Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 35

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 30

←

Archive 33

→

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cancer village in China

Comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cancer village in China.
-- Kind regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 20:37, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Clitoromegaly#The term "clitoromegaly" can refer to any abnormal enlargement of the clitoris

Comments are needed from this project regarding the above linked matter in the heading. If any of you are willing to help improve either or both those two articles -- Clitoromegaly and Clitoris enlargement -- through editing, that would also be appreciated. Flyer22 (talk) 01:11, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Hey again, everyone. Will at least one of you weigh in on the above matter? Flyer22 (talk) 16:29, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Deletion discussion - List of books about AIDS

Ongoing deletion discussion for List of books about AIDS at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of books about AIDS.

Perhaps this WikiProject and its members may be interested in contributing to this discussion, and/or a quality improvement project for this list page. — Cirt (talk) 07:04, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Psychiatric drugs and IP user

There is an IP user (2602:306:c518:6c40:f02a:330c:11cc:acdb (talk · contribs)) edit warring and doing disruptive edits at some psychiatric drugs articles (haloperidol, lurasidone, risperidone, and fluorobenzene). More eyes would be probably welcomed.--Garrondo (talk) 19:53, 22 May 2013 (UTC).

Moreover; it seems that his ip editor and User:ChemNerd (who should be said that is probably trying to control the damage) have both broken the 3RR. Maybe a temporal protection of these articles would be wise. Additionally it might not be the case, but edits, tone and topic have some resemblance to those of Mandragua/Booklaunch, --Garrondo (talk) 20:43, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah that guy looks like Booklaunch. Interesting in this edit he seems to indicate he has personal experience with antipsychotic drugs, but wasn't happy with the result. Is there an admin around? We might benefit from blocking the IP, but given the history he'll probably just come back as another IP in a matter of minutes. We might consider semi-protection on the small number of affected articles for a little while to discourage him. Zad68 20:52, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

My apologies for the edit warring. I should have known better. :/ This editor is clearly unfamiliar with Wikipedia policy (or doesn't care about it), not knowledgeable in the science of pharmacology, and not knowledgeable in chemistry, in addition to all the behavior problems, and all his (non-trivial) edits have been reverted. ChemNerd (talk) 21:20, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

This is almost certainly not Booklaunch or Mandragua. A look at the history of Talk:Risperidone shows that the same person has been editing using similar IPv6 addresses since July 2012. The topic of psychosis has such a strong propensity to draw disruptive editors that we could easily get more than one editing on related themes. Looie496 (talk) 22:17, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Now is: 2602:306:C518:6C40:505A:5C79:DCDB:627E, for the moment only working at talk pages.--Garrondo (talk) 20:13, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

And is blocked. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:56, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Now is: 2602:306:c518:6c40:436:4cd8:3535:ce51, again for the moment only working at talk pages. (See this.--Garrondo (talk) 20:07, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Recent changes pages

User:Kumioko has tagged a raft of pages for deletion: Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Recent changes and its subpages from Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Recent changes/0 to Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Recent changes/21. I asked him to explain what he was doing, and he responded Certainly, Femto bot was operated by Rich Farmbrough. Rich has been banned from operating bots and his bots shut down. These pages haven't been updated since before May 2012 (some in 2011). Additionally multiple requests have been made to other bot operators to maintain the functionality and all have refused. One did make a Toolserver app that is fairly close. So there is no need to keep these pages, which all say recent (which is confusing) that haven't been updated in more than a year and won't be updated. I hope this helps. Kumioko (talk) 20:24, 25 May 2013 (UTC) Does this project want them, or should they be deleted? Nyttend (talk) 20:31, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

It looks like those pages have been deleted already. Only admins are able to view the deleted material. Axl ¤ [Talk] 00:20, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

If memory serves, the pages were mostly lists of articles that are tagged with {{WPMED}}. INeverCry (talk · contribs) deleted them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:09, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

The contents of "Recent changes/0" were as follows:

Extended content

The contents were periodically updated, as Kumioko noted; I thought perhaps you would be interested in the changes that the page experienced. I wish INC had waited to delete them, since this isn't simple maintenance; I don't think we should delete project pages unless the project says they don't want them. If you want them, I'll ask him to restore. Nyttend (talk) 02:12, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Ugh. I don't see how anyone could find such a page useful. I am happy to leave them deleted. Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:36, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Last I saw of it, maybe a week or two ago, the page was still logging every edit to WP:MED articles. It functioned as a watchlist for every change to a WP:MED article (and not like that jumble above). I just went to open the page to see if there was any recent vandalism. If it can be restored and log recent changes like a watchlist, then I say restore. Biosthmors (talk) 16:49, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, since the lists were out of date, it was giving you every edit to the list of articles tagged for WPMED over a year ago, excluding all pages tagged since the last time the bot ran. But still, it's better than nothing. Perhaps it would even be worth generating the list by hand every now and again. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:36, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Pertussis cough audio request

I think it would be great to include an audio clip of what the whooping cough sounds like on the Pertussis article. It has a very distinct sound and is easily identifiable because of that. And since many people tend to use Wikipedia as their go-to source for information, it would be a good educational tool for those who have not heard it. ComfyKem (talk) 04:45, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes agree. Disease is really rare in my country. Hopefully someone can record the sound or find a CC BY version. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:51, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Pertussis has become rare in many developed countries since the introduction of the DTP vaccine. It may be difficult to find someone who has both access to a case and the means/motivation to record and upload the file. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:03, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Stroke

A user is repeatedly adding primary source material here [1]. Comments? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:44, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I think that information does not qualify for its own level 2 heading ==Therapy==, but would better fit as a level 3 sub heading under level 2 ==Research==. It could also be further summarized. Ochiwar (talk) 08:42, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Not according to MEDRS: There are many secondary sources in research directions. No reason to include a cherry-picked primary source. --Garrondo (talk) 09:06, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

AfC submission

This submission is up for review. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 02:11, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

"LALI is not to be confused with LAPI, or Lonergan-associated Pants Injury, which is a different pathophysiology and phenotype". Hmm. bobrayner (talk) 02:35, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

"but incidence is predicted to rise in parallel with Dr Lonergan's career"...? Sounds funny. The second ref is no good. Cant seem to find the stated information in the first ref. Ochiwar (talk) 06:58, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Done. Reviewed and declined. Looked like a hoax.Ochiwar (talk) 08:25, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to create/maintain disease infoboxes

I run an academic research group, and one of our current projects is to develop the Gene Wiki project. Basically, we helped to create/maintain a template for key information on human genes. In cases where a gene page already existed, we just added/updated the template. When they didn’t exist before, we auto-created stubs. Now, we maintain a bot that keeps these infoboxes up to date with the source databases.

After the success of the gene pages, the idea of expanding to other biomedical topics has been suggested several times by other scientists I’ve talked to. The set of human diseases is one natural area. Clearly, Template:Infobox_disease is already doing a great job organizing many links to related resources. Relative to what already exists, I can see a few possible ways we might contribute:

Systematically determining, adding, and maintaining the mappings (e.g., to OMIM, MeSH, GeneReviews, etc.)
Adding new data sources (e.g. NCI Thesaurus, Disease Ontology)
Identifying a “comprehensive” list of notable human diseases for stub creation
Providing wikilinks to related genes and drugs/compounds (with references)

We would appreciate any feedback, thoughts, and suggestions on whether this community thinks our involvement would be useful and productive. (Note, we’ve also started a very similar discussion with Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pharmacology [2] on the idea of expanding drug topics as well.) Cheers, Andrew Su (talk) 22:01, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I like this idea. This would mesh well with the efforts we are working on with the WHO ICD division. ICD 11 is coming out soon and the ideas we are mulling around is not only partly basing the ICD 11 on Wikipedia but looking at updating the infoboxes to ICD 11. This will require bots to do so and if you have a similar bot already developed that could definately be a starting point. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:10, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

We by the way have a fairly exhaustive list of diseases here [3] The difficulty is many diseases are known by a number of names and some of these should simply be redirects. Could we come up with a bot that would search disease name synonyms and see if Wikipedia has an article for one while adding redirects for the others? That would be a first step. Than we could have a bot that adds the disease infobox to the rest as well as adding the disease infobox to articles that do not have it already and maybe filling in the disease infobox where there is data but it is not included :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:21, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Great, glad to hear there's some enthusiasm of this idea. Absolutely, no human should have to deal with any ICD codes, so systematically dealing with ICD 9 and ICD 10 while still prepping for the arrival of ICD 11 seems to be perfect for a bot. The list of diseases looks remarkable! We should definitely figure out how to incorporate this effort. We have been working with the Disease Ontology folks. The plus-side of DO is that they track many of the synonyms, so setting up redirects should be straightforward. However, by quick spot check, I see many diseases listed here that aren't in DO. Anyway, I think figuring out the overlap there could involve a very productive collaboration in both directions. Cheers, Andrew Su (talk) 06:23, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Overall, I think this is a great idea. I'm a little uncertain about the "links to related genes and drugs/compounds", but I'm willing to see how it works out.

May I request an addition? One of the things we've talked about, but never managed to accomplish, is a |specialty= parameter, to answer the very basic question of "What kind of a doctor usually deals with this?" It wouldn't be necessary on many articles, but it would be very handy for some of them (e.g., most autoimmune diseases are handled by rheumatologists), and I hope that it would be mostly simple to figure out whenever it is relevant. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:56, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the "links to related genes and drugs/compounds", another one of our collaborators has systematically curated links between diseases and genes and diseases and drugs. There is a mix of database imports and human manual curation, and they've tracked each link with the strength of the evidence. Clearly we'd restrict ourselves to the highest-confidence links. I was thinking about displaying this info in an infobox (either a new one, or expanding Template:Infobox_disease), but we're certainly open to how others think this information should be displayed.

Regarding the specialty parameter, sounds like a reasonable idea to me. I'd love to prepopulate that field with data from a database with our bot runs. Are you aware of any source of that information? Perhaps we could use the Disease Ontology hierarchy to infer that information. The fallback of course is simply to let editors fill that in one-by-one. Cheers, Andrew Su (talk) 06:23, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not aware of a good source, and each specialty tends to have an expansive idea of its scope, so that a dermatologist would include several heart conditions as being derm issues, or a neurologist would include cancers, etc. I'm hoping to get the primary specialty listed, not just any specialist who might encounter it. I think that pre-populating with an inferred specialty would be fine, and then we can manually correct it or expand it as necessary. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:49, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Agree that you'll need a very reliable source, because this will be contentious for the reasons you've touched upon. Nothing starts fights like turf does. -- Scray (talk) 17:34, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

The good news is that we're not required to limit it to one answer. Skin cancer could easily list both oncology and dermatology, for example. I think that I'd avoid citing this (should be obvious 90% of the time, right?) unless and until someone actually challenges it in a specific article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:34, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

And of course, this is exactly the sort of data that ought to be present in the Wikidata entry, http://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q192102. It's also worth noting that if we're really going to be ahead of the game, once we supply more than one item of information in a field, we really ought to be marking it up as a proper list like this: {{hlist | oncology | dermatology}} for example. --RexxS (talk) 22:54, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

The issue of Wikidata and accessible lists in infoboxes is also being discussed at Template_talk:Infobox person#Parameters that can optionally be called from Wikidata. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:45, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks all for the additional thoughts. First on the subject of classifying disease, just a couple of thoughts. We are actively coordinating with the Disease Ontology [4] folks, and classification/organization of disease terms into higher-level concepts is definitely something they've thought a lot about. We are hoping to include some elements of that structure into the disease infobox. However, it's not quite the same as linking a disease to the primary specialty. Perhaps we should also follow the model of {{Breast_cancer_types}} and |{{Systemic connective tissue disorders}}? Again, this is not purely a bot issue since it will take human input to do the classifications...

Second, on the issue of wikidata, 100% in agreement. I apparently neglected to mention this, but we definitely will plan to put all the infobox data that we add/maintain into wikidata. And that includes all the old stuff we've done with {{GNF Protein box}}. Having said that, I think we're going to leave the discussion at Template_talk:Infobox person to others. Just know we'll be on board once all the options for querying and inclusion are worked out... Cheers, Andrew Su (talk) 00:47, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

re Classifying disease, I note in one the examples given at User:ProteinBoxBot/Phase 3 "inherited metabolic disorder" used. Now this is disease classification rather than the specialism that addresses the disorder; could have both I suppose. The risk is this gets idiosyncratic between articles with endless variations confusing medics as well as the non-specialist. Would we wish to restrict this to sub-parameters to enact a surgical sieve ? Hence have 3 variables of "Acquired-Congetial"; "Cause" (or 'Mechanism') eg inflammatory, infectious, cancer; and "Target_system" (eg Cardiac, Renal, or Systemic) ? David Ruben ^Talk 23:59, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

This looks like a very interesting project. Where can we go to stay abreast of the progress? Klortho (talk) 13:22, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Great, glad you find it interesting! For the moment, we'll keep the discussion on this page (and the parallel discussion on compounds/drugs). Eventually we'll bring together all of the various activities into a single place -- probably at User:ProteinBoxBot. Cheers, Andrew Su (talk) 21:26, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes when a more defined proposal has been put together will definitely look at it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:36, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

In an effort to centralize the discussion with all interested parties and actually work on tangible prototypes, I've created User:ProteinBoxBot/Phase_3. We'd welcome your input and continued involvement over there! Cheers, Andrew Su (talk) 19:22, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi! I just caught on to this discussion and I'm glad I'm not totally late. The past 2 months I have been busy discussing and creating properties over at Wikidata. I should have actually informed this project earlier that already four properties have been created from the diseases infobox (MeSH, OMIM, ICD9, ICD10; d:Wikidata:List of properties/Terms#Medicine) which can now be assigned to every disease (e.g. d:Q2840). I would like to suggest that we create a task force page on Wikidata and centralize the discussion, the data gathering and the centralized infobox design there. By the way I really like the way the new infoboxes look. If you need any help with Wikidata I will watch this page and respond in a timely manner. (There are more medical property proposals here) --Tobias1984 (talk) 18:52, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: I requested the property you suggested at: d:Wikidata:Property_proposal/Term#doctor_specializing_in --Tobias1984 (talk) 19:06, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

ICD-O is now available as a property and MeSH and OMIM are currently being aquired by KLBot2. More properties are discussed at this page and would benefit from your comments! --Tobias1984 (talk) 15:14, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

