Talk:Periodontology

	This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Dentistry High‑importance This article is supported by WikiProject Dentistry. If you want to participate and/or join, please visit the project page, or ask questions on the project talk page.DentistryWikipedia:WikiProject DentistryTemplate:WikiProject Dentistrydentistry articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

What is the difference between this and Periodontics? Should the pages be merged? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.61.30.144 (talk) 14:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Page has been merged. - Dozenist talk 12:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why are India and U.K. their own sections under "Training"? Shouldn't the heading be the same as for US, Canada, and Australia?38.99.136.166 (talk) 14:59, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, a University group is currently editing this page for an assignment. Any issues with edits or suggested references please get in touch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jemmalang (talk • contribs) 00:51, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, I’ll do my references and cut down some of the info for treatment section by tomorrow, as we have to stick to around 1000 words. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Irenehpark (talk • contribs) 12:09, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why is pregnancy listed under non-midifiable when it is clearly a modifiable condition? 2A02:168:A1C9:0:BCEB:DDE5:7B75:80F4 (talk) 09:03, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Good point. — voidxor 21:03, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I added the updated AAP Periodontal Classification to this cite. I kept the images from the previous 1999 classifications. Hope ya'll like it. Toothscraper (talk) 19:28, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Voidxor, you reverted the change of short description from "Field of dentistry covering the structures supporting teeth" to "Field of dentistry" with the claim that it was sufficient before, and that it was longer than 40 characters. Firstly, there is no hard limit of 40 characters, so WP:SDFORMAT is not a reason to revert. There is in fact no hard limit, but in practice we have found it is usually quite easy to stay below 80, and so far has always been possible to stay below 100 characters, though some effort may be required. Secondly WP:SDPURPOSE explains that there are uses for short descriptions for which the revised version was better, so your reversion has made it less fit for some purposes. Please consider whether and how your reversion actually improves the encyclopedia by reducing the information available in templated and automatically generated annotations. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 05:17, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is an empty argument. I've also never appreciated being told to reconsider if my edits are helping the encyclopedia. Of course I did what I thought was best for the encyclopedia, as did you. Let's please get past the WP:AGF nonsense and focus on substantive argument.

Your guideline reference does nothing more than to tell me the purpose of short descriptions, of which I am fully aware. I also realize that there is not a hard limit at 40 characters; it's merely a target number. My edit summary was "Was sufficient before and is now over 40 characters. See WP:SDFORMAT." The key here is the word "and". If you read SDFORMAT, it says, "Each short description should be short – no longer than is needed to fulfill its functions effectively." It goes on to explain "Because they are intended to be scanned quickly, longer, more specific descriptions can be less useful."

If you can point me to a guideline that says it should be wordier and more specific, then I'll "reconsider". Otherwise, SDFORMAT is pretty clear. — voidxor 00:01, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]