Talk:Cerebellar ataxia

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Neurology task force.

Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Cerebellar ataxia.

PubMed provides review articles from the past five years (limit to free review articles)
The TRIP database provides clinical publications about evidence-based medicine.
Other potential sources include: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and CDC

Proposing redirection to a more-complete article

I don't want to be the third party to anyone else's edit war, but as someone who just stumbled into this article today, it seems to have considerably less information on the subject than does Ataxia. Barring some immediate expansion that's waiting in the wings, I propose that this article be changed to simply redirect to Ataxia. The BBC NEWS link that seems to be the only unique thing here can be added to Ataxia. --CliffC 22:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cerebellar ataxia is a well-defined and distinct condition, as the links in the infobox make clear. Within a year this page will be far better than the content currently in ataxia. The ataxia page has no references, and it provides a laundry-list of possible causes, without relating the causes to the results of a Romberg's test. We need content that is more granular, more precise, and in compliance with WP:MEDMOS. But we'll never get there if we keep redirecting to ataxia. We need to make more precise distinctions in the other neurology pages, and we need this page to support those distinctions. (You can see the pages that used to link to cerebellar ataxia before they were removed this morning.) If this page isn't much longer in a year, I'd remove my objection to a merge, but I don't think it would come to that. --Arcadian 00:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You say "Within a year this page will be far better than the content currently in ataxia." While I agree wholeheartedly with the goals you state, it seems that in the interim users doing a simple direct search for cerebellar ataxia will find less information on the subject immediately presented than they would have found yesterday. I suggest that until your article is complete you simply copy the cerebellar ataxia section from Ataxia into it so that users seeking information don't get shortchanged, or develop your article in a private sandbox until its content meets or surpasses what's currently in Ataxia. --CliffC 21:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you support a merge, please add the proposed merge tag to the page, to facilitate further discussion. --Arcadian 13:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that what I 'm asking for would be classified as a merge. If by "a merge" you mean some action that would get the missing information back into one place quickly, then I'm all for it. However, I don't know how to make such a proposal and I fear that if it's done wrong some wiki-door will slam and it will no longer be possible to raise the subject. Perhaps some editor observing this who is more experienced than I will volunteer to cast the plain English words that I have written above into a proper merge tag or proposal? Or perhaps you would be so kind as to do this yourself, since you are an admin and presumably would know the proper format. --CliffC 20:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arcadian, you have been asked repeatedly to gain consensus for splitting / branching out before proceeding. I agree with your stated goal of expanding on the main article, but creating a new article with less information than the main page is not the way to do that, and makes searching for that info more difficult (as CliffC remarked). Again, if you want to develop an article that is more extensive than the current one, feel free to do it either in a sandbox or by adding information to the main page. If you instead wish to split, meet the request for consensus first. --Nehwyn 16:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

The article Acute cerebellar ataxia of childhood appears to be a synonym of the icd G11.1 Early onset cerebellar ataxia, the source article has more content. At the least it should be renamed to the ICD name Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 22:06, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, Acute cerebellar ataxia describes a cerebellar ataxia which occurs in children and is specifically due to an autoimmune process. 130.102.158.15 (talk) 22:13, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a specific type of ataxia and should not be merged with the more general page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.79.139.10 (talk) 14:20, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, cerebellar ataxia can be caused by a stroke in the cerebellum at any age. This would leave the patient with no damage at all to his spinal cord and therefore no so-called 'spinal ataxia'. Consequently this page should remain unmerged, in my view. Wythy (talk) 13:44, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]