Talk:Iritis

Comments
In my opinion, the iritis article should not be considered a stub anymore. If nobody is against this, I shall remove the stub section in three days. --Vincent1208 08:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

There needs to be clarification about iritis versus Iridocyclitis. I have added some info I found. Rakerman 01:11, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Someone who's good at wiki may want to add that it is possible to get iritis in both eyes at the same time. Nothing in the atricle suggests this.82.71.39.106 (talk) 23:40, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

=
Hi Iritis can be caused by Auto Immune hepitaitis, a problem of white cell? counts? I also find another article at http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/05/health/womenshealth/05novak.html?_r=0 interesting. Could some one write about Ato Immune Hepitatis (which already affected the liver and under contorl with drugs now affecting as iritis in both eyes. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.233.119.148 (talk) 10:41, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Redirect to Uveitis
Iridocyclitis, iritis, cyclitis are all other names for uveitis and because the page uveitis is more comprehensive (and includes this page) and I redirected this page to the page uveitis.Kiatdd (talk) 00:13, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * -since 2005 classification of uveitis is according to SUN (standardization of uveitis) workgroup, see abstract and description. The contents of the page seems to be about "anterior uveitis", even in that case the contents are unfortunately incorrect, for example where is FHI, HLA-27,etc. Graves, malignancies, toxoplasma, toxocara,etc have nothing to do with iritis. Besides, anterior uveitis is not usually discussed separately and the page anterior uveitis is redirected to uveitis by previous editors. The reason is that due to overlapping, all uveitis syndromes are discussed together not separately. I will copy the images&links&references to uveitis in the next couple of days. It is okay if you disagree, just leave a comment here so that we can discuss. Kiatdd (talk) 03:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * By summarily redirecting the article, you have essentially "removed" the visible content from Wikipedia by not adequately merging the content into the Uveitis article. There is a signifcant amount of information in the original Iritis article (e.g. treatment options and and reasoning/purpose) that is not reflected in Uveitis. ++Arx Fortis (talk) 00:57, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree! "Iritis" currently does not appear in google search results but "anterior iritis" and "anterior uveitis" are redirected to "uveitis, the page content as you can see in the page's history is covered in depth in the article uveitis, I have no idea whether we can have a little medical error in exchange for some google traffic but a short page like a dictionary entry or a disambiguation seems fine to me, what's your suggestion? Kiatdd (talk) 02:11, 23 July 2013 (UTC)