Talk:Diplopia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 14 June 2021 and 11 July 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Monicro98. Peer reviewers: Shris26.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:33, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

"for example, placing one's finger in between one's face while reading text on a computer monitor"
How, exactly, does one place one's finger in between one's face? 72.224.27.89 (talk) 15:52, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Mental Diplopia
Halgren et al. (1994) used the term 'mental diplopia' to describe a condition arising from temporal lobe epilepsy. Is this relevant? 163.1.143.187 17:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Question
Does diplopia always affect the full field of vision, or can you have double-vision for, say, the center of your vision but not the surrounding area, or in other partial ways? I've always assumed that it affects everything, but I don't know why I've assumed that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

This article was terribly written. Someone must go over it for grammar and colloquiality —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.250.124.203 (talk) 17:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

"It makes viewing stereograms much easier."
Sorry, dunno if I'm doing this right. I don't edit wikipedia much.

Baaaaasically, I'm not sure about the title sentence, because I can do voluntary diplopia but stereograms don't work for me, with or without me diplopia-ing it up. (This is particularly frustrating when trying to look at 10,000 Days' booklet art that everyone raves about. : Then again I have a slight squint so I'm a bit of an anomaly. Anyone know for sure whether it helps or no?


 * I second this, because I've always been able to do voluntary diplopia as well, but I've never been able to see a stereogram, double vision or no. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.163.45.137 (talk) 23:19, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Apache Pilots?
In reference to the section on voluntary diplopia The last sentence refers to Apache helicopter pilots being trained to do this on demand. Why is this? The reference citation is 404'd (unavailable). Quicksilver1234 (talk) 08:20, 25 February 2011 (UTC)quicksilver1234

Downplaying the role of alcohol ?
The article describes various scary - and hopefully not all too common - scenarios before addressing what's probably by far the most common cause for (temporary) diplopia, namely alcohol intake. Shouldn't it mention this a bit earlier, perhaps in the form of introducing the distinction between temporary and permanent diplopia before getting into details ? 201.231.160.201 (talk) 22:56, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Picture/example of Diplopia
I suffered from it tmporaily and it wasn't like that picture. It was two pictures side by side alike when you put a 3D movie on without the glasses HardeeHar (talk) 00:01, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It is not intended to be exhaustive; it is just one form of it. If you can find a better free picture, please propose it here!  Here is what is on the commons.  Not much to pick from. Jytdog (talk) 00:22, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Workplan
Monicro98 (talk) 23:16, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello, I have read your work plan and the article. Diplopia is very common and thus should have more information for people to understand it better. I strongly agree with your reason to choose this article, it is unfortunately very common for every disease to end up being associated with a malignancy when searched online. Here are some points I would like to make on the article in general as it is now after changes been made.

1.The lead is very good. It offers a good understanding to a person just wanting to know the basics.

2.There are repeated parts of classification.

3.It needs a lot more citations.

4.Binocular and monocular need to have a balance of information. I am not aware in case there is not much information on monocular.

5.The cause and differential diagnosis should be in separate sections.

6.Binocular needs causes, even if just a little.

7.I am not aware if there is information on preventing diplopia, if there is it would be great to add it.

8.It also needs an Epidemiology part.

9.Clinical pearls do not make sense to everyone. Maybe remove it entirely. Add relevant information on CNs in the differential diagnosis.

Given the time frame, it is not possible to complete what we had initially planned. Good work on the article. In case you continue to work on it, I have mentioned things that can be added, if not you may choose to ignore some points mentioned.Shris26 (talk) 14:49, 9 July 2021 (UTC)