Talk:Oropharyngeal cancer

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Medicine Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Oropharyngeal cancer. PubMed provides review articles from the past five years (limit to free review articles) The TRIP database provides clinical publications about evidence-based medicine. Other potential sources include: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and CDC

I propose that

• merge HPV subtype into this parent article, given extensive overlap. There are separate considerations for prevention, pathogenesis, prognosis, etc - and at some point those might grow to warrant a separate article, but that will need to be done deliberately. — soupvector (talk) 00:40, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• merge per soupvector rationale--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:44, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• oppose (1) This article is most definitely not in need of updating, 90% was written in the last few months and is continually being updated. (2) While the trend in HPV+OPC, which is rapidly becoming more common, is towards de-intensification of therapy, it is very likely that HPV-OPC, which is declining, is going to be treated with further intensification, They are different diseases. If anything the older article could be reshaped to emphasize that it applies to HPV-OPC. Or could spin off articles on both diseases as daughters. -Michael Goodyear (talk) 12:36, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, a reference with an earlier publication date is not out of date unless there is evidence that it has been superseded and is incorrect. That is entirely consistent with

WP:MEDDATE. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 16:24, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi Michael Goodyear. I was figuring that you would probably object. You have put a ton of work into the HPV article. But most of it does overlap. And the thing you say about "evidence it has been superceded" is not really how we operate. A bunch of the refs are also not OK per MEDRS - too many primary sources, conference abstracts, etc. None of that is denying the labor - you have done so much work! A lot of that will be keepable. Jytdog (talk) 18:17, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge, but Michael Goodyear has a solid point about WP:MEDDATE.
  talk) 04:55, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge, I think the proposed update should respect the amount of work recently carried out, but I recognise that it is also obliged to be objective in regards to MEDRS sources. The fact that the proposer is going to complete the merge as opposed to just proposing it, is a good thing in my view. CV9933 (talk) 09:08, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: Comment Surely it is the other article that needs the work. This one is one I was planning to take to GAN eventually. It is the "hot topic" in head and neck cancer, with new data almost weekly. As far as sources, if we only used secondary sources, we would have 20-40 cites for some of those papers, hence the balance. The point is that everything is documented - and has been checked back against primary sources. Any overlap should be tackled in the original - which can either be an introduction to the topic, or be clearly only dealing with HPV-OPC. Merging would just add more clutter here. Maybe the proposer could outline exactly what they would move here from there. Also the other article is fairly general, and basic, this one is is much more specific and scientific. This one has already attracted the attention of practitioners in the field as a comprehensive up to date review. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 12:54, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One vote per editor; would you please strike one of the instances of "oppose"?

You write here that there is new data almost weekly. Per MEDMOS and MEDREV we avoid "hot news"/"hot data" in medicine and aim toward "accepted knowledge" sourced to high quality secondary sources. A medical article that is full of breaking news/ hot data sourced to conference abstracts and other primary sources is unlikely to reach GAN. Jytdog (talk) 19:40, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

True in principle but that is rather an extreme characterisation. As it so happens there has been little new knowledge added since that last note. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 18:01, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

please strike as you have voted twice--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:37, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Undecided Support I guess it is one of the two major types of oropharyngeal cancer. The HPV related article could use some simplification. Seem correct to deal with both within one article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:11, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I think a constructive approach would be to take a look at
  Head and Neck Cancer, which is the "mother" page and spins off daughters for each cancer site in the head and neck. The original oropharyngeal cancer should adhere to the their general format. This page on HPV is then simply subreferenced as a special case. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 18:55, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

That is actually what led me here. That article should really just be the leads of the anatomy-specific articles, with refs added. I came to this one and saw how bad it was, and also to "yours". Doing this merge and updating this will ultimately feed back into that parent article. This is all per

WP:SUMMARY. Jytdog (talk) 21:07, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

• In my view the consensus is clear above, and i will start doing the merge in a while. Jytdog (talk) 20:15, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since over a year has elapsed without any action being taken, I think it is appropriate to now remove the Merge tag.--Michael Goodyear ✐  ✉ 17:42, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just haven't gotten to it. I will be getting to it; the consensus has not changed. I have been somewhat dreading dealing with all the drama that it is going to cause, but it is what should happen. Jytdog (talk) 17:50, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Oropharyngeal cancer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100619052745/http://www.cancer.org/docroot/CRI/content/CRI_2_4_1X_What_is_oral_cavity_and_oropharyngeal_cancer_60.asp to http://www.cancer.org/docroot/CRI/content/CRI_2_4_1X_What_is_oral_cavity_and_oropharyngeal_cancer_60.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:08, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]