The d:Wikidata:Medicine_task_force is now good to go. I proposed the remaining infobox fields here: this page. Can someone think of something that is still missing? Of course, everybody is invited to propose more properties on the task force talk page. --Tobias1984 (talk) 20:55, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Were are we at with pharmacology fields? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:13, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

There is no pharmacology task force yet. d:Wikidata:List_of_properties has all the existing properties. Some might still be under discussion at d:Wikidata:Molecular_Biology_task_force, because they have some overlap with pharmacology. In general any property can be proposed at d:Wikidata:Property_proposal/Term. --Tobias1984 (talk) 21:25, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I did a quick check of the drugbox and added a second table to d:Wikidata:Medicine_task_force. Currently only 2 existing properties from the infobox (not counting really general properties like "image", "chemical formula"). Anybody feel like making a list of things that should be included? --Tobias1984 (talk) 22:08, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

FAR

I have nominated Bupropion for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:14, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I have thoroughly scrubbed and polished the article over the last couple of days in an attempt to address the main issues. Looie496 (talk) 14:00, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Artemisia absinthium

I removed material on therapeutic claims sourced to old primary documents (Culpeper's herbal) and to primary papers on preliminary medical research from the article on Artemisia absinthium per WP:MEDRS. There is a discussion on the talk page here Talk:Artemisia absinthium about the interpretation of the sourcing policy. Please feel free to comment. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:19, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Input would be appreciated at Talk:Morgellons

The discussion there isn't very productive. More input might help the various parties gain a little perspective. -- Scray (talk) 23:15, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

DSM-5 and roll call

Who is still around? Does anyone have access to the new DSM-5 ? See the dilemma on my talk ... there are numerous subtleties in Tourette syndrome and tic disorder that will need to be addressed and corrected, other articles in the autism suite require extensive work, every DSM article needs updating, and I'm wondering if anyone is still active who can help. I need access to DSM-V to be able to do TS correctly, and Asperger syndrome needs a good deal of work. Roll call ? DSM-5 anyone? Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:30, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Have you looked at the discussions at Talk:DSM-5? There are a couple of people actively working on the article, and I believe at least one of them has ordered a copy of the new version. It might be helpful to ask there -- not sure if any of them watch this page. Looie496 (talk) 14:40, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

The DSM 5 has taken some hard hits. The head of the NIMH has stated "Patients with mental disorders deserve better" [5]. A commentary in annals states "The DSM-5, the recently published fifth edition of the diagnostic manual, ignored this risk and introduced several high-prevalence diagnoses at the fuzzy boundary with normality" [6] DSM specifically asked us not to use their criteria a while ago. I think we should keep our article more directed towards the ICD criteria. I need to email the WHO and ask if this will have any effect on the ICD11. Supposedly they were supposed to be exactly the same for the next edition of the ICD. So to summarize I do not think we should be in a great hurry to update. We need to let the dust settle. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:14, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

That is only half true, since (info from our article) In May 2013, Insel, on behalf of NIMH, issued a joint statement with Jeffrey A. Lieberman, MD, president of the American Psychiatric Association,[57] that emphasized that DSM-5, "...represents the best information currently available for clinical diagnosis of mental disorders. Patients, families, and insurers can be confident that effective treatments are available and that the DSM is the key resource for delivering the best available care. The National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) has not changed its position on DSM-5." Insel and Lieberman say that DSM-5 and RDoC "represent complementary, not competing, frameworks" for characterizing diseases and disorders.--Garrondo (talk) 07:09, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Glad to have you back Sandy! Editors are here and busy, WP:MED is still awesome as one of the most active projects on Wikipedia, last I checked. The release of DSM-V is directly relevant to me and User:MrADHD too because we're right in the middle of the GA review for Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Right now the article only mentions DSM-IV and I don't think it'll be required to have it list the DSM-V criteria for GA, although I will ask MrADHD to do that if it's possible for him to do so. Zad68 15:44, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, all, for this info and for confirming my DSM-5 concerns (more on my talk). Nonetheless, for a Featured article like TS (or autism or Asperger), I do still need to at least update some basics like diagnostic codes, etcetera (see the list on my talk). If anyone has access to DSM5 re the issues listed on my talk, much appreciated. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:04, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I own DSM-5 but I'm unsure about your issues. I can provide diagnostic codes and such. Farrajak (talk) 00:21, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Concerns about template Narcissism

I have opened a thread on Template talk:Narcissism about my concerns regarding that template. (that it uses wikionary links, links to articles that don't mention narcissism, etc.) Since there is no Project Psychiatry, I am posting it here, hoping to get feedback from other editors on the appropriateness of these links. Thanks, Farrajak (talk) 22:04, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Did you post a note at WT:WikiProject Psychology? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:33, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Farrajak (talk) 00:22, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Melatonin at the helpdesk

Just to bring this to the attention of participants: Wikipedia:Help_desk/Archives/2013_May_29#Melatonin. XOttawahitech (talk) 22:01, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

That article is badly biased - I tackled what to me were some of the worst bits (misleading statements in the intro about its regulatory status, cancer claims and antioxidants). The most efficient way to improve this article is to delete all the claims and implied benefits based on animal studies, hypotheses and study types that can't prove benefit. Hildabast (talk) 01:37, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Agree much of Wikipedia is in need of a good weeding. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:31, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

It just takes time, because you have to be careful not to throw babies out with bathwater. If the bit I did survives, I might have a go at cleaning up a few more parts of it. This one looks like a very large COI was involved in creating this situation. Hildabast (talk) 02:34, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Renaming skin diseases

Dear members of Project Medicine,

Today I renamed a couple of articles, based on the fact that those articles beared a Latin name with a Latin grammatical construction but were most of the time not Latin with respect to orthography.

1. Nevus sebaceous. In Latin nevus is spelled naevus and sebaceous is actually not Latin or Latin with an Americanized orthography, but an English adjective, as can be determined by the ending -ous. I think it is quite uncommon to put the adjective in English behind the noun. So it is neither Latin nor English.

2. Nevus flammeus. Also a Latin expression. So I changed it to naevus.

3. Erythema multiforme major. Also a Latin expression. But erythema and multiforme are of neuter gender, while major is of masculine of feminine gender. Majus however is of neuter gender. A lot of people talk about the labium major, instead of the labium majus (to mention a similar mistake).

4. Nevus anemicus Also a Latin expression. But spelling is Americanized. Naevus anaemicus is according to Latin orthography.

However I did not ask the Wikipedia community first whether they would agree with the renaming. I should have done that first. My apologies.

Moderator Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} reverted the moves back, but not all changes I have made in the articles itself are reverted properly. However I want to ask, whether you think it is a good idea, to rename those articles to their proper name with correct Latin spelling? Thank you very much for your response. With kind regards, Wimpus (talk) 16:53, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Tend to use the most commonly used spelling/term in recent high quality medical publications. This might not correspond to the etymologically correct spelling. In this context, it could be argued that these are medical terms with specific definitions rather than latin words. To illustrate this point, I take the example of nevus:

The latin word Naevus - "Mole" or "Birthmark"
the medical term has a more specific definition (as described by the wikipedia article) than the above.
on pubmed "naevus" yields 1889 hits [7]
whereas "nevus" yields 15439 [8]

I know your argument is about latin spellings rather than about British English spellings, but in the cases you raised here, the British English spelling follows the latin too. I would add that American English spellings of medical words are not only (usually) in much more common use than British English spellings, is easier to read and write in my opinion. And think of those few less letters you have to write/type each time you use the word =D time saving too. I read somewhere that the prevalence of dyslexics among native English speakers is artificially high compared to many other languages, possibly due to more complex spelling and grammar "rules" in the language. So, I think simplified spellings in American English are a good thing all round. Lesion (talk) 17:12, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Dear Lesion, or Laesion,

Thank you for your quick response. This is actually not about the spelling of single words, but of words within a sentence that is not English. In case you want to quote a French sentence, you can not Americanize the spelling as the sentence is written with French word and make use of French grammar. In case you would use single French words, than it is possible to simplify orthography. In binary nomenclature, spelling is also not different for Americans or people from the United Kingdom. Or is the Dracaena marginata spelled Dracaena marginata in the UK and Dracena marginata in the US? The expression is Latin and is therefore in the case of Dracaena marginata not subjected to national spelling rules. I think the Latin expressions used to name certain skin diseases are analogous cases. With kind regards, Wimpus (talk) 17:22, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Laesion love it =D ... I sympathize with your argument. It must be frustrating to see errors that are glaringly obvious to you. I would personally tend to favor naming an article (whether a single word or phrase) based on the most common use in sources -- even if this is wrong, for whatever reason ... spelling, or masculine/feminine not matching up (not sure what the correct word is for that). If a source can be found explaining how it is wrong, then this would be great to include in the article too, along with the technically correct spelling. The physicians of old who coined these phrases probably needed to work on their Latin and Greek, hence the errors you point out with masculine/feminine combinations, but then they may not have had as much time to discover the diseases etc to name in the first place. My personal dislike is terms which are derived from both Greek and Latin, sometimes in the same word. These can be in very common use, e.g. hyperthermia [9] is made from both Greek and Latin. How hard could it have been to be consistent and use either or? I suppose Latin and Greek are no longer spoken as actual languages by most medical/scientific figures after a point in history. Instead, a selection of the words are used as building blocks to construct the terminology of science. They are no longer using their native tongue, and errors of all kinds become common I would imagine. And then there is the whole British English-American English split. Lesion (talk) 17:45, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

As an off topic, this reminds me of a page I was working on a while ago: Leukoedema, spelled the same in both British and American English. The British English for edema is oedema, but pronounced the same. Leukoedema is pronounced as "leuko-edema" in the US (I think, don't often hear it spoken). I wonder if when using British English, it is pronounced "Leuk-edema"? Interesting. Lesion (talk) 18:02, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Even more off topic. Hyperthermia is however not a hybrid. Hyper is from Greek ὑπέρ hupér=above, over, exceeding, across, and thermia from Greek θερμός thermós=hot, heat, hot water or θέρμη/θέρμα thérme/thérma=heat, with its plural θέρμαι thérmai=hot springs, hot bads. However, the Romans used this word as loaneword as thermae (Latin transcription of θέρμαι thérmai) for their warm springs and warm baths. So this actually not a mixture of Greek and Latin, altough the latter part can also be found (as loanword) in Latin. About Leukoedema, what is actually a nice example. When you construct such a word, it can be done like leuko+oedema, leuko+edema, leuk+oedema and leuk-edema. The connecting vowel in Greek for making compounds in most of the time (with a lot of exceptions) an o, but when the other word starts with a vowel, the initial connecting vowel is elided (=pushed out). Therefore is Notalgia paraesthetica and not Notalgia paraaesthetica. The a of para- is in that case elided. So it seems that the Americans did not elide the connecting vowel and the Britisch did according to the grammar rules of Greek.

Back on topic, a few examples I changed were according to Dorland's Medical Dictionary, while others were according other dictionaries. Sometimes Dorland's take care of the difficulties of the complicated nomenclature with its Latin and Greek and sometimes they forget basic rules. Therefore checking multiple reference works is recommended as multiple sources can supplement eachother. With kind regards, Wimpus (talk) 18:56, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Overall, I think it is a bad idea to make an "English" article use "Latin" spelling. What matters is whether the article is using proper English spelling. It does not matter (at all) if that English spelling differs from the Latin (or Spanish, or French, or German, or Chinese, or anything else) spelling.

If there is a difference between versions of English that gives several correct English spellings, then whatever was used originally is the one that we stick with. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:05, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Maybe it is not clear to everyone, but I am not talking about single words in Latin with Latin spelling, but I am talking about full Latin expressions with Latin spelling. Those Latin expressions are not English. They are constructed with Latin grammar in mind. They have a noun with a certain gender and a corresponding adjective with the same gender. It would be rhe same as you would quote a French sentence and adapt the spelling and remove diacritical marks, all words with -our, by -or et cetera. With kind regards, Wimpus (talk) 20:24, 4 June 2013 (UTC).

No, you aren't talking about Latin phrases. Nevus fuscoceruleus ophthalmomaxillaris is a name used in some modern sources, not a phrase used in Latin sources. Here at the English Wikipedia, we do not "correct" the spelling to match what it ought to be in a non-English foreign language, just like we would not correct the spelling of your own personal name to match what it would be in some other language. If you want to write in proper Latin, rather than following English sources, then the Latin Wikipedia is looking for help. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:48, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Agreed with all above: the pubmed test should yield a rough indication on when it migth be convenient to change the name. It does not really matter if a word is used alone or in combination with others (minor point: I would never say that two words with no verb make a sentence): if majority of sources misspell or misconjugate or misdecline or whatever we should follow what you see as an error and others simply see as natural language evolution. You might also benefit from reading WP:TRUTH. WP is not about whan an editor thinks is The Truth but about what a majority of sources say. --Garrondo (talk) 20:30, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Wimpus, thank you for that insight, I found it very interesting. I usually try to include some content about etymology on a page, and linking to Wiktionary is good too. This is a good standard to follow, and I think inclusion along with the etymology on any errors in the commonly used term should be included too, with a source to support this. However, regarding the naming of the article itself, Wikipedia:MEDMOS#Naming_conventions is pretty clear on the subject

"The article title should be the scientific or recognised medical name that is most commonly used in recent, high-quality, English-language medical sources, rather than a lay term (unscientific or slang name)[1] or a historical eponym that has been superseded."

