to prevent. RGloucester — ☎ 14:57, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support (i.e. support AT at Adhesive bandage) – RGloucester must have forgotten, but those of us arguing for move back to the original article title of Humor actually lost that argument. Thus, under the precedent established by the recent RM for Humour, this article should remain at its most stable title, which is Adhesive bandage. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:49, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per RGloucester. Was moved from original title of Sticking plaster to Adhesive bandage without discussion due to the reason "google test", that wasn't a valid reason to move the page. Zarcadia (talk) 12:56, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use adhesive bandage because this article is not about plaster. And no one uses that term in Canada, or the United States, while bandage is a term used in the United Kingdom, and the thing described in this article is a sticky bandage. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 15:19, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Again, in Britain a plaster is not considered a bandage. It is a dressing. A bandage is a cloth wrap that holds a dressing in place. A plaster is an adhesive dressing, not a bandage. Please don't make nonsense up about plasters being referred to as "bandages" in Britain. They are not. They are called plasters, which was where this article began. The term "adhesive bandage" is just as foreign to me as "plaster" is to you. What makes the difference is that this article began there, and was moved without consensus. The relevant policies demand that the article remain in the original variety. RGloucester — ☎ 16:21, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Give evidence. A valid dictionary, or other reference. I will not accept anything based on your admittedly biased say-so. oknazevad (talk) 16:26, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would support exactly RGloucester's point here. Why are you edit-warring and deliberately trolling by asking such questions as this?
This is a clear case of an international variation: sticking plaster in the UK, something with bandages in the US. Per ENGVAR, neither of those matter in the slightest. Policy is that neither side pushes their international advantage, we simply use whatever the first non-stub version was using and stop arguing over it. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:40, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I already provided a link to the NHS above, which explains the difference. Notice the difference between this page, titled "How do I apply plasters and other dressings?" and this page, titled "How do I apply a bandage?" Could it be any more clear to you? A sticking plaster is an adhesive DRESSING, not a bandage. If the National Health Service is not clear enough for you, I don't know what will be. Please stop inventing rubbish out of thin air. I'm not "biased" at all. I didn't cause any kind of change here. That was a certain editor who violated our policies by unilaterally changing everything. Since you're the one who labelled a comment by one editor and subsequent move as a "talk page discussion", I hardly think you're one to talk about credibility. RGloucester — ☎ 16:42, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify I support the article remaining at "Adhesive bandage". -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 17:39, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adhesive bandage per policy. The relevant policy is WP:TITLECHANGES. It says, "If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed". Here's how this applies to the current question:
    • "If an article title has been stable for a long time": From September 2006 to July 2015 is "a long time". Therefore, this applies.
    • "and [if] there is no good reason to change it": Is there a good reason to change it? None have been raised here.
      • There is no inherent reason to choose British English. There is an American tie (as place of invention), but IMO this is not especially significant.
      • WP:RETAIN is not a good reason to change it to British English, because RETAIN says to stick with American English. (People claiming RETAIN might want to go read it. It changed significantly a few years ago.) The last version using the UK term was a stub. The first non-stub contribution happened in American English. Therefore, RETAIN says that in case of a dispute, you should RETAIN the American English used in that first non-stub contribution, not the British English used in the stub.
    • "it should not be changed" – both of the conditions are met: it's been stable for years, and no good (i.e., valid per policy or guideline or even common sense) reason has been given to change it. Therefore, "it should not be changed". WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:27, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It was not a "stub". The article must remain in the original variety, where it has been stable. The reason to change it is that the move was subversive and contrary to WP:ENGVAR status quo that allows for all varieties to coexist. Unilateral changes to the variety are not supposed to happen, nor should they be encouraged. What's more, "adhesive bandage" is a misnomer. RGloucester — ☎ 17:50, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it was a stub; it was small in size, had no sections, and, most importantly, no references whatsoever. It was by every definition a stub. And what makes "adhesive bandage" a misnomer? Your anti-American-English bias is showing there just a bit with your patently absurd claim. oknazevad (talk) 19:56, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I will point out that RETAIN does not say it "must remain in the original variety", it says the established ENGVAR should be maintained "in the absence of consensus to the contrary". Whether you believe it was a good or bad move per the MOS, it happened, and the current consistent ENGVAR along with the consensus behind it were established by eight years with no objections. Even if it did happen out of process, that alone does not demand unilateral reversion after eight years. Like anything else, it's now a matter of forming consensus. Swarm we ♥ our hive 20:28, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've rated more than ten thousand articles for WP:1.0, and I believe that I have enough experience to identify a stub when I see one. If you look at the rules of thumb given in WP:STUB, it fails all of them: fewer than 10 sentences, fewer than 250 words, fewer than 500 words, fewer than 1500 characters, lots of missing information – there's no realistic likelihood of a dispute here, because that version was a stub by all measurements. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:57, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Adhesive bandage" is confusing in much of the world. That's a nonsense argument. RGloucester — ☎ 14:12, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment From WP:NPOVNAME

    Notable circumstances under which Wikipedia often avoids a common name for lacking neutrality include the following: ... 2. Colloquialisms where far more encyclopedic alternatives are obvious

