Anonymous
Not logged in
Talk
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Search
Editing
Talk:Canadian Consensus Criteria
From MEpedia, a crowd-sourced encyclopedia of ME and CFS science and history
Namespaces
Page
Discussion
More
More
Page actions
Read
Edit source
New topic
History
Warning:
You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you
log in
or
create an account
, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
Anti-spam check. Do
not
fill this in!
==Comment== I think it's pretty clear why this isn't used on a clinical level. Even a specialist would be pulling their hair out trying to go through all these symptoms. It isn't that I don't agree with this criteria but this is quite the diagnostic nightmare requiring great effort in both gathering of reported symptoms and tests and possibly requiring many specialists with someone dedicated to co-coordinating it all. Insurance companies don't like covering all of this especially those that need referrals which often require Primaries to request with formal paperwork and possibly rejected. Researchers probably are better at using this and those clinicians highly specialized in diagnosing ME/CFS but the average clinician won't get involved with this. Exclusions on a clinical level is ridiculous because as the IOM pointed out having an excluded disease and CFS is not only possible it is probably a given. Researchers at times need to follow an exclusionary disease but not always.--[[User:DxCFS|DxCFS]] ([[User talk:DxCFS|talk]]) 14:25, 3 November 2016 (PDT) ==Reference style problems == Some references are not in the MEpedia style, for example the instruction "Read" should not be in a reference. Some references have no author or date etc. Chapters that are numbered look better as ''Chapter 6'' rather than just ''6''. [[User:Notjusttired|notjusttired]] ([[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]]) 14:06, 19 April 2019 (EDT) ===Using et al=== Is it worth setting the '''display-authors''' to limit to 5 or 6, and add et al. automatically? For instance in the (newly created) [[MEpedia:Commonly used citations]], or in the Citation template (which does all references)? But this would de-link some authors from certain page. Thoughts? [[User:Notjusttired|notjusttired]] ([[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]]) 14:06, 19 April 2019 (EDT) :Yeah because of the delinking issue, I favor not limiting the number of authors--the [[MEpedia:Author links | author links]], particularly redlinks, help us figure out what pages really need to be created, because frequently linked authors who are still missing profiles will be listed higher at [[Special:WantedPages]]. I also think there's real value in having a complete picture of who works with who. As I go through papers, I'm finding many where the first seven or eight authors are folks I haven't heard of, and then the last author is a well-known name, meaning s/he likely didn't do a whole lot except lend his or her imprimatur--but it's very interesting to see which projects such a person wants to lend their credibility to. Retaining that info seems worth the clutter tradeoff, to me. [[User:Canele|Canele]] ([[User talk:Canele|talk]]) 18:06, 19 April 2019 (EDT) ===Referencing chapters=== Is an alternative way of referencing many chapters or may pages from the same source needed, maybe a new template? Options seem to be using [[Template:Sfn]] or [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Rp Template:Rp] (not installed yet). I don't see anything in the [[Manual of style]] to say if we have a standard for this at the moment. I prefer using <nowiki ><ref name="ICC" />'''{{Rp|pages=13-19}}'''</nowiki > or <nowiki >{{Rp|at=Ch6}}</nowiki > since it displays in the article as [2]''':13-19''' for pages, or [2]:'''Ch6''' (or whatever you choose for chapters). Thoughts? Tagging others to ask. [[User:JaimeS]] [[User:MEandCFS]] [[User:Canele]] [[User:Pyrrhus]] [[User:DxCFS]] [[User:Hip]] [[User:Brettz9]] [[User:Kmdenmark]] [[User:Notjusttired|notjusttired]] ([[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]]) 13:11, 19 April 2019 (EDT) :This solution seems perfect and actually is something I had looked for and failed to find on WP! So thank you! It's much cleaner and more amenable to editor re-use than other options I'm aware of. [[User:Canele|Canele]] ([[User talk:Canele|talk]]) 16:09, 19 April 2019 (EDT) <pre>Discussion moved to [[MEpedia_talk:Manual_of_style MOS talk page]]</pre> ----
Summary:
Please make sure your edits are consistent with
MEpedia's guidelines
.
By saving changes, you agree to the
Terms of use
, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the
CC BY-SA 3.0 License
and the
GFDL
. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license.
Cancel
Editing help
(opens in new window)
Navigation
Navigation
Skip to content
Main page
Browse
Become an editor
Random page
Popular pages
Abbreviations
Glossary
About MEpedia
Links for editors
Contents
Guidelines
Recent changes
Pages in need
Search
Help
Wiki tools
Wiki tools
Special pages
Page tools
Page tools
User page tools
More
What links here
Related changes
Page information
Page logs