Hence, we have nevus and not naevus, even though it could be argued that "nevus" is incorrect. Lesion (talk) 21:22, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: that is not to say that the currently, the name of every medical page is already titled in the most appropriate way. One would need to investigate this on a case by case basis. All Wikipedia is a work in progress. Lesion (talk) 21:26, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I do not think nevus is incorrect when it used within an English construction. So sebaceous nevus is fine, but the Latin form has to be naevus sebaceus. To give an example from my own language: we write allergische rinitis. We are not allowed to write rh- in words derived from Greek, but when we use the Latin form and in Medical Dutch that is perfectly possible, than we can write rhinitis allergica . In such an expression, the general grammar rules for DUTCH doesn't apply for those special cases of Latin nomenclature, but only if they are used within an expression with Latin grammar. With kind regards, Wimpus (talk) 21:52, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I think Garrondo's comment about language evolution above is important. Can these disputed phrases still be considered another language, or are they adopted, specialized terms now altered and used in a particular, accepted way? If the latter, then arguably the grammar, syntax etc of the original language does not apply... Lesion (talk) 22:11, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the bit of MEDMOS quoted above by Lesion, though on the point of "most commonly used", that argument doesn't setting disputes between US and UK spelling. If it did, US spelling would be the only one on Wikipedia. In a situation where two regional spellings have widespread usage, we live with the regional spelling used already by the article. I disagree that a term composed of two (or even three) words becomes a "sentence". A term is an atomic thing no matter how many words it has. The spelling and punctuation in that term go with educated usage, even if some wish that usage was more educated :-). Colin°^Talk 07:21, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Lower down the same page states "Where there are lexical differences between the varieties of English, an international standard should be sought." listing the ICD-10 and such as examples of international standards. Continuing the above example, the ICD uses the British English spelling, so ... maybe the article title could be changed on those grounds, but I feel the overwhelming used of "nevus" in publications listed on pubmed is compelling. Lesion (talk) 09:18, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

International Classification of Sleep Disorders 2nd edition

Does anyone have access to International Classification of Sleep Disorders second edition? I was working from the ICSD-R (the edition before the second edition [10]) on bruxism. It would be good to know if the diagnostic criteria have changed since, but other sources appear to suggest that the new edition is pretty much the same on this topic. Much appreciated, Lesion (talk) 21:12, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

International Classification of Sleep Disorders – Second Edition (ICSD-2), 298 pages. ©2005 American Academy of Sleep Medicine, ISBN 0965722023 ISBN 978-0965722025

Questions about sleep disorders always make me think about User:Hordaland, who knows far more about this than I ever will. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:11, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Contacted, thanks, Lesion (talk) 22:21, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cancer victim hoaxes

Some of you may want to weigh in on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cancer victim hoaxes. Flyer22 (talk) 22:45, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

AfC submission

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Tenoten. Regards, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 13:02, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Done Ochiwar (talk) 13:07, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Gah. Russian medicine abounds in quackery and even outright fraud, and anything coming from there needs to be examined with care. I have tried to fix all the misinformation in that article, but a case can be made that it doesn't belong on Wikipedia at all, due to the nonexistence of MEDRS-compatible sources. Looie496 (talk) 14:10, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Cooperative WikiProject

WikiProject Globalization, with assistance from Outlines WikiProject, has drafted an Outline of globalization. We welcome your input, additions, and comments. Meclee (talk) 16:59, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

The section heading "Cooperative WikiProject" might be confused with Wikipedia:WikiProject Cooperatives and Wikipedia:WikiProject Cooperation.

—Wavelength (talk) 17:11, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

More opinions please to help unblock discussion

There's a proposal to add a new section to the article Circumcision covering the circumcision techniques used in traditional and tribal rite-of-passage circumcisions as compared to those performed in medical settings, describing the differences in the techniques and discussing the differences in consequent complication types, rates and outcomes. We had started off the conversation with agreement and things were going well but then it stalled. Additional views to help bring the discussion along would be welcome, discussion is at Talk:Circumcision#Proposed_new_section_on_traditional_and_rite-of-passage. Thanks... Zad68 19:31, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Commented. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:15, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Forced circumcisions have tended to be a part of circumcision in history often by conqueror of the conquered, but also on an ongoing basis today in Australia and several locations in Africa, and recently in Former Yugoslavia. For these reasons and others forced circumcision should be mentioned and referenced in the new proposed tribal/bush circumcision section of the Male Circumcision article. --— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 21:49, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Let's keep the discussion over there to avoid forking. -- Scray (talk) 22:34, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Medscape reference?

Generally an acceptable MEDRS source? Thoughts? Lesion (talk) 22:21, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Generally not, except as a news source. Some Medscape content comes from peer-reviewed articles copied from a journal, and in those cases reliability would be determined on the basis of the source journal. -- Scray (talk) 22:33, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Scary, it would generally not be acceptable. Often it is similar to the popular press. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:53, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't go as far as saying it is similar to popular press. I'm looking at an article with 72 references [11] and that is full of medical terminology rather than layterms. I think their intended readers are medical professionals. Annoyingly, there is barely any inline citation, so finding where they took a statement from might be hard. I was originally using it only for the history section, so MEDRS was not really an issue, but on reading the rest of it now, I want to include more of it. Lesion (talk) 23:03, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Care to ask us for a high-quality reference for a particular statement? Folks here are pretty good at that. -- Scray (talk) 01:45, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Water fluoridation

An editor appears to be edit warring at Water fluoridation to insert medical claims into this featured article. This is despite me already clarifying the objections to it at User_talk:IRWolfie-#Wikipedia:MEDRS_relating_to_Water_fluoridation. More input welcome at Talk:Water_fluoridation#Cancer_claims IRWolfie- (talk) 10:10, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm commenting there... it's one of our perennially "attractive" articles. Zad68 17:03, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Problem pages

We have 3 articles related to temporomandibular joint disorder that are being used with no heed to MEDRS. I assume bad faith COI from the NPOV and the willingness of IPs and other editors to delete MEDRS material that they don't agree with. Repeated additions of primary sources, and non MEDRS sources. Unsourced material, copyvios... Essentially, I believe the main purpose of these articles is advertising, piggybacking on Wikipedia's high profile on Google results. Appreciate if these pages were on a few more watchlists until the people involved get the message.

Nociceptive trigeminal inhibition tension suppression system
Biofeedback headband - proposed merge to biofeedback -- discussion here
"Neuromuscular dentistry" - also nominated for AfD, with little interest. Comments requested here please. If no delete occurs, the page will require a lot of attention. The page is essentially about TMD, but not from a mainstream view, and which we have an article for already.

Thanks, Lesion (talk) 16:31, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

File:MedicalImageSharing.jpg

File:MedicalImageSharing.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 06:36, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Does that image have names (and medical information) of real individuals? Or is that just "dummy" data used by the system vendor to make a realistic-looking screenshot for their brochure? If the former, the image needs to go now. bobrayner (talk) 18:24, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

They look real enough to make me nervous, most dummy data in testing environments has been really obvious, in my experience "John Hurt", "Ann Testing" etc...." Canada Hky (talk) 02:39, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Just a list of names, no patient data attached. Says CC BY 3.0 here and I am sure a health care company would be aware of HIPPA [12] So unless we have proof probably dummy data.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:44, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

The file doesn't seem to be at WP:FFD, nor is it tagged for speedy deletion. I am unsure in what sense it is "nominated for deletion". The image was clearly made by the company and has an appropriate license for Wikimedia Commons. If the image is to be kept, it should be uploaded there.

Regarding the list of names, they look plausible as real patients' names, although dummy names are also possible. If they are real names, it is possible that the company has permission from those patients to use them in this way. Typically, such information is legally protected from dissemination (HIPAA in the US; the Data Protection Act in the UK).

I tried to find guidance in Wikipedia about using patient-identifiable information, but I didn't find any. I'm not sure if there is guidance in Wikimedia Commons.

If these names are from real patients who have not consented, I agree that the image should not be permitted in Wikipedia. If no guidance is currently present in Wikipedia, this should be added.

I have asked the uploader (Mike2murphy) to comment here. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:56, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

commons:Commons:Patient images, but note that the page is just something that a couple of WPMED folks have written, not an official policy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:53, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, WhatamIdoing. I looked at the page history and I see several longstanding WikiProject Medicine editors. I myself don't have a Wikimedia Commons account. Any chance that you could push for the page to made an official guideline at Wikimedia Commons? Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:38, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi - those names were fake, but I uploaded a new file with an unnamed study, to alleviate any concerns. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike2murphy (talk • contribs) 15:57, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. That is an improvement. (Although the names are still visible on the old picture, I feel reassured by your declaration.) I believe that the picture has a license that is compatible with Wikimedia Commons. Would consider uploading it to Wikimedia Commons instead? Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:41, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

You should be able to use Wikipedia:Unified login to turn your Wikipedia account into a Commons account.

I'm not sure that the page will have broad support at Commons. The community there mostly seems to care about copyright status. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:35, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Someone else uses the name "Axl" at Wikimedia Commons. I asked them four years ago, but there was no response. Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:56, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Axl, if the other user has been inactive, you may be able to "usurp" their commons user name. This is what I had to do because someone had my user name on commons several years ago and didn't use it for a few years. WP:Changing username/Usurpations Lesion (talk) 19:43, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestion. The page that you linked is for Wikipedia usernames. There is an analogous process for Wikimedia Commons here. They have rather strict criteria, so I'm not sure if my request would be accepted. Anyway, let's see what they say. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:59, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I tried to engage them, but no response. :-( Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:07, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Try the link I pasted above. I got an answer within a few days, and seems more active than the commons page. It probably doesn't matter if this is the user name you already use on Wikipedia, I'm sure they will still help you. Lesion (talk) 10:16, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, I think that it needs to be handled by Wikimedia Commons bureaucrats rather than Wikipedia administrators. If the Commons guys don't respond, I won't bother to get an account there. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:35, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Medical students to do one month Wikipedia elective

Starting in Dec of 2013 we hope to have a few students from UCSF joining us in a Wikipedia project. They will each take on one article. Further details are here Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/UCSF Elective 2013. Feedback appreciated both in developing exactly how things will work before and after the course. If it is a success hopefully this can continue long term. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:41, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Since they only have a month, they have no time to waste really. Would it be helpful if we collaborated on a list of short pages that need work, for which there are good quality, up-to-date systematic reviews? Maybe some of them might pick one.... (I have a particular affinity for creating "to do lists"!!!) Hildabast (talk) 23:52, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

For marking purposes it is easier to have a student work extensively on one article rather than many. Unsure which approach is best though (extensive improvement to one article or small improvements to many) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:49, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

For medical students I think it's best if they pick one article on a substantial topic (a significant disorder, body part, or physiological mechanism, say) and develop it thoroughly. If they make small contribs to many articles, they won't really develop a sense of ownership for their work. The trick will be to get them to write in English (rather than medicalese) and to use secondary sources (rather than reference-bombing). Looie496 (talk) 02:58, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I saw they were each taking on one article - but they still have to choose, either out of all the ones on Wikipedia, or perhaps also out of a selected list. I only meant when I said maybe one of them might pick one, that maybe there would be at least one of them who would like to work on one from the list. If they've only got a month, there might be some who know quickly what they want - but they might pick on one that's diabolically hard without realizing it. And others might spend a lot of time trying to decide what they're going to do - and that's time they could have spent on the article. Agree about the medicalese and wanting to include masses of detail & references. Hildabast (talk) 03:04, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, the assessment system provides a sort of ready-made list: say, High or Mid importance articles that are rated Start or Stub. Some things are blatantly misclassified, but they should be able to figure that out. The main thing they might have to be warned about is that articles on broad topics are the hardest to write -- syndrome, for example, would be a bastard for most students to deal with. Looie496 (talk) 03:29, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes hope to direct them towards none controversial major medical diseases. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:52, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I think that if they chose from the popular pages list it would be even better. There are several stubs and start class articles in that list. Alternatively if they were interested in improving already developed articles of high importance (but non-controversial) they could center themselves in a single section (eg: epidemiology of...).--Garrondo (talk) 08:03, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

CrowdMed

Wikipedia can have an article about CrowdMed. Google reported 32,300 results for crowdmed.

—Wavelength (talk) 00:22, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Not medicine but an internet site. Not sure what the notability requirements are. Sounds sort of scam like to me. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:01, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

32,300 is just one of Google's usual lies. It told me there were "about 39,600 results", but when I clicked through there were mysteriously only 960. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 08:36, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

As a CrowdMed Medical Detective (MD), you can use your personal experience, intuition, and online research skills to help solve the world's most difficult medical cases. sounds funny, gives patient-written case reports which have to be solved by the community. The resource trains parsing patients expressions, and shows where the peers medical thinking reached its limits. I thought such a resource should be included into a more-or-less big collection of educational medical website which is apparently lacking; a List-of-educational-medical-resources has the cited items need own wiki article restriction, and it were a collection article with some prosaics on sites which are not as system-relevant as to have own wiki articles, some1 could decide to start it. Last, the collection article would be discarded because wikipedia is not a webdirectory. Think its worth a new thread to discuss this topic, might be wikipedia feels free to be a directory of educational resources ? --Ossip Groth (talk) 19:01, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Seasonal affective disorder

As pointed out by an IP on the Talk page, this article, which is fairly good, has a long section in the latter part of the article[13] that sort of sounds like an essay on how occupational therapists can treat SAD. The info seems properly sourced, but the section is overall a bit odd. I think that if someone were to spend an hour deleting some of the inappropriate language and moving things around, the article could be fixed. It's an hour that I don't have, so am posting here in case this should interest someone. Thanks. TimidGuy (talk) 15:16, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Was a class work activity. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:50, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Ah, that explains it. Thanks for having a go at it. TimidGuy (talk) 09:53, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Next-generation matrix

Next-generation matrix is a new article to which no other articles link. If anyone knows of others that should link to it, could they attend to that? (It's weird that we have no list of epidemiology topics or the like.) Michael Hardy (talk) 06:15, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Bot for talk page evidence box

Picking up this thread again. James, I am keen to start working on this bot. Where will I find the list of (talk) pages to add it to? I think it will be pretty easy. Klortho (talk) 02:26, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I was thinking add it to every talk page on which this template Template:Infobox disease or Template:Drugbox already is. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:02, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I'll let you know when I have a prototype done. Klortho (talk) 10:44, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Great! Are they the same infoboxes that are on signs and symptoms? Fever and nausea don't have a category listed on their infobox. I also think it's particularly important for intervention pages, which is the designation for example for cesarean section and cardiac stress test. Hildabast (talk) 11:07, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

No, those use {{Infobox Symptom}} and {{Interventions infobox}}. We can add them to the list. Klortho (talk) 11:16, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Terrific - thanks! So I just looked up the list of WikiProject Medicine infoboxes - I think it should apply to all of them. Hildabast (talk) 11:23, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

It looks like we might be able to get this done through AnomieBOT, but the operator has some concerns about adding this template to 12000+ talk pages. Anyone care to drop him a comment, here? Klortho (talk) 01:30, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity: does that meant 12000 is a threshold? I thought there were more than 12000 in all of those categories? Hildabast (talk) 11:02, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Current counts:

Infobox disease: 5837

Infobox symptom: 205

Interventions infobox: 758

Diagnostic infobox: 161

Drugbox: 5491

Drugclassbox: 32

Total: 12484 (upper limit of course, since this would be a union operation)

Klortho (talk) 13:30, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Multi PMID citation template

I have created a template which accepts up to 50 PMIDs to cite one topic, so that the wikitext is more readable. It creates ref tags, so only the template has to be set. It looks like this

