Talk:Needle remover

Expertise
I am a fourth-year biomedical engineering student at the University of Virginia. For my thesis, we are designing a needle-remover that is specially built for developing countries. I felt that I should share my recent expertise on the subject. The sections discussing social and ethical implications, design possibilities, and commercial models should be expanded as newer models, patents, and research come out. 199.111.203.79 22:35, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Mmmm...this might fall under WP:OR. Jasmol 22:41, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The person who submitted the page is aware of WP:OR; the material submitted is background information. Please be aware that the needle-stick problem is a major health issue in less developed countries; there are several commercial units available, as this article explains. I think this proves that the article is not original research.Bryan 22:48, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I have not put anything directly related to my research; these are just things I uncovered in my background research. Wikepedia did not have anything about this, so I felt that it should. - babbrandon

Explanation of removal of verification template
I think the template was placed on the page because of concern that the article violated WP:OR, but I think it is quite evident from the article that this is not true, so I removed it.Bryan 22:48, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Agreed. This article may need some wikifying, but it's pretty obvious that it is not OR.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 03:37, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

About wikifying this article
Per discussion above, actually the content of the article is pretty good, but since the sources are not annotated properly within the article, perhaps it gives the impression that the quality of the article is low (?). I am not sure where the original source material came from, but I worked for Philips in a previous life, so I think it is pretty good already, but I can take a stab at improving it and "wikifying" it a bit. Not sure about the section called "Possible designs" though, is that really acceptable? I mean, I look at the articles for MRI and CT machines, diabetes devices, blood pressure monitors, etc. and I don't recall any other products having such a section. MarcoPolo419 (talk) 03:31, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Switching citation styles?
Does anyone know why we are using the parenthetical citation style we are currently using? I personally think this article would be easier to read for most readers if we switched to Citation Style 1. Of course, I won't change it myself until there seems to be some agreement on the matter. Zell Faze (talk) 14:48, 27 December 2016 (UTC)


 * The page at mediawiki.org that describes the software for mw:Extension:Cite (the thing that makes the little blue clicky numbers) was created in 2005, just a little while before this page. I suspect that means that the now-popular ref tags were new and weird and different (and maybe even unstable) back then.
 * I think that readers have no difficulty with reading this page, but it might not feel like a "normal" Wikipedia article any longer. Have you considered other options, such as providing anchors and links between the parenthetical citations and the full citations?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:37, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I would be alright with providing anchors and links instead. I don't even think of that. I'd also be fine with adding it to my watchlist and offering to at least check in on it periodically. Zell Faze (talk) 02:10, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * WAID is right that the citation templates were in their infancy in 2005 when this article was first referenced. I don't think parenthetical citations make much difference to the readability of the article, but using citation templates such as the CS1 series has the advantage of keeping the formatting consistent as well as easing maintenance via automated tools. If you're interested enough to become a maintainer of this article (i.e. keep it on your watchlist), it makes sense to switch to a style that you're happy working with. For those reasons, I would support upgrading the citations to CS1. Naturally, I'd recommend waiting a week or so to see whether anyone has any reasoned objections. --RexxS (talk) 20:02, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * agree as well w/ WAID--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:16, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * This has lots of essay/OR in it; one of the problems with this kind of referencing style. Yes we should switch to standard WP inline citations and make sure everything is actually sourced. Jytdog (talk) 07:35, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * This has lots of essay/OR in it; one of the problems with this kind of referencing style. Yes we should switch to standard WP inline citations and make sure everything is actually sourced. Jytdog (talk) 07:35, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Merge with Sharps container?
I've never heard one of these called a "needle remover", always "sharps container." When I saw the article title I initially thought it would be a device for removing (rather than containing) needles e.g. by extracting them from some body site; it's also an odd term since these are used for many sharp objects other than needles, e.g. vascular catheters, stylets, scalpels, etc. This seems likely to be a regionalism, as the US-based FDA and CDC use "sharps container", whereas PATH uses "needle remover". Should these be merged? Which is the more common usage? &mdash; soupvector (talk) 01:59, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The device described here seems to cut the needle from syringe (as described here); you just throw the whole syringe+needle into a sharps container, no?  But even so, these could and should be merged i think. Jytdog (talk) 07:43, 30 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Support Merge to Sharps container - there is at best a paragraph of well-referenced information here, which would fit well into the larger Sharps container article.Dialectric (talk) 18:49, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Reverted redirect to Sharps container
This article was redirected to “Sharps container” which itself is a redirect to “Sharps waste” which contains a link to this article. Reverting to avoid circular redirect nonsense. If you don’t like it, please fix the article or merge it instead of redirecting it. EthanL (talk) 08:08, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I note that User:Natureium redirect the article back in 2017 with the edit comment This article is almost all fluff. It looks like it was a class assignment. Redirected to sharps container, having formally proposed a merge 3 months prior to that. There were no objections to the merge, and I can well understand that the content was thought to not be relevant to the topic of Needle remover, but rather was relevant to Sharps container or Sharps waste. Perhaps the argument was that those pages were sufficient in their present form, but given that Sharps waste is unreferenced, my view is that there is sufficient material that could be added through a merge. Given that we can't merge to a redirect, I've modified the template to make an alternative proposal. Klbrain (talk) 13:22, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Withdrawing proposal: seems like there is enough for an article here; just in need of updating. Klbrain (talk) 10:52, 17 January 2021 (UTC)