![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
I am a fourth-year biomedical engineering student at the University of Virginia. For my thesis, we are designing a needle-remover that is specially built for developing countries. I felt that I should share my recent expertise on the subject. The sections discussing social and ethical implications, design possibilities, and commercial models should be expanded as newer models, patents, and research come out. 199.111.203.79 22:35, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Mmmm...this might fall under WP:OR. Jasmol 22:41, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
I have not put anything directly related to my research; these are just things I uncovered in my background research. Wikepedia did not have anything about this, so I felt that it should. - babbrandon
I think the template was placed on the page because of concern that the article violated WP:OR, but I think it is quite evident from the article that this is not true, so I removed it. Bryan 22:48, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Per discussion above, actually the content of the article is pretty good, but since the sources are not annotated properly within the article, perhaps it gives the impression that the quality of the article is low (?). I am not sure where the original source material came from, but I worked for Philips in a previous life, so I think it is pretty good already, but I can take a stab at improving it and "wikifying" it a bit. Not sure about the section called "Possible designs" though, is that really acceptable? I mean, I look at the articles for MRI and CT machines, diabetes devices, blood pressure monitors, etc. and I don't recall any other products having such a section. MarcoPolo419 ( talk) 03:31, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Does anyone know why we are using the parenthetical citation style we are currently using? I personally think this article would be easier to read for most readers if we switched to Citation Style 1. Of course, I won't change it myself until there seems to be some agreement on the matter. Zell Faze ( talk) 14:48, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
I've never heard one of these called a " needle remover", always " sharps container." When I saw the article title I initially thought it would be a device for removing (rather than containing) needles e.g. by extracting them from some body site; it's also an odd term since these are used for many sharp objects other than needles, e.g. vascular catheters, stylets, scalpels, etc. This seems likely to be a regionalism, as the US-based FDA and CDC use "sharps container", whereas PATH uses "needle remover". Should these be merged? Which is the more common usage? — soupvector ( talk) 01:59, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
This article was redirected to “Sharps container” which itself is a redirect to “Sharps waste” which contains a link to this article. Reverting to avoid circular redirect nonsense. If you don’t like it, please fix the article or merge it instead of redirecting it. EthanL ( talk) 08:08, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
This article is almost all fluff. It looks like it was a class assignment. Redirected to sharps container, having formally proposed a merge 3 months prior to that. There were no objections to the merge, and I can well understand that the content was thought to not be relevant to the topic of Needle remover, but rather was relevant to Sharps container or Sharps waste. Perhaps the argument was that those pages were sufficient in their present form, but given that Sharps waste#Sharps containers is unreferenced, my view is that there is sufficient material that could be added through a merge. Given that we can't merge to a redirect, I've modified the template to make an alternative proposal. Klbrain ( talk) 13:22, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
I am a fourth-year biomedical engineering student at the University of Virginia. For my thesis, we are designing a needle-remover that is specially built for developing countries. I felt that I should share my recent expertise on the subject. The sections discussing social and ethical implications, design possibilities, and commercial models should be expanded as newer models, patents, and research come out. 199.111.203.79 22:35, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Mmmm...this might fall under WP:OR. Jasmol 22:41, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
I have not put anything directly related to my research; these are just things I uncovered in my background research. Wikepedia did not have anything about this, so I felt that it should. - babbrandon
I think the template was placed on the page because of concern that the article violated WP:OR, but I think it is quite evident from the article that this is not true, so I removed it. Bryan 22:48, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Per discussion above, actually the content of the article is pretty good, but since the sources are not annotated properly within the article, perhaps it gives the impression that the quality of the article is low (?). I am not sure where the original source material came from, but I worked for Philips in a previous life, so I think it is pretty good already, but I can take a stab at improving it and "wikifying" it a bit. Not sure about the section called "Possible designs" though, is that really acceptable? I mean, I look at the articles for MRI and CT machines, diabetes devices, blood pressure monitors, etc. and I don't recall any other products having such a section. MarcoPolo419 ( talk) 03:31, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Does anyone know why we are using the parenthetical citation style we are currently using? I personally think this article would be easier to read for most readers if we switched to Citation Style 1. Of course, I won't change it myself until there seems to be some agreement on the matter. Zell Faze ( talk) 14:48, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
I've never heard one of these called a " needle remover", always " sharps container." When I saw the article title I initially thought it would be a device for removing (rather than containing) needles e.g. by extracting them from some body site; it's also an odd term since these are used for many sharp objects other than needles, e.g. vascular catheters, stylets, scalpels, etc. This seems likely to be a regionalism, as the US-based FDA and CDC use "sharps container", whereas PATH uses "needle remover". Should these be merged? Which is the more common usage? — soupvector ( talk) 01:59, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
This article was redirected to “Sharps container” which itself is a redirect to “Sharps waste” which contains a link to this article. Reverting to avoid circular redirect nonsense. If you don’t like it, please fix the article or merge it instead of redirecting it. EthanL ( talk) 08:08, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
This article is almost all fluff. It looks like it was a class assignment. Redirected to sharps container, having formally proposed a merge 3 months prior to that. There were no objections to the merge, and I can well understand that the content was thought to not be relevant to the topic of Needle remover, but rather was relevant to Sharps container or Sharps waste. Perhaps the argument was that those pages were sufficient in their present form, but given that Sharps waste#Sharps containers is unreferenced, my view is that there is sufficient material that could be added through a merge. Given that we can't merge to a redirect, I've modified the template to make an alternative proposal. Klbrain ( talk) 13:22, 4 March 2020 (UTC)