{{CitePMIDs|PMID_1|PMID_2|PMID_3|PMID_4}}

here it is, including documentation. --Ossip Groth (talk) 19:58, 8 June 2013 (UTC)--Ossip Groth (talk) 18:20, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Right now this template is not being used in any article so there is no example to see. I do often like bundling sources into a single citation. Thanks a lot for making this- I will try it out soon. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:05, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Can individual sources from within the group still be cited separately, or would this create a new entry in the reflist? Lesion (talk) 13:11, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Southampton surgical society

Southampton surgical society may not be notable, but if it's going to stick around, it needs an admin to fix the capitalization. (Yes, I realize that if I invested an entire week dealing with RFA, that I could make this five-second fix myself.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:55, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Like that? We do need more admins around here. Maybe I should nominate you :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:10, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

What an awfully written article. I'm going to at least clean it up before someone decides whether to AfD it or not. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 23:36, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Why should this require an admin? You don't need to be an admin to change an article's title. (Or have things changed?) Michael Hardy (talk) 06:13, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Moving a page#Moves where the target name has an existing page. This is one of the exceptions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:16, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_June_10#Category:Vegans

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_June_10#Category:Vegans. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:19, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Any reason why this WikiProject should care? JFW | T@lk 21:56, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Veganism is part of this project. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:14, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Tangentially at best. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:32, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

thanks for the warm welcome guys. I simply try to notify a project which has both vegetarianism and veganism listed as being within its scope. If you wanna comment, do so at CFD, if you wanna ignore, feel free, but don't shoot the messenger.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:59, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry yes. Thanks for the heads up. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:06, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

AfC submission

You might be interested in Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Pay For Engagement (Healthcare). FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 04:12, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia in Residence with Cochrane

The Cochrane Collaboration is looking for applicants for a Wikipedian in Residence. The expectation is that this person would work half time. That they would have a background in Wikipedia. And hopefully some in evidence based medicine. Efforts would all take place via the Internet thus no need to move. Stipend have not been clarified yet. Applications are not officially open. Hopeful start date will be Sept. Both User:Ocaasi and myself have been invited to speak at the Cochrane Colloquium in Quebec City [14] Sept 19th to 23rd, 2013. We also hope to run editing sessions for all interested and would love to have fellow Wikipedians join us. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:14, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Elections

Any advice as to who to support for the board, FDC and FDC Ombudsperson? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:14, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I think both SJ and Phoebe have done great work in the past and support them going forwards. User:ImperfectlyInformed does a fair bit of medical editing and always seems level headed.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:18, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I have only come across one of the candidates on Wikipedia: MBisanz at WP:RFA. Perhaps this reflects my niche editing. If you want to know who I voted for, send me an e-mail. _{Hint: I voted for the prettiest.} Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:32, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Voting instructions here! Everyone vote! I made appointments to Skype with several of the candidates for WMF board positions. Leigh is a native English speaker who has been living in Mexico working as a professor, and has contributed to health content in the past. Michel Aaij is a surprise - he works with the US education program, is a prolific editor himself, and is a professor. María Sefidari is a native Spanish speaker and as involved as anyone on Spanish Wikipedia, and has a history of participating in Wikipedia community projects. Someone pessimistic once told me that "SJ is the Wikipedia community's only friend at the Wikimedia Foundation", which I think is a good way to say that he is liked even amidst controversy. John Vandenberg is prolific as an editor and community organizer in Australia, and also supported Wikimedia Indonesia's Wikimania bid some time ago. There will probably be a Wikimania in Indonesia eventually and the country could use an advocate. Liam Wyatt is a great public presenter and does a lot of outreach but I worry about the GLAM community's shying away from supporting outreach to health and science organizations. Kat Walsh and Phoebe bring experience and could continue their long term engagement and be trusted to do more of what they have been doing. Jeromy-Yu Chan is organizing this year's Wikimania and brings good ties to China - I have failed to contact him yet. I have been unable to speak with Francis Kaswahili Kaguna but if he could increase engagement in Africa then it would be better to start sooner rather than later. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:53, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Tenoten revisited

This article was recently created through the AfC process (there is a section above about it), after a review that I think was probably inadequate. The "drug" comes out of Russia and is actually a homeopathic formulation, although neither the article nor the advertisements one can find come out and say that. Even if it weren't homeopathic, it couldn't possibly work. I revised the article to give the actual facts, but the editor who created it has reverted back to the original very misleading form. The question is what to do about it. Probably the correct thing is to delete it on the basis of lacking reliable sources, but I'm not at all sure an AfD would succeed, since there are in fact plenty of academic sources, even if none of them happen to be MEDRS-compatible. Nearly all the sources are from obscure Russian medical journals, and they almost all look very suspicious to me. Looie496 (talk) 19:58, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Better get someone who reads Russian involved to look for a corresponding article on .ru LeadSongDog come howl! 22:09, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what that would accomplish. Looie496 (talk) 14:06, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

If there are secondary sources, it seems probable that they are in Russian, so I asked at ru:Talk:Embassy for a Russian-speaking medical editor to check in here.LeadSongDog come howl! 15:55, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

That's possible, but generally even Russian language secondary sources would be PubMed indexed with at least an English-language abstract, and tagged as Review or other secondary source, right? Zad68 15:57, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Can't really agree. PubMed metadata is not of uniform quality, in particular foreign journals are not all indexed, even if they are of respectable reliability. Often they have to hope for publisher-furnished abstracts that are not always provided (even for English publications). Anyhow, was able to source the assertion that it is homeopathic from the manufacturer's Ukraine website. LeadSongDog come howl! 16:31, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Alright, good to know for my future WP:MED editing, thanks. It's good we've got a source to identify the product as "homeopathic" but we still don't have an independent secondary source to help establish notability in the first place, can we dig that up, even if in Russian? Zad68 17:18, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

At first glance, although a PubMed search returns only primary study results, there's enough in Google Scholar to make an attempt at AFD go down in flames if any supporter of the product shows up at the AFD. Probably the best that can be done is to watchlist and ensure any sourcing used is high-quality. Zad68 14:17, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

But that's really the problem. There are no high quality sources, in the sense of sources that meet MEDRS. (In the meantime Scray reverted back to my version, and then the creator of the article reverted again back to his version.) Looie496 (talk) 14:38, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm unfortunately although what Scray put into the article is undoubtedly true it was unsourced and cannot survive the challenge of being reverted. As much as I hate tags this may be the time to use {{Unreliable medical source}}, {{Medref}} and {{Primary sources}}. Zad68 14:45, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

It was me who wrote that material, Scray simply reverted back to it. I could give sources for all the statements, but the application of them to this "drug" would still be OR because of the lack of reliable sources. Tags are not enough. We can't allow medical bullshit in our articles even if it is tagged. Looie496 (talk) 14:52, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Take it to AFD, make the best case possible, be sure to point out that the sources cited do not meet the WP:GNG requirement for significant coverage in independent reliable secondary sources. I'll comment, publicize the AFD here and hopefully we'll get others too... I see the creator of that article has gone on to create several more like it at AFC, not trending well. Zad68 14:56, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. I would say that notability comes for med articles from secondary sources (but not necessarily MEDRS-compliant). Only primary (even if peer-reviewed) sources should not be enough for something to be notable. On the other hand, secondary sources even if not peer-reviewed should be enough for something to be notable. Maybe this issue should be discussed and included somewhere. --Garrondo (talk) 15:11, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Bipolar mixed states revisited

I would like for someone to update the Bipolar Mixed States page with what the DSM-5 says about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.228.216.158 (talk) 11:47, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

You might have more luck at wikiproject psychology, although understandably they are probably rather busy with updating articles right now. Lesion (talk) 12:03, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Autism Research Institute

Contains claims such as

ARI’s focus is on evidence-based treatments. To that end, the ARI website links to numerous scientific studies that have found improvements in autism symptoms through various dietary treatments such as a ketogenic diet,[5] vitamin/mineral supplementation[6] and a gluten-free/casein-free diet.[7]

However, reading further on these topics this does not seem to represent the medical consensus. Neither does the ARI's claim that for a patient with "an unusual heavy-metal burden, chelation might be warranted" or (baldly) that "pharmaceutical treatments should be approached with caution". Expert eyes may be needed ... Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 14:10, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:Be Bold, Alexbrn. Obviously there was no reason for these papers to be cited. There is no tie between these papers and any official stance of the organization, and these papers do not meet WP:MEDRS on their own so if they are used at all it should only be in the context of them being supported by the organization. Thanks a lot for bringing your concern here. I deleted this content and you would have been correct in doing so as well, but you are always welcome here for support. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:18, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

acute-on-chronic

Please consider adding a Wikipedia entry explaining what is meant by "acute-on-chronic" in the description of disease states. There are over 300 articles in PubMed with "acute-on-chronic" in the title (dates range from 1945 to 2013). Thanks. Okita2 (talk) 15:46, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Are you proposing adding an article? Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Klortho (talk) 21:16, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Acute worsening of a chronic condition. It sort of means what it says. Not sure what you propose. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:19, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

We have an Acute (medicine) article, which would seem the logical place to add this, if the article wasn't such a mess already: it defines 'acute', as well as 'subacute' and 'chronic', but I somehow doubt that it is up to the standard a topic such as this requires. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:23, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Ah, well I sort of made a stub before I read this ... Acute on chronic. I think the term can be used in both a clinical sense, to refer to an acute exacerbation of a chronic process (e.g. bronchitis) and a histopathologic sense, specifically a mixed picture of chronic and acute inflammation. Furthermore, I think it is used in a great many different conditions. A DAB page might be appropriate here, and agree adding some content about the term on Acute (medicine), and maybe also inflammation would be good. Lesion (talk) 21:38, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

It makes more sense for it to be merged with acute (medicine). JFW | T@lk 19:29, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

The acute (medicine) article has been amended and revised accordingly. LT90001 (talk) 23:26, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Request for help

Dear Wikifolks,

Articles have been written regarding thiamine (B1) deficiency which are what I believe to be significantly factually incorrect but the damage is too extensive for a single person to correct. Multiple uncited or poorly cited and poorly written statements are made about these diseases, terminology and pathophysiology which I do not believe are reflected in current scientific consensus. But whenever I look at the articles the amount of work required makes me want to curl up in a little ball. Please help revise these articles, even a little will help!!

Affected Thiamine-deficiency-related articles include:

You may also wish to consider this this xkcd link

Kind Regards,

Concerned wiki user who is trying their best to help viewers of these articles. LT90001 (talk) 07:25, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

The number of editors is small, the amount of content is large. We need more good faith people to join us in improving Wikipedia based on high quality sources. Feel free to jump in and begin making improvements. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:00, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I'll keep my eye out if I come across a good source on one of these to go and check. Just in case it helps, I've recently started on a huge page that is catastrophically bad and I was curled in that ball (breathing deeply into a brown paper bag!) at first too. But now I just ignore the fact that it's a tangled mess (perhaps inevitable on a controversial topic where everyone has put their two cents' worth and no one more neutral is doing heavy lifting) - plus, I try to resist the urge to start tinkering on pages that are already pretty good, so that I really can ultimately get the big one in shape. The other thing that I find encourages me is to take something worthwhile about the condition that isn't there yet at all, and I can write it from scratch. Eventually, the islands of good bits will join up into a decent article, is my strategy anyway. SO glad you're tackling these - you're right, those conditions really do matter. Hang in there and drag in friends offline if they're not Wikipedians. Maybe someone would help with marking it up? 130.14.254.24 (talk) 15:11, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Dua's layer story in Wikipedia's front page "In the news" section

We currently have on the front page an item about Dua's layer, an article based on a primary experimental paper in the journal Opthamology and internet coverage derived uncritically from a press release. There are apparently no sources available that meet WP:MEDRS. I complained about this at Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates, but my complaint is not getting any traction. Therefore I am forum-shopping the issue here (but please respond at ITN/C). Looie496 (talk) 15:00, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Spinal stenosis

Some recent work at Spinal stenosis has produced a layout problem. There is now a =Level 1= heading and many duplicates. This diff should show the origin of the problems. I suspect that much of the expansion is worth keeping, and possibly even splitting off to Cervical spinal stenosis (redirects there) as a full article. But I don't have time to deal with it, so I'm posting here. I don't think that too many people are watching on the talk page (where I also left a note). WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:56, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes an educational project. The students write the content in their own works space. They than copy and paste it into the Wikipedia main space without reading what is already there. Not sure what to do but it happens a lot. Have moved the content in question to the talk page. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:07, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Geographical distribution of visceral leishmaniasis in the Old and New world.jpg

File:Geographical distribution of visceral leishmaniasis in the Old and New world.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 05:26, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes should be deleted as WHO does not give permission for use of there images. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:00, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Hypothyroidism

Hey guys, if any of you need a change of pace or need a new project, I'm starting to work on the hypothyroidism article. It's currently listed as a Start Class article and it still needs a lot of work. This is a big topic so any & all help would be appreciated. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 05:56, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Why not make it collaboration of the ~~week~~month...not had one of those in a while, and it would be good to get it going again. Lesion (talk) 10:59, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I will gladly help out with it, but I do not have the time until about tens days from now because of an exam in endocrinology amongst others. But afterwards, I will gladly pitch in while all the facts I memorized about hypothyroidism is still fresh in memory. That way abolishing my social life for a month or so can be justified further. JakobSteenberg (talk) 11:34, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Lorcainide article -- copy and paste/possible copyright matter

Judging by the text references (references that are in text-form and can't be clicked on) in the Lorcainide article, a copy and paste job has obviously been done to this article; this makes it also likely that it's copyrighted material. Flyer22 (talk) 12:49, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Or maybe the person who made this edit [15] simply did not know how the wiki markup worked. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:01, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

The text references are still a copy and paste job (copied and pasted with the rest of the text, whether the person's own words or someone else's). Flyer22 (talk) 13:15, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

That material was added by Jessicagubernat (talk · contribs) in a single edit. This has the look of a student assignment to me. It's quite possible that she wrote it in an external editor and then pasted it in. The inserted material does have quite a bit of wikimarkup, so it isn't just a straight-up copy-paste. Looie496 (talk) 14:07, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Technically the way the referencing is done isn't "illegal" but it does need to be Wikified. I did a little spot-checking and I did find one probable copyvio problem: Article content Arrhythmias can be caused by various conditions including ischemia, hypoxia, pH disruptions, B adrenergic activation, drug interactions or the presence of diseased tissue. appears verbatim here. I did check more and didn't find further problems. I think this just needs cleanup and checking but doesn't need to be thrown away. Zad68 18:59, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I have proposed a change to the citation style at Talk:Lorcainide#Citation style per WP:CITEVAR. I'm not really expecting any opposition, but there should be an opportunity to form a consensus before changing an article's style. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:38, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

You may be waiting a long time to form a consensus by discussion on the talk page. I'm a big fan of establishing consensus by editing per WP:CONACHIEVE, so I'd recommend you go ahead and do it rather than wait. --RexxS (talk) 22:13, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Consensus sucks...