    Bandage states that in American English bandage is a colloquialism for dressing, so does this second exception apply here? If it does, the previously suggested adhesive dressing might be the most encyclopaedically accurate name; even though not in common usage. Little pob (talk) 15:10, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I could support such a change, on the basis of WP:PRECISE. RGloucester — ☎ 15:22, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, as I understand it, that name would be exactly wrong. It is the bandage that is adhesive, not the dressing. This device contains both: a (typically brown) adhesive bandage and a (usually white) non-adhesive gauze dressing. There is such a thing as an adhesive dressing (e.g., this one). The difference is that with an adhesive dressing, the adhesive part itself is meant to be in contact with the wound, but with an adhesive bandage, the point is for the adhesive part to hold the non-adhesive dressing onto the wound. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:26, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A bandage is a wrap meant to hold a dressing in place. It has no connection with the dressing itself, and cannot be "adhesive". In British usage, a plaster is not a bandage. A bandage is something without adhesive that one wraps around a dressing. I've already linked the NHS above, as a source. They describe plasters as "adhesive dressings". You've no right to contest them with your WP:OR. RGloucester — ☎ 00:54, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Article protected

In addition to the month-long move protection, I have imposed a one-day edit protection to stop the edit war that was developing. Everybody calm down! Favonian (talk) 17:30, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Much obliged! But this article should remain locked down until consensus has been reached. Would you agree? Kehkou (talk) 21:30, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, we usually rely on people not moving while a discussion is in progress. Note also that one editor pre-empting the outcome of a discussion, does not generally constitute a reason for another editor to pre-emptively close the discussion. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:42, 28 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]
      • I can write a proper close, if you'd like. Clearly this sucker was headed for a no-consensus reversion to the long-standing title. Red Slash 18:58, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Silver fibre

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adhesive_bandage&type=revision&diff=83350787&oldid=79210963 - if this can be referenced it's worth including.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:37, 31 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Usage

Oknazevad removed the following passage I had added yesterday and commented: "Rvt good faith addition. WP:NOTHOWTO applies. The German Wikipedia may have different standards, which is why this passage was included there, but it doesn't fly here".

"
== Usage ==
The wound should be rinsed with tap water before applying the plaster. In areas without reliable water treatment systems the water should have been boiled beforehand. Afterwards the wound can be treated with a disinfectant to reduce the possibility of an inflammation. Using iodine ointment can facilitate the painless removal of the plaster lateron. [1]

The material of the bandage sheet and the absorbent pad should be chosen in relation to the amount of moisture emitted by the wound. Wounds will heal faster in a moderately moist environment. To much moisture on the other hand will soak, macerate and possibly lead to an inflammation of the surrounding skin.

Changing the plaster regularly will remove dead skin and residue from the wound and facilitates the inspection of the moisture content.[2].

  1. ^ Irene Berres: Mythos oder Medizin - Brauchen Wunden Luft oder Pflaster?, article on the treatment of small wounds in German, Spiegel Online, 9.9.2013
  2. ^ Wolfgang Vanscheidt: Wundheilung - Feucht ist besser, analysis of wound healing processes in German, Pharmazeutische Zeitung, Ausgabe 29/2010

"

I understand the relevant statement of the quoted guideline would be: "Describing to the reader how people or things use or do something is encyclopedic; instructing the reader in the imperative mood about how to use or do something is not."

So maybe the passage could be reworded to comply with the guideline as follows:

"
== Usage ==
To prevent inflammation the wound is rinsed with tap water before applying the plaster and may also be treated with a disinfectant. In areas without reliable water treatment systems it is common to boil the water to sterilise it. Applying iodine or a similar ointment can facilitate the painless removal of the plaster lateron. [1]

Wounds will heal faster in a moderately moist environment. To much moisture will soak, macerate and possibly lead to an inflammation of the surrounding skin. Plasters consisting of various materials of bandage sheet and absorbent pad are available to match the amount of moisture emitted by the wound.

Changing the plaster regularly will remove dead skin and residue from the wound and facilitates the inspection of the moisture content.[2].

  1. ^ Irene Berres: Mythos oder Medizin - Brauchen Wunden Luft oder Pflaster?, article on the treatment of small wounds in German, Spiegel Online, 9.9.2013
  2. ^ Wolfgang Vanscheidt: Wundheilung - Feucht ist besser, analysis of wound healing processes in German, Pharmazeutische Zeitung, Ausgabe 29/2010

"

thanks,

KaiKemmann (talk) 00:04, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That would be suitable, I would think. oknazevad (talk) 02:12, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Thank you for your comment, Oknazevad.
I will then go ahead and add the new version to the article.
If the compliance with the guidelines is a matter of format, as it seems to be the case here, generally speaking I would encourage you to maybe adjust the wording accordingly yourself instead of removing the passage altogether.
best regards,
KaiKemmann (talk) 12:13, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Dear Oknazevad.
After I had first added the passage to the article you reverted the edit as reported above.
When I had changed the wording to comply with the guideline you had cited I asked for your approval.
Your reply was "That would be suitable, I would think."
Hence I added the new paragraph exactly as presented.
Now I find you have reverted the edit for a second time commenting: "still think this reads too much like a how-to"
To me this seems not to be the most amiable or helpful way to express dissent.
Maybe consider improving the edit instead of reverting.
See also: Help:Reverting.
E.g.: "Consider carefully before reverting, as it rejects the actions of another editor. In the edit summary or on the talk page, succinctly explain why the change you are reverting was a bad idea or why reverting it is a better idea. In cases of blatant vandalism, uncontroversially disruptive changes or unexplained removals the amount of explanation needed is minimal. But in the event of a content dispute, a convincing politely-worded explanation gains much importance and avoids unnecessary disputes."
thanks,
KaiKemmann (talk) 17:37, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

An article that you have been involved in editing—Adhesive bandage—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Etan J. Tal(talk) 17:20, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Adhesive_bandage"