Talk:respiratory sounds

respiratory sounds
Created by an IP, but it's on Lucifer's agenda. Again, aren't these sounds made by the respiratory system? Note breath sounds and that whole situation. --Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 04:44, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I would have just deleted it. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:01, 15 June 2012 (UTC)


 * What is the word that should be used instead of "respiratory sounds"? Wikipedia doesn't provide one. --BB12 (talk) 08:29, 15 June 2012 (UTC)


 * English allows an adjective to precede a noun. It doesn't have a single word for every concept.    D b f  i  r  s   16:42, 15 June 2012 (UTC)


 * That sounds reasonable, though it also seems reasonable to include terms, and this certainly seems like a medical term. Also, Japanese has 呼吸音 (kokyūon) for this. Although it can be analyzed as 呼吸 (respiratory) and 音 (on), it feels like a single word to me. At least for the latter reason, it seems that this should be preserved as an entry. --BB12 (talk) 17:03, 15 June 2012 (UTC)


 * It's difficult to know where to stop with glossaries of technical terms. The Wikipedia article suggests that the sounds are just the various sounds of breathing ( and we don't have an entry for that ).    D b f  i  r  s   17:45, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * @BB12, use respiratory sounds in the Japanese entry. Also, I suspect the IP is Gtroy, hoping that if he doesn't use his account this is less likely to be spotted and deleted. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:52, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, but how does an English speaker look for the Japanese translation of "respiratory sounds" if there is no English entry? I think that's a point of concern I've seen raised before. --BB12 (talk) 18:59, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * From your own analysis, above, they look up respiratory and sounds.   D b f  i  r  s   07:34, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Definition seems inadequate so I'd discount it, and unless evidence is provided, this is SoP and be deleted. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:53, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The fact that Wikipedia considers this a valid topic doesn't mean it's an idiom. They have a List of fictional dogs, for crying out loud, surely that's not an English idiom. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:05, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Respiratory sounds are a criteria not actual sounds. Talking or whistling are made by the respiratory system but they are not respiratory sounds, rhonchi and stridor however are and in medicine that is what we mean when we check respiratory sounds, just a small criteria of audible symptoms not any noises made by the respiratory system.Lucifer (talk) 18:18, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean by "a criteria not actual sounds" [sic], so they're not sounds, not ever? Not audible in any way? Mglovesfun (talk) 18:30, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Your own references shoots you in the foot; "Noises, normal and abnormal, heard on auscultation over any part of the RESPIRATORY TRACT." i.e. [[respiratory]] [[sounds]]. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:38, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 07:32, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * this wikipedia chart shows pretty clearly that only a specific set counts as respiratory sounds while whistling or singing or belching are not
 * it is also a medical condition according to the national diagnostic and statistical manual
 * included in this medical dictionary


 * Gtroy/Lucifer (or whatever you call yourself today), how can respiratory sounds be a "medical condition"? Your own link seems to argue against your claim.    D b f  i  r  s   07:40, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * They are not the sounds themself the are the sounds in the wikipedia article chart as a whole to the exclusion of others.Lucifer (talk) 17:25, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Lucifer’s argument is that whistling, talking, belching and singing are sounds made by the respiratory system but aren’t respiratory sounds. However, the definition of respiratory is “relating to respiration; breathing”. Whistling, talking, belching and singing aren’t directly related to breathing thus this term is SOP, delete. Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 17:40, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah I spotted that, delete (not sure if I've already said that above). Mglovesfun (talk) 18:17, 16 June 2012 (UTC)


 * As I mentioned above, my understanding is that words such as eight hundred are included so people can find translations of them. If that is what we do, then I think this has to be kept for 呼吸音. --BB12 (talk) 23:26, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No, surely not any term that can have a translation should be included! That would be almost any combination of words in the English language! Mglovesfun (talk) 08:41, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I can see both sides to the argument. Should we delete eight hundred? --BB12 (talk) 08:58, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Mglovesfun. As a veteran English and Chinese editor here I also want to voice my objection to BB12's logic. Shall we add act rashly out of spite, in case anyone wanted to know the Chinese concept (赌气), or pleasing to the ear for 入耳, etc, etc. Absurd. ---&#62; Tooironic (talk) 09:03, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Your answer puzzles me, Tooironic. I'm not sure who you think wants to act out of spite, but I am trying to follow principles. As I stated, I can see both sides of the argument. Mglovesfun found the discussion that I was unable to find, but for some reason posted it on my user page. The link is Talk:three_hundred. I personally do not care whether this entry is kept or not, only that the relevant issues are discussed. --BB12 (talk) 19:49, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You misunderstood my point. What I was saying was that it would be absurd to keep an English entry just because its translation happens to have a one-word equivalent in a foreign language. Surely you see the slippery slope such a proposal presents? ---&#62; Tooironic (talk) 21:44, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I absolutely agree this is a slippery slope and care is required. I think by adding Haplology's link, this issue will be addressed. --BB12 (talk) 22:10, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I think you missed a word or two when you read Tooironic's comment: "act rashly out of spite" is merely the translation for "赌气", which was given as a random example- not as a statement of opinion. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:57, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * hahaha. I thought that looked odd. Thank you! --BB12 (talk) 22:10, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. "Respiratory sounds" is used to indicate a group of strictly defined medical terms, like "rhonchi", "coarse crackles", "bronchovesicular sounds", which are assessed by auscultation. @Ungoliant & Mglovesfun: e.g. sigh, gasp, pant, puff are [[respiratory]] [[sounds]], but not [[respiratory sounds]]. -- Curious (talk) 09:17, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Somebody familiar with Japanese could guess this term pretty easily. If you know "respiration" is 呼吸, you can guess the translation for "respiratory sound" by sticking 音 (おん) at the end. You can't just coin words this way, but if you tried, people could understand you. 呼吸音 is further divided into "bronchial sounds", 気管支音, and "pulmonary sounds", 肺胞音, but I doubt that people would allow pulmonary sounds here. Somebody looking for the translation could find it through a link at 呼吸. --Haplology (talk) 12:03, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I think adding that link is a great idea, Haplology. --BB12 (talk) 19:49, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

If this is well established medical terminology then we should Keep it, at least as translation target. Matthias Buchmeier (talk) 08:49, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I've got a medical J-E dictionary here (the 医学用語大辞典 from Nichigai Associates, ), and is showing up as  or  (the latter term is also listed as  and, with the last shown as an uncommon variant).  The English term  is listed as , , , and .  This last is also given as the Japanese gloss for  with the SNOMED code F75800.  -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 21:35, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Votes:
 * Delete: (nom.),, , , ,
 * Keep: ,
 * Didn’t vote, but seem to be in favour of keeping: ,
 * 〃 〃 〃 〃 〃 〃 〃 〃 〃 deleting: ,
 * Clear consensus for deletion. Deleted. — Ungoliant (Falai) 05:48, 16 August 2012 (UTC)