Based upon the consensus decision for a recent article I put for AfD, I have now merged the following content to leukoplakia:

In 1988, a case report used the term "acquired dyskeratotic leukoplakia" to describe an acquired condition in a female where dyskeratotic cells were present in the epithelia of the mouth and genitalia.^[1]^[2]

If you agree that this was not a great consensus: to merge a descriptive term used in a single case report from 1988 rather than delete the single sentence stub article, then please feel free to comment more in AfD's... =D Lesion (talk) 09:59, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Medicine to get involved. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:59, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

As a curiosity: Importance of visibility

As a curiosity have you noticed that Ricin jumped from 50000 montly visits to 1300000 (most viewed medicine article and 38 of wikipedia) visits in April and May due to news of the a poisonous letters sent to US politicians?... Similarly it has been edited in the following two months as much as the 3 previous years, with huge improvements all over the article (See here for a comparison). Terrorism may have unexpected positive effects. :-) --Garrondo (talk) 10:40, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Company promoting their own products?

InDevR is a company that makes different instruments used for the study and identification of viruses. They seem to have three different products, each with their own article: AmpliPHOX, FluChip and Virus Counter. The issue here is that the creators of these four articles and the subsequent primary contributors (three user accounts in total) are all employees at the company (company website). More than that, many of the references for each of these articles are papers published by the people at the company, including the CEO. Is this okay? ComfyKem (talk) 14:50, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

See WP:MEDCOI and WP:CITESELF. There may be WP:Notability problems, if there are very few publications written by people unconnected to the company. --WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:16, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Neurocritical Care - Critical Care Nursing

Looking for any projects on neurocritical care and critical care nursing. Currently working on improving the External ventricular drain page. Thanks - joe412 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joe412 (talk • contribs) 18:43, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

There's not many editors with a specific interest in neurocritical care and critical care nursing, so feel free to attack any article you like and kick it into shape. Take a moment to read WP:MEDMOS and WP:MEDRS, which govern medical content. JFW | T@lk 12:07, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

A new (and "orphaned") category at commons:Category:Neurointensive care might interest you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:29, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Stub categorization of popular pages

We had quite a lot of articles categorized as stubs among the 1500 most popular articles, which was a bit odd IMO. I have gone one by one and in most cases I have updated the categorization to start class.--Garrondo (talk) 21:05, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Good job, well done. Following from the above, please everyone remember to update the article status (if appropriate) on the talk page after finishing any major expansion. Lesion (talk) 21:27, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I've got a question about this: we had just decided to prioritize stubs in the most popular articles to improve. Does this mean they have all been improved to start class status, or that they were incorrectly labeled as stubs? Does it mean that any remaining stubs are the worst ones - or does it mean that there is no difference between stub and start class? Hildabast (talk) 17:07, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

The difference is a bit of a judgement call. Often improvements are made and the class is not changed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:23, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

According to my judgement none of those articles met the criterium for "stub" (A very basic description of the topic.Provides very little meaningful content; may be little more than a dictionary definition.) They were all IMO incorrectly labeled as stubs, since they all had several sections and quite a lot of references. The ones I left as stubs were those with the poorest quality. It is true that most probably a similar thing would happen with many of the start-class articles since few people update the articles quality categorizations and many of them might already be C-class. Thing is that those 1500 articles are the ones that receive more visits and hence also are the most probably updated, so quality is overall much higher than over the other 20k articles in medicine, so at this point we have very few stubs among the most popular pages (even the ones I left could hardly be considered stubs). --Garrondo (talk) 10:50, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

We have an astonishing amount of what might be called "legacy tagging" in all projects - articles are stub-tagged and later expanded incrementally without removing the tag, or the talkpage rating is set but never updated. This can persist for years even in well-read articles covered by active wikiprojects. I strongly suspect that well over a quarter - perhaps as many as half - of Wikipedia's nominal stubs really aren't. 11:20, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

...and if anyone wants to clean up some more of these, User:Andrew Gray/med-stubs has a report showing anything with a stub-template and more than 5k of wikitext. The largest is (currently) a staggering 20k+ of well-written well-sourced text... Andrew Gray (talk) 11:20, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks so much everyone: this was very helpful. So what we'll do is go through a big bunch of start & stubs - and take it from there. If we see any we think really don't fit their label, we'll bring some here to ask till we get the hang of it. And hopefully, we'll be able to add content along the way. Thanks! Hildabast (talk) 13:56, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Referred_pain Additional Data

I'm not a medical professional, but was researching referred pain and found a common example that was not yet on the Examples chart on the Referred_pain article. I think someone other than me who can be a bit more authoritative might want to add this to the Examples chart:

Another Example of Referred Pain

Location: Palm of Hand

Description: Possibly originates from palmaris longus which runs up the forearm

Megapod (talk) 17:24, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top.
The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to).. Also, two of us are talking at Talk:Radiculopathy about how we can explain the difference between radicular pain and referred pain in plain English. If you're interested, then please join us. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:36, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to rename "Amphetamine mixed salts (medication)" back to "Adderall"

A request for comment has been made at the above link. Your input is welcome. Boghog (talk) 13:05, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Mononucleosis vs. Infectious Mononucleosis

Hi - Can I elicit some feedback to this Merger proposal made by DocJames last year? I've just taken a glance at the page-view numbers: At the time of writing, Mononucleosis got 201,634 hits in the past 90 days [16], as against 286,663 for Infectious mononucleosis [17]. Put simply, around 4 out of 10 searches for information on this popular topic currently either go to or somehow encounter Mononucleosis. Of course, many of the people looking at Mononucleosis may also find the other article (eg via the banner!), and some may even have come from it. Nevertheless, the duplication seems to me to serve no good purpose. Thanks in advance, 86.171.162.156 (talk) 18:15, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes agree merging is a good idea. I will do so unless people object in a week or so. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:39, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

That was quick - thanks! 86.171.162.156 (talk) 18:46, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Bupropion FAR

This featured article was nominated for a review on May 27. Over the following couple of days I completely reworked it, cleaning up the prose, making the sources MEDRS-compatible, fixing incorrect statements, removing material supported only by primary sources, and adding some material that was missing. So far there has been no response whatsoever. My understanding is that if there are no comments at the review, the article will automatically progress toward removal of its featured status -- in fact it's theoretically overdue for moving to the next stage. So, it would be nice if anybody who has time could look it over and express an opinion. Looie496 (talk) 19:19, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library now offering accounts from Cochrane Collaboration (sign up!)

The Wikipedia Library (talk | edit)

Get free access to research!

...Support Open Access...

Cochrane Collaboration is an independent medical nonprofit organization consisting of over 28,000 volunteers in more than 100 countries. The collaboration was formed to organize medical scholarship in a systematic way in the interests of evidence-based research. The group conducts systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials of health-care interventions, which it then publishes in the Cochrane Library.

Cochrane has generously agreed to give free, full-access accounts to 100 medical editors. (Individual access would otherwise cost between $300 and $800 per account).

Thank you Cochrane! If you are an active medical editor, come and sign up!

Cheers, Ocaasi^{t | c} 19:39, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

50 images from the Science Museum collection

Hi

The Science Museum in London have agreed to release 50 of it's images (at a medium resolution) under a Wikimedia compatible license. Do you have anything in particular you need that they have? Feel free to give me a list if you like. The 2 websites that the images would be available from are:

http://collectionsonline.nmsi.ac.uk/
http://www.scienceandsociety.co.uk/ (has to say copyright Science Museum)

I'm hoping this is the start of something larger but could just be a one off so am trying to come up with a most wanted list.

--Mrjohncummings (talk) 14:05, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I get an error ("Can't connect to MySQL server on 'localhost' (10061)") when trying to use the first of those links. On the second one, I see a number of things that would be useful for neuroscience articles. I don't want to clutter this page with a list -- how should we proceed with this? Looie496 (talk) 15:00, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

This image would be useful for the history section of our article on birth control [18] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:20, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes I think the server is down, hopefully it's very temporary, feel free to clutter my talk page (I've made a section). --Mrjohncummings (talk) 23:44, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Deletion discussion

Neuromuscular dentistry

This article has been AfD'd for a while now with minimal interest from this project. Whilst I understand the title may put members here off, it is tagged with WPMED and the neurology task force, and also WPDENT is essentially inactive. This article, far from being about "dentistry", refers to a (non mainstream) treatment approach to temporomandibular joint dysfunction (or what ever you want to call it) including (i) TENS and (ii) occlusal adjustment. TENS is rarely used for TMD, and the sources that do discuss TENS do not use the term "neuromuscular dentistry". The vast majority of sources also agree that occlusal adjustment should not be carried out for TMD. Also, this page is not entirely focused on an explanation of what "neuromuscluar dentistry" is. The article goes into depth about TMD itself, in a very weird, non mainstream and unsourced way.

There are 3 sources. 2 are linking to private physician/dentists websites with links to book an appointment. The other does not meet WPMEDDATE, and importantly does not even use the term "neuromuscular dentistry". PubMed yields only 3 results for this term, and none are marked as review, but I can't access the text to assess whether they are suitable sources.

Please note that the TMD page discusses already TENS and occlusal adjustment with more appropriate weight, and with MEDRS sources too I might add. I am still working on that page, so I would be happy with a merge, but realistically, there's nothing we can keep imo.

Summary: non neutral POV, promotional article about a minor "gimmick" term used by some dentists/physicians to advertise a non mainstream treatment approach for TMD. Comments appreciated here please, thanks. Lesion (talk) 18:18, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Please read WP:CANVASS re: neutral notification, which the above isn't.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:25, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Haven't heard of that policy before, thanks for pointing it out. I felt some justification was needed to explain to members here why this article falls within the scope of WPMED, when the title probably put many off even visiting the AfD page for all the time it has been up. Lesion (talk) 18:32, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

HIV/AIDS

User is attempting to emphasis 22 cases of HIV that occurred in the porn industry over 5 years in LA per here [19]. The topic is already dealt with on a subpage. Thoughts? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:14, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Help needed at AFC

Please take a look at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/DASK Syndrome and express an opinion on the notability of the subject. Is this a real medical condition or a load of bovine excreta? If it is a real condition, is the name legitimate? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:22, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Executive summary: a couple of doctors from India had a patient with a pair of extra vestigial riblets that were causing pain, wrote a paper about the condition calling it a syndrome and naming it after themselves (DASK is their initials), and published it in the unindexed pay-to-play Romanian Journal of Physical Therapy. I will deal with the AFC entry. Looie496 (talk) 15:47, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:55, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

List of medical wikis

There is a list of medical wikis at http://davidrothman.net/about/list-of-medical-wikis/.
—Wavelength (talk) 14:52, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Has not been updated since 2009 and many are no longer in existence or have no recent edits. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:37, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I checked all 69 entries on the list, and I found 46 apparently active web resources, but I have not checked for recent edits.

Physician Medical Wiki - Ask Dr Wiki
Clinfowiki
Huntington's Disease Advocacy Center - HDAC Home Page
Demystifying Depression - Wikibooks, open books for an open world
Diabetes Wiki
Diagnostic Radiology - Wikibooks, open books for an open world
Share & Find Medical KnowHow - DocCheck Flexikon
EBHC Search Strategies Home - EBHC Search Strategies
EBM Librarian
ECGpedia
JMIR-Wiki (temporarily disabled)
Emergency Medicine - Wikibooks, open books for an open world
FLU Symptoms Influenza Cold Virus Swine Flu
Main Page - Ganfyd
Handbook of Genetic Counseling - Wikibooks, open books for an open world
Human Physiology - Wikibooks, open books for an open world
Immunology - Wikibooks, open books for an open world
Wikikidney.org - WikiKidney
Main Page - McGill Library Global Health Resource Guide
Medical Images - Medical Images
Medical Imaging
Medical Technology News | Medgadget
mla-hls - home
Neurodegeneration Research Wiki
PflegeWiki (Nursing Wiki) (in German)
Main Page - OpenWetWare (on biology and biological engineering)
Orthopaedic Surgery - Wikibooks, open books for an open world
Pharmacology - Wikibooks, open books for an open world
pharmlib / FrontPage
The Quality of Medical Data
Radiation Oncology - Wikibooks, open books for an open world
Radiologywiki (to be relaunched soon)
Radiopaedia.org, the wiki-based collaborative Radiology resource
School:Medicine - Wikiversity
Medic Wiki
Surgical Procedures - Wikibooks, open books for an open world
HLWIKI Canada (UBC HealthLib Wiki)
WebHealth
wellness - home
Accueil - BiUM WiKi (Les Bibliothèques Universitaires de Médecine et Santé Publique - CHUV) (in French)
Cancer: Stories, Support and Information - wikiCancer
wikidoc
Wikiecho (on echocardiography)
WikiHealth
WebHome - Home - WikiHealthCare
www.wikinu.org (in French)

—Wavelength (talk) 04:32, 19 June 2013 (UTC) and 04:49, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

An interesting thing would be to know which have a compatible license with wikipedia.--Garrondo (talk) 07:44, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

And which ones are primarily copied and pasted from Wikipedia. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:26, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks and Wikipedia:CC-BY-SA Compliance can be useful for finding both types of information.

—Wavelength (talk) 14:58, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

11 of the above sites are from Wikibooks. The couple of decent sites listed above which include: ECGepedia and Radiopedia, we are already collaborating with. Though we have received many thousands of ECG from ECGepedia we need more volunteers to integrate the content here. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:24, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Neural accommodation

I have been reviewing the above named newly created article, but I think it could do with the help of some more experienced editors. Thanks. Ochiwar (talk) 15:08, 20 June 2013 (UTC) Please see also the talkpage. Ochiwar (talk) 15:42, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I've responded on the article's talk page. Looie496 (talk) 16:01, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

BigBrain

Something tells me we're going to need an article on BigBrain. Anyone want to tackle it?

