Talk:Pulmonology

Merger with pulmonologist

The pulmonologist article is newly created with good content that would be better suited in the pulmonology article. To be consistent with all other medical specialties, the article about the physician working in the specialty ("-ist") should redirect to the specialty ("-ology") article. There is already a training section in the pulmonology article, which is where information in the pulmonologist article would belong. The pulmonology article has been in bad shape for a while, and merging these articles could be the start of a decent comprehensive article. --Scott Alter 04:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Greetings, I made that edit to the pulmonologist article and think that your idea could work very well. I just want to verify that you want the content of the pulmonologist article moved into the appropriate places on the pulmonology article page. Thank you for your thoughts, --Tyrol5 [Talk] 16:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

As no one owns or can claim sole authorship of any articles, you can do whatever you want to any article. However, there are guidelines as to how to format a medical specialty article. The Wikipedia:Manual of Style (medicine-related articles) has a section on [[medical specialties, so you could follow this style to format pulmonology. As a general rule when merging, you should not remove any content such that information is lost. So you should not completely overwriting information in Pulmonology with content from Pulmonologist.

Getting in to specifics of pulmonologist, the lead paragraph is mostly duplicate information from pulmonology, so it does not need to be merged. The information you wrote about medical school admissions is inappropriate for either article, as it is not directly applicable to the field of pulmonology. There are separate articles about medical school and medical education (and see also Medical school in the United States and Medical education in the United States). I'm not really sure where to put the salary information - maybe someone else can think of an appropriate place for it. Ideally, all information in all articles should be cited by a reliable source. Indicating that the information comes from prior knowledge is not acceptable to have in an encyclopedic article. I'm going to remove the inappropriate content from pulmonologist, and I'll leave the merging for you - since I think you intend to expand pulmonology further. --Scott Alter 22:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your feedback. I did not intend to take any ownership. I am curious enough to ask you what content from the pulmonologist article you think is good information to move over into the pulmonology article. Thanks again, --Tyrol5 [Talk] 23:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I just did the merge of the articles. If you think I missed something, you can add it back to pulmonology. --Scott Alter 01:35, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your help, scott --Tyrol5 [Talk] 17:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

"Point of view" comments removed

I have removed this text from the article: "This salary is not easily earned though. Pulmonologists, as well as all other types of physicians, are among the most training required of all jobs, however, they are probably some of the most rewarding of all jobs. Becoming a pulmonologist or other physician requires a huge commitment of time and money."

Although I agree with this (being a pulmonologist myself), this information is biased and does not belong in the article. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:31, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't even read the entire text that I had merged. I agree that the removed information does not belong. --Scott Alter 12:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Article Title Change

I think we should change the title of the article to 'Pneumonology', and redirect 'Pneumology' and 'Pulmonology' (both of which are incorrect titles). Refer to this journal article: http://www.chestjournal.org/content/121/5/1385.full Basically, Pulmonology is incorrect because it mixes two languages: 'Pulmo' (Latin for 'lung') and 'logos' (Greek for 'speech' or logic'). 'Pneumo' refers to air, whereas 'Pneumon' refers to lung. See the article for an in-depth discussion. Garaiavu (talk) 05:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

"Pneumonology" is a word, but I do not believe it is necessary to change the title. Pneumology redirects here. It is not necessary to change the title, as all other terms for pulmonology can be redirected here. Tyrol5 [Talk] 13:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

"Pulmo" and "logy" may be from different languages, but "pulmonology" is a derived term. I have never heard of "pneumonology." Tyrol5 [Talk] 21:31, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Article Cleanup

I believe that this article is in need of cleanup. It has not been a very comprehensive or good quality article ever since its creation. More sources need to be referenced. A proper reflist needs to be added (I have very little experience with this), and last but certainly not least, the article needs to be set up so that it does not look like a list of concepts. Please feel free to help improve this article. One may wish to look at higher quality medical specialty articles such as Endocrinology for how to format the article. Please also see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (medicine-related articles). Thanks. Tyrol5 [Talk] 00:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Acute and Chronic cough: the need for effective treatment.

I have a great interest in the management of cough. I would very happy to share my 35 years of experience in the management of cough with anybody who has the same interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.137.64.26 (talk) 22:21, 2 April 2013 (UTC)