Talk:Dead space (physiology)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This[edit]

This page seems wrong to me. My physiology notes define physiologic dead space as the sum of the anatomic and alveolar dead spaces. If someone can get a better reference than the mcg.edu link it would be appreciated. --Xris0 (talk) 20:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why do we breathe fast when exercising?[edit]

Good topic to touch on in the article might be: If shallow breathing is so much less effective than deep breathing, why do we breathe in rapid, shallow breaths when exercising? Tempshill (talk) 18:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move?[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: casting vote after 21 days: Dead space (disambiguation) to Dead space. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:51, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dead space (physiology) → Dead space —

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Merger proposal[edit]

I have completed this merge. LT90001 (talk) 22:36, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Example Calculation of dead space using Bohr's equation is wrong[edit]

Example Calculation of dead space using Bohr's equation should equal 23.8mm Hg as the problem is written. I hesitate to correct this because it is not my field and I am uncertain that the only mistake is a math error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr peoneill (talk • contribs) 22:26, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alveolar deadspace is not calculated by Bohr equation[edit]

By using end-expiratory gas in Bohrs equation one calculates the anatomical deadspace NOT the alveolar deadspace.

I am afraid that I don't understand this notion. Please tell us how you think about this. Terry Dwyer (talk) 20:36, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 22 August 2019[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:22, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

– Per WP:DIFFCAPS. All other articles with this name are called "Dead Space". ZXCVBNM (TALK) 11:46, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose: After a little searching and editing of the page, the dab page now also has at least three other topics with lowercase that are discussed on Wikipedia: 1) another medical meaning, which is the first meaning given in at least one online medical dictionary, 2) a military meaning, 3) the meaning in Xinerama, which was previously incorrectly capitalized on the page. Also, it can be a synonym for Dead zone. For example, an area in which cell phone reception or radio or television reception is poor may be called a dead space or a dead zone. Also, an unused region of radio spectrum may be called a dead space (see Wikipedia:Missing science topics/Federal Standard 1037C and this and this). Also see this, which has the radio transmitter meaning and yet-another military meaning relating to the mechanical limitations of weaponry. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:52, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see how the three extra topics affect the move request. There remains only one topic for the potential article title "Dead space" (this article). The secondary medical meaning is only mentioned indirectly in Jackson-Pratt drain (to prevent fluid ... build-up in a closed ("dead") space). The military use only occurs in the article Enfilade and defilade. The software use is in the article Xinerama. The latter two are, incidentally, completely unsourced.
      If the moves are made, readers searching for this article would arrive one click sooner; and readers searching for the secondary meaning, the military use and the software use would arrive one click later (via a hatnote on this article pointing to the dab page). None of these are popular pages, so it's hard to judge which scheme provides the most convenience for the reader. --RexxS (talk) 20:12, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Note that disambiguation is about topics, not article names, per WP:DAB. Do we have some indication that the meaning in the context of respiration is really the primary meaning of "dead space"? Looking at both medical and non-medical dictionaries and other sources, my impression is that there is really no single dominant meaning for "dead space". —BarrelProof (talk) 22:59, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • I disagree on both points. Disambiguation is about article titles per the opening sentence of WP:DAB. There is no point in disambiguating "Dead space (physiology)" unless there is a competing article title, which there isn't. Your impression fails to take onboard the fact that of all of the meanings of "dead space", only one has sufficient sources to sustain a Wikipediaarticle – that is this one. There is no doubt in my mind that the meaning of the parts of the respiratory tract that are ventilated but not perfused is the primary one on Wikipedia. None of which is relevant to the question of moving this article until somebody writes the articles concerning these other meanings. Dab pages are navigation aids and we should be concentrating simply on deciding which scheme is the most helpful in guiding the reader to the article that they want. --RexxS (talk) 23:39, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • WP:DAB says it is about when "a potential article title is ambiguous", i.e., when it "refers to more than one subject covered by Wikipedia, either as the main topic of an article, or as a subtopic covered by an article in addition to the article's main topic". It is not about when a potential article title is the same as another article title, it is about when the potential article title can be confused with other topics discussed on Wikipedia (not necessarily in stand-alone articles). All four of those meanings of "dead space" (and uses of the sometime-synonym "dead zone") are discussed on Wikipedia. The fact that only one of them has "dead space" in the article title is irrelevant. An interesting example is "hurricane". There is no article on Wikipedia with the title "Hurricane", but nevertheless there is a meaning of that word that we think readers may be looking for when they use that word, so we direct them to information about that topic. It's a matter of disambiguating topics, not titles. Wikipedia is also WP:NOTFINISHED. We disambiguate based on what we think readers will be looking for, not on what we happen to have written about the most. I suspect that a relatively small percentage of the interest in "dead space" among the general public is about respiration-related gaseous flow phenomena. Like I said, that is not even the primary medical meaning AFAICT; a post-operative pocket seems like a more common medical meaning. —BarrelProof (talk) 00:07, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • You completely ignored RexxS's earlier statement. The latter two are, incidentally, completely unsourced. We simply cannot use unsourced statements as a basis to create a disambiguation page. This represents the most basic tenet of Wikipedia, no original research. Even if it was sourced, a single word mention in the body of an article is not sufficient to qualify as any sort of "subtopic".ZXCVBNM (TALK) 05:29, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
              • Off-Wikipedia sources are also good for determining what meanings exist for the term. Some off-Wikipedia links are provided by me above. I primarily used off-Wikipedia sources to form my impression about this topic. There is a difference between "original research" in terms of what to say about a topic in a Wikipedia article and the idea of studying information outside of Wikipedia to determine what meanings a term has IRL. —BarrelProof (talk) 06:15, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I agree with BarrelProof's interpretation of the relevant guidelines.
The military meaning (see Enfilade and defilade) is at least as significant as the physiological one. The fact that I had heard of the former but not the latter is merely anecdotal, but it does indicate what readers might be looking for. It is much more important to get all of them there accurately rather than to save one click for some of them.
I can pretty much guarantee that an article called Dead space would accumulate bad links-in intended for one or other of the meanings of Dead Space. As a DABfixer, I see miscapitalisation in bluelinks all the time. Such links are very difficult to find and to fix if there is a WP:PTOPIC, and degrade the encyclopaedia. Narky Blert (talk) 07:43, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dead_space_(physiology)&oldid=1201402517"