Amunts K, Lepage C, Borgeat L; et al. (21 June 2013). "BigBrain: an ultrahigh-resolution 3D human brain model". Science. 340 (6139): 1472–1475. doi:10.1126/science.1235381. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help); Unknown parameter |laysummary= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

LeadSongDog come howl! 20:12, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Maybe we should start with a generic article about models of the brain, and this could be a section in it. The closest I found is Computational neurogenetic modeling. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:41, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

We have a few articles on large-scale computational neuroscience modeling projects: Blue Brain Project, Human Brain Project (EU), BRAIN Initiative and the amusing Mind uploading. --Mark viking (talk) 04:56, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

As I understand it, this is not a computational model, it's an anatomical model -- basically an ultra-high-resolution 3D brain atlas. Looie496 (talk) 14:24, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Not even a model - it is an actual 3D atlas of high resolution images compiled from mechanical slices of an actual human brain in a paraffin matrix. Further information is then overlayed onto this core data. LeadSongDog come howl! 15:14, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

The BigBrain project was created as part of a larger computational neuroscience initiative, the Human Brain Project (EU). I don't know any details, but no doubt the BRAIN Initiative will need a similar high-resolution model. --Mark viking (talk) 17:54, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I have created BigBrain. I'm sure it could use more information. Looie496 (talk) 15:53, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks, Looie. Looks like a good start. Tagged for projects (WPMED, Anatomy, Computing).LeadSongDog come howl! 21:57, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Post-nasal drip

This article is need of attention. It is largely unreferenced, and some of the listed symptoms sound a bit iffy (Cobblestoning of mucosa?, fatigue?, ... ). A quick pubmed search suggests that the syndrome is controversial, so I added a section to the lead to try and balance things a bit, and some drive-by tagging. Still many problems if anyone is interested, Lesion (talk) 11:06, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Merge needed

We have these two articles

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:46, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Ah yes, the short-dash version is another class project. Looie496 (talk) 23:54, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes and than as these articles are orphans we get good faith editors trying to add them to "see also" sections of our most read work. There are so many like articles like this. I think we need to strengthen our "Wikipedia is not a collection of internal links" policy Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:35, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

anyone who creates a em-dash version of an article without creating a hyphen redirect should be taken to the woodshed. What a waste - two whole articles that never knew of the other's existence b/c of typography geeks. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:46, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes I wonder if there is a technical way to keep this from happening again? Maybe space/en dash/short dash should all be viewed the same when a title.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:32, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

A simpler solution would be to have a bot create redirects from en- and em-dashed article titles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:57, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't actually think this happens all that often. The usual situation is that an editor creates the article with a short-dash title, and then somebody moves it to a long-dash title leaving a redirect behind (which is the default behavior). For some reason when Bender235 (talk · contribs) renamed this article to the long-dash title in November 2011, he must have turned off the option to leave a redirect. Looie496 (talk) 15:29, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I figured it out. The redirect does exist. They just capitalized the second word differently. Arg.

Wernicke-Korsakoff syndrome (currently a redirect) vs Wernicke-Korsakoff Syndrome (newly created)--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:34, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I was about to say I did not turn anything off. But per naming conventions, the en dash versions is the correct name, while the hyphen (or em dash) is not. --bender235 (talk) 15:36, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Aha. My apologies for falsely accusing you. Looie496 (talk) 16:42, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I have merged the two versions as Wernicke–Korsakoff syndrome and converted Wernicke-Korsakoff Syndrome into a redirect. The result is far from perfect, but I hope it reads reasonably smoothly. Looie496 (talk) 15:45, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Looks good. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:29, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Medpedia

There used to be a "Wikipedia for Medicine" project called Medpedia, which didn't gain traction and whose domain now expired. However, the content is still in the Internet Archive, and it is under CC-BY-SA, so if the quality is there it could be used in Wikipedia Wikipedia. MichaK (talk) 13:03, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

If I remember correctly it was more or less copied from Wikipedia. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:34, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Only some is from Wikipedia. It is Wikidocs that is more or less wikipedia article with news around it. Most of the articles on medpedia are unreferenced.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:28, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Article and interested medical organization

Evaluating the Effectiveness of a Wiki Internet Site for Medical Topics and their website to encourage Wikipedia editing: HandWiki. Biosthmors (talk) 14:03, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

The authors call for hand surgeons to contribute to wikipedia, stating that it has the potential to be a useful source of information for patients. Whilst they state that contributors should make themselves familiar with wikipedia's policies, they also suggest that a lower reading level (Flesch-Kincade grade for articles is beneficial. In a way, their aims are divergent to Wikipedia's aims, to have its medical content converted to patient information sources is not the same as encyclopedic, and the targeted audience is not necessarily a patient. Lesion (talk) 14:45, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Pages get read by both professionals and patients, sometimes together in a doctor's studio. Writing key clinical sections of articles in a way that is amenable to everyone is a real challenge (one that WP:MEDMOS attempts to address in various ways, including use of simple language, broadly per Flesch-Kincaid, and subpages). I feel that general lay readability needs to combine with ease (and rapidity) of professional information retrieval. 81.157.7.7 (talk) 13:24, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Bringing up a merge tagged article from 2010

Hi all, while exploring random pages I stumbled upon the Ectrodactyly article which has been tagged for a merge discussion since 2010. I just thought I would bring it up to you folks since I know practically nothing about the medical field and thought this would be the proper forum for me "bringing it to light" for lack of a better term. Cheers, — -dainomite 22:01, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks and done. Wonder if the article should be at cleft hand instead of ectrodactyly? Cleft hand being the more common term. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:09, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Image at smallpox

My position regarding the image at smallpox may be controversial. Thus I have begun a RfC asking for wider community input here Talk:Smallpox#Info_boxes_and_Sick_Child_image. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:30, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Hemp seed oil and atopic dermatitis

We have a user repeatedly adding a primary research study[20] to the article on eczema about the supposed benefits of hempseed oil. Have started discussion on the talk page. Talk:Eczema Additional comments welcome. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:50, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Health claims cleanup

Mitragyna speciosa is a bit of a stretch at the moment (diabetes, depression, etc...). Is there a protocol for how to deal with these sorts of issues? 150.148.14.8 (talk) 18:37, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I won't vouch for the quality of the article, but those claims are not all that much of a stretch. The plant (illegal in Thailand) apparently contains pretty high levels of chemicals that function as opiate agonists, and could be expected to have the usual effects of opiates. Looie496 (talk) 18:55, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm more concerned with our article's assertion that it doesn't have any side effects, when even the cited source (from a pro-legalization advocacy group) notes that it does. MastCell ^Talk 19:01, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Removing medical claims based on primary sources would be a good place to begin. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:18, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

OK, I'm pretty concerned that false information keeps getting re-added to the article. The material on side effects in the lead is based on a paper from a pro-drug-legalization advocacy group, which is not a great source to start with for medical info. Worse, while the source does note side effects and addictive potential, editors keep using it to claim that there are no side effects. I'd appreciate additional eyes if anyone's willing. MastCell ^Talk 17:56, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Watchlisted, will scan through the sourcing. Zad68 17:58, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Performance-enhancing use of medically-prescribed Adderall

Just amended my own comment. I'm just concerned that a section on performance-enhancing uses for students of Adderall that is rather an encouraging description of the benefits to students of using Adderall to enhance their academic performance. I think this page is now encouraging students to misuse Adderall. I've never tried to undo something, and am not sure what I'm getting into here. Would appreciate it if others could help out. I'm going to delete the section on the benefits of using Adderall as a study aid. Hildabast (talk) 02:00, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I've made a start. 81.157.7.7 (talk) 08:06, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Adding: Content now reframed/edited (medical claims based on primary research deleted). 81.157.7.7 (talk) 10:05, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

More eyes/input needed, imo. Content based on primary research and reviews from 50 years ago is being reinserted. 81.157.7.7 (talk) 11:17, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

There are issues at Amphetamine as well, so discussing here seems appropriate (multiple articles involved). The older references need to be removed where they deviate from current consensus, per MEDRS, and same goes for the primary sources. The ref from Frontiers in Neuroscience does not appear to be a high-quality review, more like a melange of primary research and summary. RL demands prevent me from doing more in the next few hours - hope others can pick up the thread. -- Scray (talk) 12:07, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Agree (I have to call time out too). 81.157.7.7 (talk) 12:22, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

This conversation is currently being held on Talk:Amphetamine_mixed_salts_(medication). Please discuss there. Seppi333 (talk) 13:29, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes we should not be using primary sources to contradict secondary ones or to change proper weighting of opinion especially for a topic where so many good secondary sources exist. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:37, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for someone to show me a single secondary source those papers contradict, particularly the ones regarding augmented physiology. So far the only thing I've read from anyone is vague references to the entire MEDRS article and "all those secondary sources" that I've somehow completely missed for years (background to this statement is on the talk page I linked to above). Seppi333 (talk) 02:19, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I've actually already started writing, so please bear with me a little while longer.Hildabast (talk) 02:23, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Anthocyanin

Our article on Anthocyanin seems to rather contradict itself - it states in Anthocyanin#Potential food value that "Although anthocyanins are powerful antioxidants in vitro, this antioxidant property is unlikely to be conserved after the plant is consumed. As interpreted by the Linus Pauling Institute and European Food Safety Authority, dietary anthocyanins and other flavonoids have little or no direct antioxidant food value following digestion". However, it goes on to discuss 'research on health benefits' in another section, which cites several (primary?) sources discussing ongoing laboratory research into anthocyanins, which seem to indicate benefits. This is way outside my subject area, and I'm no way qualified to comment on the reliability of sourcing - perhaps someone from this project could take a look? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:14, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately the literature in that area is a mess, and a straightforward application of MEDRS would allow statements that totally contradict one another. It looks like the most authoritative source is this review from the European Food Safety Authority, which concludes that there is no good evidence for a meaningful benefit to human health. (That source is already cited in our article.) However, I think it would be hard for anybody who doesn't have thorough knowledge of the relevant literature to write a good balanced account of the current state of understanding. Looie496 (talk) 16:52, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

New open access journal: National Institute of Health Research Journal Library

NIHR Journals Library

"The new NIHR Journals Library was officially launched at an event in central London on 20 June, by Lord Howe the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Quality, Department of Health. The NIHR Journals Library will provide full publication and open access to an extensive body of health research. It comprises a suite of five programme-specific journal series, published online, which are fully searchable and provide a comprehensive record of work funded by these NIHR programmes. Building on the success of the existing Health Technology Assessment journal, the library will give accessible full publication of findings of the research commissioned by these programmes and will provide an important permanent and comprehensive record of the work which has been funded.

The NIHR is the world’s first health research funder to publish comprehensive accounts of its commissioned research within its own peer-reviewed collection of journals, which provides more detailed information about the research projects, including protocols, study design, methodologies, interview transcripts and questionnaires, which is not normally included in other journals."

source: http://www.nihr.ac.uk/Pages/default.aspx

Ocaasi^{t | c} 19:25, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Vinegar and tear gas

I don't know if this is the best place to ask, but I hope someone might be able to help. With all the protests going on around the world, I think it would be beneficial to have good information about dealing with tear gas and pepper spray. There has been a large spike in readers of the tear gas article, and a smaller increase for pepper spray. In Brazil the police arrested people for carrying vinegar as a protection. See Talk:2013_protests_in_Brazil#V_de_Vinagre. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:37, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Gave tear gas page a little first aid, but it still needs lot of work - couldn't work out how to fix a reference mess I inadvertently added. Second reference to Hu - if anyone fixes, please don't just stick in the PMID without keeping the link to the free full text which is not available through PubMed. I'd appreciate a pointer to where I can learn to fix references myself. Hildabast (talk) 17:41, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

On a related matter, shouldn't Pepper spray, CS gas and (perhaps) CR gas be WP:MED? —81.157.7.7 (talk) 13:51, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

There's also a page on Mace (spray). Hildabast (talk) 19:18, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

The criteria for deciding what's in our scope is at WP:MEDA. Generally, we keep things that are primarily medical, not things that have medical implications if humans are exposed to them. Anyone can assess articles, so just read the criteria and use youre judgment. WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:04, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you WAID. I can see it's a pragmatic judgement issue. 81.157.7.7 (talk) 08:23, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Would be grateful for some further opinions to help resolve a sensitive content/structure issue at Talk:Tear_gas#DIY_.22treatments.22. (I'm way out of my depth.) 81.157.7.7 (talk) 07:44, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for helping mate. I've changed it from 'DIY remedy' to 'home remedy', as we have an article on the latter which does help the reader understand we're talking about non-medical remedies using materials that are readily available in the home, without resorting to using more pejorative terms like 'folk medicine'. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:38, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Good idea imo, thanks. 86.161.251.139 (talk) 13:57, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Ref styles

As most are aware I am collaborating with TWB to improve and translate key medical articles into as many other languages as possible. Right now we are working on about 50 lanaguages per here [21]. One issue is reference styles. I consistently use what the cite template gives use and which is used across most/all languages versions of Wikipedia. This user in this edit [22] change the style to <ref name=NEJM2012>[[Template:cite|{{cite ]]pmid|22494122|noedit}}</ref>. This style is not supported by Panjabi Wikipedia for example [23]. What are peoples thoughts? Is there support for using the cite ref formatting style as created by the ref toolbar for medical article ( or at least for the 80 I am working on )? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:22, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I think I've long made known the reasons for my distrust for cite pmid, cite doi, etc. They bury crucial information (needed for wp:V) in obscure template-space subpages of en watched by no human editor, just some bots. In this example, the template did not exist on .pa, but of course all the subpages are also missing. They could, I suppose have templates which access the .en subpages, but that's even more perverse. There is however some prospect of the problem being impacted by porting the data from those subpages to wikidata. While it will be just as obscure, it should at least be usable in all wikis. This isn't going to happen overnight, but it is certainly being discussed. In the meantime, it might be safer to simply use <ref>PMID 1234567</ref> and leave it at that. A determined reader can still click through to the .en article to find further detail on that source. LeadSongDog come howl! 21:55, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

An additional personal preference is that I very much like seeing all the details in the article text. I find that it makes editing much easier for me as I can see the year and title without have to click a bunch. Hopefully if we move to Wikidata we can set it so these details are still visible to those who want to see them. Or maybe it could be a preference setting so that everyone can get what they want. This could allow setting the refs over many lines or over a single line as each desires. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:02, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I also prefer the basic cite templates, although as the lesser of eighteen evils -- I often run into trouble editing because all the clutter makes it impossible to parse a paragraph without previewing constantly, but after trying a bunch of things I haven't found any better alternative. Still, I don't think we should be dictatorial about citation methods. We can express a preference, but I don't think we can forbid people to use other methods, as long as enough information is present to enable the source to be located. (Note that regardless of what method you use you're going to have a lot of <ref name=Foo/>-type references, where you have to look elsewhere anyhow.) Looie496 (talk) 23:21, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Give User:PleaseStand/References_segregator a shot - it ~~really~~ seems to help sort out the clutter (changing my comment because I haven't used it for long). I agree with Doc about these templates; perhaps an (optional) best practices guide could be drafted. II | (t - c) 04:12, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:CITEVAR, any change to the style at an article requires a separate discussion at that article.

