Talk:onset

Formatting

Needs some formatting. — Hippietrail 10:59, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

U.S. terminology in emergency medicine

The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process.

Failure to be verified means that insufficient eligible citations of this usage have been found, and the entry therefore does not meet Wiktionary inclusion criteria at the present time. We have archived here the disputed information, the verification discussion, and any documentation gathered so far, pending further evidence.
Do not re-add this information to the article without also submitting proof that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion.

---

onset

Rfv-sense - emergency medicine sense (magically at the front) - how is this different from sense #3 "The initial phase of a disease or condition". SemperBlotto 21:19, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Speedy delete, contributor is just numbering the stages of OPQRST. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:27, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Speedy delete. Per Mglovesfun.--Dmol 22:06, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

What order should I place a new definition on an entry for one that has many already? onset is very broad. In EMS it just means very narrowly when the MOI/NOI began.Gtroy 22:12, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

The standard order is that of timeline, so yours should come last because you've just invented it. As far as I can see, it is exactly the same as the sense "The initial phase of a disease or condition, in which symptoms first become apparent." Your detailed instructions for the OPQRST procedure is more appropriate to an entry in Wikipedia. Wiktionary is about words, not procedures. Dbfirs 21:35, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Am I not providing a definition of word here?Gtroy 08:25, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes: a redundant one. It might make sense to put the entry in some kind of Category for emergency medical services so that the category could serve as an index to an EMS glossary. It might also be useful to have Appendix:US English EMS Glossary or similar. Definitions in such a glossary should not be and are not likely to be subjected to as much criticism on grounds of redundancy, attestation, etc. DCDuring TALK 16:01, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

That is a great idea and is what I wanted to do in the first place but people got angry with me for suggesting it and said they would delete it and that a category was enough. How would I go about creating one?Gtroy 19:04, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I can't remember anyone saying such a thing. On 8th September I told you "On the Front Page, near the top right, can you see the word Appendices?" - if you follow that link you will see all of our appendices. You can use them as a guide to create your own. SemperBlotto 19:13, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say you did, but someone did discourage me and I believed it would get me blocked again.Gtroy 20:27, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

In retrospect I may have misunderstood remarks made by msh210 on my talk page based on how aggressive editors where when I first started here.Gtroy 20:30, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

RFV failed. Deleted.​—msh210℠ (talk) 20:11, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Verb

Shouldn't the verb be marked as transitive or intransitive (or both)? —DIV (1.145.38.111 02:46, 7 May 2022 (UTC))