Talk:Vasovasostomy

Inappropriate external link, navigation template
Please provide explanation and justification for this reversion http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vasovasostomy&diff=230953684&oldid=230041194


 * Vasovasostomy is a urogenital surgical procedure, it is included on the navigation template, therefore it seems reasonable to include the navigation template on this page. (It is customary that the pages linked to by a navigation template have that template on them.)
 * The external link does not appear to meet WP:EL criteria, specifically it is not a unique resource, and doesn't contain anything that a well written wikipedia article couldn't. Furthermore it appears to be an advertising site.

Inappropriate navigation template and cite reference removed by other users, navigation template
Please provide explanation and justification for this reversion http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vasovasostomy&diff=230953684&oldid=230041194


 * Vasovasostomy is a urogenital surgical procedure, however the navigation template clutters the topic and makes the topic less clear and less to the point.
 * The external link was a cite reference for the content by which the content was given WP:EL  so it did in fact meet the criteria.  —Preceding unsigned

Doctor Don R. Pohl M.D.  has contributed over 80% of this {main|vasovasostomy} (section)   the link  referenced in his citation was placed in the article as a site reference and for no other reason. Pdbs (talk) 20:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Navigation templates are quite common on wikipedia, they help users find related material and help reduce the need for "see also" sections (which are deprecated under WP:MEDMOS. Since the template is in the standard location at the end of the article, it doesn't seem overwhelming or confusing.  But if you feel the template is overwhelmingly large, a better solution would be to add state=collapsed to the template (i.e.  ).  Then it will start out smaller, and show detail when one selects the show link.


 * Citations should go in the references section, not in external links. As an external link, it did not meet WP:EL, specifically "Links normally to be avoided":
 * 1. Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article.
 * There is nothing on that sight that could not be in a good wikipedia article on this subject.
 * Since the site in question is an advertising website and you appear to be a proprietor, it also appears questionable under #4, #5 and #11.
 * 4. Links mainly intended to promote a website. See External link spamming.
 * 5. Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services, or to sites with objectionable amounts of advertising.
 * 11. Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority.


 * As a citation it is also problematic since it is a self published source, per WP:SPS. The site referenced specifically disclaims authority (saying one should consult a physician).  No evidence is apparent on the site to support that it is written by a recognized authority in the field (established by WP:RS).  It would be better to cite medical literature published in reputable third party publications.  An expert in the field would no doubt be familiar with the literature in this area, and therefore able to provide such sources, improving the article per established wikipedia standards and avoiding questionable practices. Zodon (talk) 02:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Zodon:

With regard to the points above:
 * 1) Your suggestion regarding the navigation templates  is quite understood... I agree that a better solution would be to add state=collapsed to the template

(i.e. ).
 * 2) Regarding the comments for citations should go in the references section, not in external links.

That point is well taken and I will consider that method for edits in future documents.


 * 3) I believe that the site referenced did have an article with drawings and pictures the depict a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article.

If that content has been moved I was not aware of it. 3.a) The site in question is NOT an advertising website and the articles that were cited are from a recognized authority in that industry.     b) The site in question looks to have been designed to educate the community regarding the procedure and the common issues faced by people looking for a [vasovasostomy] c) All information cited was written by a recognized authority -- Doctor Don R. Pohl M.D. I apologize for not making that clear to you.


 * 4) All Medical Web Sites that follow the HONcode (Health On the Net Code of Conduct) are required to state the following on their web site to be in compliance with the HON code of conduct.

Principle 2. Complementarily/Mission/Assistance 3. A statement declaring that information provided on the site is meant to complement and not replace any advice or information from a health professional is clearly provided In such instance they are not disclaiming authority they are assisting with information not found elsewhere.


 * 5) Regarding articles published by third party publications...

I will contact an expert in the field and request information regarding publications, dates and so forth as per your request. However, I believe that if I cite a professional in the field of   (VV) or (VE) I will be sure to document the information in such a way as to avoid this type of displeasure. A professional in this area would be a “vasectomy reversal surgeon” who has received formal microsurgical [Vasovasostomy] training like Don R. Pohl M.D. who pioneered the procedure described in the cited [Vasovasostomy Technique] illustrations. The late Don R. Pohl M.D. was trained at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore, MD in 1980. [www.hopkinsmedicine.org/]
 * 6) With this in context what is the reason  for the -- External links --  section?


 * 7) How did you create the Reference Section for citations?

Pdbs (talk) 23:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The site in question is www.vasectomyreversal.com Responses below numbered to match items above.
 * 3 The website has a page or two of text with a few sketches, there is nothing about that which is beyond what a good wikipedia article could be. (If anything, by wikipedia quality standards, the website's content would probably be a start or C class article.  No wikilinks, no references, etc.)  To be a unique resource worthy of a wikilink it would have to be a lot more extensive.
 * 3a) The site has a huge garish banner on every page saying "microsurgical vasectomy reversal", gives a phone number and "money back guarantee" as well as links for "cost and payments" "financing" "contact us to schedule your vasectomy reversal", etc.  Sure looks like advertising.
 * 3c) The site does not indicate who wrote the information there (at least I couldn't find where), or their credentials. Any assertion of authority for said author or the site would still require documentation with reliable sources (not only to authenticate that they are a recognized authority, but also to document their connection with the material on the site).  Anybody could put up a website that claims to be written by somebody.  Anybody could create a wikipedia account and make assertions about who wrote something.  To establish that Dr. Pohl is an authority need a third party reference in a reliable source that says so.  At the very least should cite publications in reliable sources by Dr. Pohl (e.g. medical journal articles, college level textbooks, etc.)
 * If it helps any, just figure writing for wikipedia is much like writing for a scientific journal. Good practice is to have sources from the literature for anything you say, best practice is to include citation while writing.
 * 6) external links is for unique resources, for instance the article about medline has an external link to Pubmed. If a site had an photographic encyclopedia of urology, it would be unreasonable to try to duplicate that, so an external link might be warranted.  Also note that in medical articles, external links section is to be avoided if possible, per the medical manual of style (WP:MEDMOS) (because the section tends to attract spam links).
 * For instance on the external links on this page, I would assume that the American Urological Association has some standing in the profession. And that published sources could establish that, and establish what their web address is.  Whether the material on the particular page linked is worthy of an external link might be debatable (it might be a bit light on content).  If a wikipedia article exists for the organization, then a wikilink to their article might be a better option.  But it passes at least casual muster.
 * 7)On most any wikipedia page, if you want to know "how did they do that," click on the edit button. Find the text surrounding the bit you are interested in, then look what incantation they used.  In this case,  may be what you are looking for, but the above technique works for most things. Trying things out on your user page, the sandbox, or asking in the help areas can also be helpful.
 * Likewise, look at other articles (especially ones like Category:FA-Class medicine articles|featured articles from project medicine) to get a feel for what are good practices in citation, formatting, etc. Zodon (talk) 09:02, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Merge with Reverse vasectomy
These two articles are very similar Porturology (talk) 02:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Vasectomy is a severing of the vas deferens. The procedures used to reconnect the vas deferens are not properly called "reverse vasectomy". The article would best be titled "vasectomy reversal", with links to the two surgeries used for vasectomy reversal: the vasovasostomy and the vasoepididymostomy. Giancoli (talk) 03:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)