Personally, I'm not fond of {cite pmid} and the like. I do like WP:List-defined references, especially for articles built around a handful of good sources, and have used the script that II recommends.

Given that WP:VisualEditor just introduced refs, and its limited, although growing, capabilities are going to have a significant effect on what happens for the next couple of months, I'm not sure that it's worth trying to find a solution right now. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:20, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes with VE coming it is probably best to see where things stand after the dust settles. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:22, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

For anyone interested, the cite template integration is tracked in bugzilla here. I have been using the visualeditor for the past two weeks or so, and it makes editing much easier and enjoyable, but adding references is still one of the things I use the source editor for for now. --WS (talk) 07:36, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Most of what I do is add references so not ready for me yet than :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:42, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Erection#Requested move

Opinions are needed on whether or not to move the Erection article to Penile erection. I ask that any of you weigh in on this matter when you get a good chance to do so. I already have. Flyer22 (talk) 02:42, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

in the news: diclofenac

"The [UK] medicines regulator said painkiller diclofenac could significantly increase the risk of a heart attack or stroke for some patients. The advice has been updated [24] after a European review [25] of the risks." [26]
86.161.251.139 (talk) 09:13, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes all NSAIDs other than ASA appear to do so to some extent. The COX2 inhibitors do more than most. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:16, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I think Diclofenac#Cardiac may need some tlc, but I don't feel confident to do it myself. 86.161.251.139 (talk) 10:00, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Adding: The European Medicines Agency committee is recommending (by majority vote) "that the same precautions already in place to minimise the risks of blood clots in the arteries with selective COX-2 inhibitors should be applied to diclofenac." [27] Apparently, a legally-binding EU-wide decision will be taken. 86.161.251.139 (talk) 10:13, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes much of Wikipedia's medical content needs a great deal of TLC. We need more people who care about there being high quality freely available health care content. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:04, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Omalizumab section on History

I think the History section, in particular this addition, might benefit from more eyes. I have started a discussion on the Talk page. Thanks to any who have a moment to comment. -- Scray (talk) 15:24, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

suspention of the marketing authorisations for Tetrazepam

FYI the marketing license for Tetrazepam ( Musaril, Spasmolex) has been revoked in Europe effective 01.08.13. I have added the information to the article. Ochiwar (talk) 19:56, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Inclined Bed Therapy for AfD

AfD discussion for above article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inclined Bed Therapy. Your input would be highly appreciated. Ochiwar (talk) 21:44, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Cruciferous vegetables#Weasel_words

I would appreciate some eyes on the above talk page. Note that this is a continuation of the issues that were started with the Vitamin U article. Thanks. Boghog (talk) 23:52, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks and watched. Agree huge issues with undue weight and inappropriate use of primary sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:02, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Caption

I question the suitability of this caption for this otherwise excellent picture gracing the mastication page. Also, I am very disappointed that we are not using this image in many more pages due to its high relevance to many topics (currently only used on Methods used to study memory, Macaque). So if anyone can think of a better caption, or any other pages beginning with 'm' where this image would be useful, please feel free to suggest. Lesion (talk) 21:48, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

for example, isn't the alpha Macaque giving an excellent display of the middle finger? Lesion (talk) 21:50, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
- Perhaps beyond the scope of WikiProject medicine? ;-) It's a nice picture, and I see a quasi-forming peace sign/V sign. The image should be cropped, I think, in order to be a helpful addition to the middle finger page though. Biosthmors (talk) 21:21, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

You're right-- I didn't see the V sign before but it's definitely there. Note that the other individuals are paying no attention to the hand gestures, and only focus on the grass being eaten. Maybe this suggests that such hand gestures have no significance in Macaque sociocultural structure? Or if they do hold some significance, then this is of lesser conceptual importance than grass. As to scope, I think all members of this wikiproject could learn a lot by meditating a while on the many issues raised in this image, indeed all wikipedia editors. Lesion (talk) 13:20, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

VisualEditor

Just a reminder that you are going to have two options for editing pages in about eight hours: the new WP:VisualEditor under "[Edit]" and the old (2002) wikicode system under "[Edit source]". The new system will only work in articles and userspace (no talk pages or project pages.)

A lot of you have tried it out, but both will be available for all registered accounts before long. (Unregistered users/IPs will still be using the old system for at least another week.)

There are a few thing that the new system can't do yet, such as editing templates that are nested within other templates or adding rows to tables, but most of the basic work, such as:

adding, removing, or changing text,
adding inline citations using <ref> tags, and
adding images

should all be working at a basic level. Some templates also work. There is information at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/TemplateData about how to tell VisualEditor about our templates, and I think it would be good to have someone do that for {{Infobox disease}} and the like. (I haven't figured it out myself yet, though.)

I think most of you will like the new system, and I think that in the long run we'll see good edits from professionals who are too busy to learn wikicode just to provide updates, but you are not required to use it. You can easily click [Edit source] to get to the old one. For those who can't stand to even see that the new system exists, there is a plan for an 'opt-out' switch, but last I heard, there were unexpected technical problems with it (something about the opt-out script loading before VisualEditor loads, and thus being unable to affect VisualEditor), so it may be delayed, but it's on its way. WhatamIdoing (talk) 12:03, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Although I have have used the visual editor for the past few weeks and find it a great improvement for editing in many ways, I am a bit troubled by it going live without proper referencing support, especially with regard to medical articles. The VE implementation with just an empty textbox is a big step backwards from the current system where you can easily fill out templates and automatically look up parameters with just a isbn/doi/pmid. --WS (talk) 13:48, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

You can use citation templates, but they are not currently auto-filling, and {{cite journal}}, at least, doesn't seem to be reading the TemplateData yet, so you have to add each parameter, one at a time. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:30, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Exactly, big step backwards. Don't understand why introduction wasn't delayed a few weeks or so until at least the basic functionality was fully ready. --WS (talk) 11:40, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion the TemplateData system is not yet usable. If you make the slightest mistake in setting it up, you will be unable to save your edit, and all you get is a message saying "JSON syntax error". I have created TemplateData for Infobox Disease, but I had to save it inside comment tags in Template:Infobox disease/doc because there's an error in it somewhere that I am unable to spot. I won't be using that system until it gives better assistance with debugging. (I left a message about this issue at Wikipedia talk:VisualEditor/TemplateData tutorial.) Looie496 (talk) 16:49, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

It looks like it has been fixed now, with the addition of a missing quotation mark. (Perhaps someday it will be less brittle.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:30, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

We need an opt out method now. Grrr Have stated a weight in here [28] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:53, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

One has been added here [29] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:52, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

So to clarify there is no way to autofill in references based on the PMID or ISBN with this new VE? What a lot of clicks this new VE requires? What a lot of steps it takes? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:18, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Unless you have something set up differently from me, you now have two "edit" buttons for articles, one that uses VE and an "edit source" button that allows you to edit in exactly the same way that you have always done. So there's really no need for a preference. Looie496 (talk) 02:35, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, most people are just clicking the [Edit source] button when they want to use the old editor. It's available on every page, and requires no extra hassle or time spent with scripts or switches.

As for autofill: not yet, but those weren't working for me anyway (the last time I checked, which was a while ago). The URL-based one worked for me, but for PMIDs and ISBNs, I've been going to Diberri's website. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:56, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Always worked for me. --WS (talk) 11:41, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes the edit tool in the edit box doesn't work that consistently. Would be nice if the WMF put some effort into it. I am just concerned with VE rolling out to all new editors as default before it can properly handle references. That is all. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:53, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Products of conception

I started the article a while ago. It is now being dragged into the abortion debate... as a hand full of pro-lifers don't seem to grasp how the term is used.

I reworked it a bit. I could probably use some more eyes... also, it needs some references. Nephron T|C 03:02, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

The entire Criticism of the term section needs to be removed. The criticism sentence is sourced to a blog post of a non-notable individual and it inappropriately generalizes that one individual's criticism of the use of the term. The other paragraph is unsourced. Zad68 03:12, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Adding - not sure why you are saying it's being 'dragged into' anything by a handful of anything... I see just one edit by an IP from a few weeks ago, hasn't edited since, nothing on the Talk page. Zad68 03:15, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Article needing attention from someone familiar with the subject

Giant cell requires a great deal of attention. Few citations, zero inline citations, prose that is mixed with personal address, etc. I'd work on it, but it's outside of my knowledge area.Wzrd1 (talk) 03:19, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

The article was greatly expanded back in March as part of a class project by a high school student. It's actually better than a lot of the things we've seen from university class projects, but it does need quite a bit of work to be a decent article. Looie496 (talk) 04:46, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Linking to article search results

From my understanding we do not usually do this [30]? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:38, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely not, seems WP:ELNEVER #1 would apply. Zad68 01:47, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure if it violates copyright. Simply looks similar to adding a link to a pubmed search.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:22, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

The link described it as a research paper sharing group. That rings copyright violation bells. Is that description not accurate? If it's just a discussion group I still would oppose listing as EL, no value over PubMed and the site itself isn't the cite-able resource, only the underlying papers are. We're supposed to be selecting the sources. Don't see the value in linking to a bucket of them with no editorial control. Zad68 02:33, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:ELNO#EL9 is against linking to search results. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:50, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

From CiteUlike FAQ: CiteULike is a free service to help you to store, organise and share the scholarly papers you are reading. When you see a paper on the web that interests you, you can click one button and have it added to your personal library. CiteULike automatically extracts the citation details, so there's no need to type them in yourself, so it is not a link to a search result, but to a list of articles that an individual or group created on a topic. In this case the group on "Autism" is the work of a single individual who is also a Wikipedian (User:Dolfrog). In this case hence, I do not think it merits inclussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garrondo (talk • contribs)

Agree, the link has now been reverted back a third time, and Autism is a featured article, this is a problem that needs to go to the Talk page of that article for discussion. Zad68 13:04, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

This user seems to be adding his collections of sources to a bunch of articles. [31], [32], [33], [34] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:25, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

What you fail to understand is that these are not my collections, anyone can contribute, my collection is here. My be you should join and create your own collection and contribute to many of the various sharing groups. dolfrog (talk) 13:30, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

This is not a question of whose collections we link to. The community has simply decided that we do not generally link to collections of research sources. Wikipedia is not appropriate for these links. I would not have any issue with you adding these links to the talk pages of the articles to help other editors. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:34, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Dolfrog, the issue is that the document collection is essentially a Wiki, where any individual with or without credentials can add and comment on individual sources. This looks like a great resource for individuals with a keen interest in various medical topics but it's not an appropriate resource to link from articles. The selection of articles is not being done by recognized experts, and the comments are not being fact-checked. This clearly fails WP:ELNO #1, "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article." Zad68 13:37, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

We should be using high quality sources to write Wikipedia articles not simply collecting them for the purpose of collection. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:46, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

AS I have explained before due to my auditory processing disorder disability, I have limited copy editing skills, which prevent me from writing Wikipedia articles, but htis does not prevent me from reading research, understanding issues, and collecting research. So please try to avoid disability discrimination in your comments dolfrog (talk) 13:51, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Due to my poor copy editing skills some of my contributions here are not getting throuhg as others post before i can complete my own new posts. dolfrog (talk) 13:52, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

As I stated these links can be put on talk pages. I add link to research to talk pages as well for example Talk:Croup but not to the main space. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:56, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to come to this late, but I edited in this area a while back, and I share Doc James's concerns. I have long-standing doubts about the research paper citations Dolfrog is adding to articles - both in collections and individually. They appear to be chosen on entirely subjective grounds, leaving sourcing for some articles an obfuscated mess with no clear basis in consensus for inclusion, nor in solid secondary sources. Without that, we have no way of knowing if these sources are being selected neutrally. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 14:33, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

There are some who confuse consensus with meeting their own private agendas, and the agendas of their own group of lobbyists, and the information they prefer others to read, as opposed to waht is happening in international research to help enlighten and improve the global understanding of of complex issues. From my experiences GordonofCartoon has his own agenda and prefers to block a glabal perspective of research and understanding. dolfrog (talk) 14:49, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't think ad hominem attacks are going to advance your goals. Please stick to commenting on edits. -- Scray (talk) 15:00, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

We have clear instructions on what sort of references are preferred and these are high quality secondary sources WP:MEDRS. I have not looked through the edits added but will take a look when I have time. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:01, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

And that's the problem: they're almost always individual primary papers, or personally-selected collections of individual primary papers. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 15:08, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes than will need reviewing and fixing. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:18, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

The only additions of Research paper collections I have added to articles have been CiteULike research paper sharing libraries that have multiple contributors, and which any one can join and add research papers that they believe will improve the understanding of a specific topic. I have over the years compiled various PubMed research paper collections to help both me and others learn more detail regarding various medical issues, and sometimes this has been done to help editors who have been editing a specific Wikipedia article, or help resolve a wiki dispute. All issues are somehow inter-related as part of the bigger picture of life and human evolution, unfortunately some prefer to only focus on a single aspect on an issue. dolfrog (talk) 15:27, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Let's look at an example, then. Here's the CiteULike library in the Auditory processing disorder article: Audiology and Auditory Processing Disorder. As far as I can see, all of the 744 papers in it are listed as "posted by Dolfrog". That anyone else could add papers is irrelevant; since they haven't, it's a one-person compilation. As others have said, the consensus is not to link to research collections anyway; and it's even more beyond the pale when it's an editor's personally-selected linkfarm.. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 05:42, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I think the issue here should really be whether the link has encyclopedic value. A collection of papers put together by a random person generally doesn't, but a collection put together by a recognized authority might well. Looie496 (talk) 15:28, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Not sure why we would link to collections of papers, even if put together by an authority? We use high quality papers as references not as lists. I guess there could be exceptions. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:32, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I didn't mean that collections could be used as references; that wouldn't make sense. I meant that they might sometimes be usable in an external links section, if they are particularly useful resources for a reader who wants to know more about the topic. Apologies if I misunderstood the topic here. Looie496 (talk) 16:38, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Looie I tend to agree, but you have to be sceptical of recognmisd bodies who tend to have their own agendas usually of some financial nature, and individuals, like me, tend to be somewhere on a learning curve. There needs to be some form of mix to discover where research from all sources has discovered, and continues to follow all related developments to help improve the various Wikipedia articles as research improves our understanding of various issues. dolfrog (talk) 15:39, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)An exception is a systematic review, which will routinely have a companion list of publications included - linking to that would have encyclopedic value (these are accompanied by a Methods section that explains the criteria for inclusion and exclusion). This exception contrasts with a CiteULike collection, the latter being appropriate, perhaps, for a Talk page discussion. -- Scray (talk) 15:42, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

you have to be sceptical of recognmisd bodies ... There needs to be some form of mix to discover where research from all sources has discovered, and continues to follow all related developments

It's not our job to do that. Wikipedia is by definition an encyclopedia based on reliable secondary sources, and that roots medical articles firmly in sources considered well-established. If there's a review article summarising where research is going, that's fine - but it's not the job of individual editors to trawl primary research papers and make that analysis (whether overtly, or via choice for inclusion as sources). For instance, what's the consensus or secondary validation for including this obscure primary paper [35] as further reading? Gordonofcartoon (talk) 16:24, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Re-naming habitual abortion

I've left a note like this on the talk page there, too. The language of abortion is not regarded as patient-centered, is advised against and slowly going out of use - see also the discussion of the use of the word abortion in relation to miscarriage on the miscarriage page. This should be named recurrent miscarriage, with habitual abortion & early pregnancy loss re-directing to it. You can see in a search in PubMed that the accepted nomenclature is now recurrent miscarriage. Hildabast (talk) 03:25, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Done Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:47, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! Hildabast (talk) 03:49, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't early pregnancy loss cover one-time miscarriages? I think that should continue continue to redirect to the plain miscarriage article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:52, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Agree and it does. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:15, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Great - thanks for not letting my slip-up lead you astray! I'm going to tackle that bit about the language today - although it's totally right and important that this is the language convention now, what's written about it doesn't reflect the range of women's views on this, and the discussion about this issue, which is nuanced and important. I'll write the general one on the miscarriage page first.Hildabast (talk) 15:54, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I've made major changes to this section, and left a note on the talk page. There's a thread going through the termination of pregnancy language at each stage of pregnancy loss/induced termination that's problematic. I don't want to start on any other sections until I see how this one goes. There's a table in there that is problematic and contradicted what was in the text (and does even more now that the text is more detailed and sourced to formal definitions - it was rather unsourced before). But a lot of work and discussion seemed to go into it, so I was reluctant to delete. It's also totally unsourced. I had to figure out on the talk page where it came from - it's original WP work, but to the reader it would give the impression of coming from an official source I think. I think it would really be better for this original work not to be included.Hildabast (talk) 20:58, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

To be more specific - for example, the table states a survival rate for 24-25 weeks' gestation - that's what I mean by things in there that aren't sourced - not in the table and not in the text. Can't throw around stats like that without source, especially not in something this sensitive. Hildabast (talk) 21:13, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

AfD

Albert Laszlo Haines is in Afd. Notability is the main issue. Medicine is my strong field so I am leaving this note here.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:52, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Dynamic dictionaries

Editors might find these dictionaries to be useful when they read medical information on the World Wide Web.

Set 1
- VoyCabulary.com - Online web dictionary & thesaurus word linking lookup reference tool. (Enter a web address or paste text.)
- POPjisyo.com - Dictionary Translation Japanese/Chinese/Korean/Kanji/Hanzi (Enter a web address or paste text.)
- Welcome to Doroja online dictionary : Double click on any word in any site to get English to Bengali and English to English meaning (Enter a web address.)
- lingro: The coolest dictionary known to hombre! (Enter a web address.)

Set 2
- ProfessorWord: Improve your vocabulary while you surf the web (Drag the button to the bookmarks bar.)
- Dictionary Bookmarklet: popup a definition of any word in your browser - Peter Coles (Drag the button to the bookmarks bar.)

—Wavelength (talk) 01:15, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Signpost coverage

Efforts a number of us at WikiProject Med Foundation have been working on were discussed in this week Signpost. We of course would love to have more people join WikiProject Med Foudantion Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:08, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Menstrual cycle and Menstrual synchrony articles

The former is more of a medical article; the latter is more of a theory-based article, but also deals with reporting information about current medical thoughts with regard to the menstrual cycle. I pointed out here and here to Altg20April2nd (talk · contribs) why he or she should not be adding medical information based on such old sources. The editor is using sources as old as 1937, when pubertal timing (including menarche), for example, generally isn't even the same as it was that long ago. On his or her talk page, I stated, "You should read WP:MEDRS and follow it. Using such old sources for historical information and theories, such as what is included at some parts of the Menstrual synchrony article, is fine. But not when it comes to asserting what the average menstrual length is in human females these days. Because you have not listened to, or rather have not heeded, my concerns about this, I am about to ask members of WP:MED to review your edits to the Menstrual cycle‎ article and to review any problematic additions to the Menstrual synchrony article."

So, yes, now I bring this matter to you all. Flyer22 (talk) 21:15, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I see Danielkueh, who has been recently working on the Menstrual cycle article, reverted Altg20April2nd at the Menstrual cycle article here and here. Flyer22 (talk) 21:51, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:MEDDATE is a good rule of thumb, especially for rapidly developing areas of science, but studies on menstrual cycle length isn't one of them. If you do know of any studies that have found that menstrual-cycle length has recently lengthened, shortened, become more regular or less regular (independent of birth control), please let me know.--I am One of Many (talk) 21:53, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

The more recent sources, like Danielkueh stated, report 28 days while the sources that Altg20April2nd was adding report 29.1 or 29.5 days. Flyer22 (talk) 21:59, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

And even if both groups of sources were reporting the same number of days, or are when comparing some other relatively new sources to the ones Altg20April2nd was adding, WP:MEDRS is clear that we should use the more recent sources. Flyer22 (talk) 22:02, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I just saw this edit by you there. Flyer22 (talk) 22:07, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

One of the references inserted by Atlg20April2nd was a study by Chiazze et al. (1968). I just downloaded and looked through (briefly) this article. I won't go into too much detail except to say that the quantitative results from this study needs to be presented and interpreted with caution as it is very context specific. On. p. 379 for example, the authors state "When only those cycles between 15 and 45 days are considered.... the average length drops to 28.1 days...." In any event, this would too long and unnecessarily complex for the lead (WP:lead). Plus, WP recommends the use of secondary sources WP:V as the use of primary sources often results in original research WP:OR. So I am reverting it to 28 days unless there is a broad consensus to change it to 29.1 days. danielkueh (talk) 22:13, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that 28-day cycles is not the average length, so you are citing a source that does not support what is in the article. So, there is no source for it, so I suggest the article should say the length of the cycle is unknown or simply state what is in the scientific literature. Actually, the way to do it is to cite the three main studies in this area, which were added, and report the range of results.--I am One of Many (talk) 22:36, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I will respond on the article main page. And no, we don't rely on the primary sources. We rely on secondary sources so as to avoid original research. Please read WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:V carefully. Thanks. danielkueh (talk) 22:40, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Apparently, Atlg20April2nd has been adding the 29.5 days information since 2010; obviously, it was removed before recently as well. Flyer22 (talk) 23:06, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

As a passing note, I think you will all have a more productive conversation if you stop using the word "average" and start saying "mean" and "median". The two aren't going to be the same. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:51, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been featured

Hello,
Please note that Louis Pasteur, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
_{Delivered by Theo's Little Bot at 07:17, 5 July 2013 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team}

Unsourced brand names for pharmaceuticals

I've just noticed at Fluoxetine#Other brand names that we have long list of names for the product as used in different countries, almost all of which are unsourced. Clearly this is less than ideal. Is there any general policy regarding how this should be handled? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:09, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Not that I am aware of. I guess one could either add a ^{[citation needed]} tag or find a ref to support. This is the sort of info that should go in Wikidata but of course with references. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:17, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Request for help from AfC

Please review the issues tagged on Androgen deprivation-induced senescence - it apparently has something to do with Prostate cancer. Thanks. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:29, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

New article on reverse T3

Dear Colleagues; I have written an encyclopedic article on reverse T3 that can be used to replace the stub that currently exists, if Wiki wishes. It has been reviewed by an editor and called "impressive." His concerns have been addressed and some sections accordingly re-written. His advice was to now post the new article on this site and ask for comments as a prelude to its use. My article can be found at: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:Njmcdaniel/sandbox#Summary. Would any interested editor with time give it a look? I believe this will be a useful addition to Wiki. Thanks, and please - let me know the next action step to move this project ahead. Thanks! Njmcdaniel (talk) 00:38, 8 July 2013 (UTC) (Alan).

A couple of useful guidelines are

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:46, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Treatment of Tourette syndrome

Reverted and watchlisted. Looie496 (talk) 15:08, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Looie ... both of those IPs resolve to Brisbane, Australia, so a note about 3RR applying to an individual, not an account, might be in order. I was thinking a COI note might also be needed, but http://www.drbarbarablume.com is in Ventura, California, not Australia. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:32, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

The IP has reinstated drbarbarablume.com sourced text after a note on its talk and 3RR notice ... perhaps semi-protection will help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:53, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! (Very busy summer ahead, so I appreciate the help and extra eyes.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:16, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Watching. Graham Colm (talk) 12:21, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

A physician's personal website is still used to source a statement in the article that is contradicted by secondary journal-published reviews. Would an independent editor please view the discussion on talk? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:28, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I reverted the offending material again. I don't quite understand why you left it in place. Looie496 (talk) 23:57, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

3RR ... regardless if the text was obviously poorly cited and should have been shot on site, there are admins who will block me for even something like that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:23, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

My view is that "tag teaming" is the only reasonable way to deal with unresponsive tendentious editors, so feel free to call on me in case of need. I would have reverted this earlier if your edit hadn't covered it up in my watchlist. Anyway, don't let one absurd block shake your confidence. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 01:07, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

My confidence is every bit as intact as my sense of reality :) Or better stated, just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you :) :) Anyway, I do have recent reviews, have no reason to believe that text is accurate or can be sourced to a secondary review, but thought others who have journal access might unearth something ... so left it just in case. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:19, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

"Unacceptable Levels" (film)

Someone may wish to start a Wikipedia article "Unacceptable Levels" about the documentary film of the same name.

—Wavelength (talk) 04:55, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for starting it. Biosthmors (talk) 15:35, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Linking common terms

What are peoples thoughts on linking common terms such as "symptoms" in this edit? [36] Is this something we should routinely do or avoid? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:41, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I generally favor such links, although not if there are more important words to be linking in that sentence. Too many bluelinks in a sentence is not desirable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:41, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Unless it is particularly obnoxious this falls into my personal category of "things to be ignored", along with changes from British to American spelling or vice versa. Looie496 (talk) 15:45, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

See WP:OVERLINK.—Wavelength (talk) 15:55, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I'd go with leaving the hyperlink as it is. Though personally I think "symptoms" comes well under "everyday words understood by most readers in context", a quick skim of medical articles - see internal search for "symptoms" [37] - suggests that hyperlinking the word is usual here. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 16:08, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Would wikilink "symptoms" if I wanted to make a distinction with "signs" close by. Another example of where I would wikilink this is " ... is a symptom not a diagnosis" where latter is also wikilinked. Questionable need to wikilink the word otherwise imo, but like Looie suggests, this is mostly harmless. Lesion (talk) 16:23, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I think links are generally useful for words that are being used with a technical meaning. For instance, some readers may not be familiar with the distinction/overlap between "symptoms" and "signs". So, yes, I do think it's potentially useful, especially since we're trying to write for a wide range of users consulting Wikipedia for a variety of reasons. 86.161.251.139 (talk) 18:03, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Positive/negative symptoms?

On a related point, is there perhaps a weight issue in Symptom#Positive_and_negative_symptoms, given that this relatively large chunk of the page dedicated to symptoms as a general concept seems primarily to pertain to schizophrenia (Schizophrenia#Positive_and_negative_symptoms) [38]? 86.161.251.139 (talk) 18:32, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

That section is pretty minimal. I don't think positive/negative symptoms could be mentioned in any less space without actually deleting the content completely. Maybe the rest of the article is just a bit underdeveloped at this stage? Deleting that content would also take away most of the references ... which in truth is a poor reason to argue against deleting content ... but basically I think the article as a whole would benefit more from an expansion of the other sections rather than removing this part. Lesion (talk) 18:45, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I agree this sort of imbalance tends to be part and parcel of relatively brief pages. 86.161.251.139 (talk) 19:00, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Wernicke's encephalopathy

Further guidance likely needed for a new editor here. They keep adding lists of primary sources (case studies in the instance) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:50, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I have contacted the editor in Spanish and explained to him in our language the importance of secondary sources and better English. I have to say that after a quick search I have also seen a similar pattern of editing by this user in the Spanish article. --Garrondo (talk) 20:27, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:35, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Rehydration therapy and Oral rehydration therapy

I've stuck a WPMED template on the previously blank talk page of Management of dehydration. This page is the redirect for the key search term, "Rehydration therapy". I've also linked to Management of dehydration in the Oral rehydration therapy lead (as well as to Fluid_replacement#Intravenous). I'm wondering whether anything else might readily be done to co-ordinate the content of these two pages regarding a simple, life-saving intervention. 86.161.251.139 (talk) 08:31, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Looks good as a nested article from Dehydration#Treatment. As I understand it this is the structure that the MEDMOS recommends. Could be argued to merge the content of the later pages you mention into this new page. Or make it into a parent article for both... Lesion (talk) 10:36, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

A summary style approach feels right to me too, and preferable to merging. Dehydration#Treatment already links to Management of dehydration as the "main article". I wonder whether turning Oral rehydration solution (renamed as such?) into a subpage of Rehydration therapy (also renamed?) might help sharpen the focus of those two pages. 86.161.251.139 (talk) 12:31, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Obtundation

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Obtundation

I think we should clarify the differences between this and the other stages

163.40.114.55 (talk) 23:00, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top.
The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). If you'd like some advice on selecting ideal sources, see WP:MEDRS. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:32, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

^ Weedon D (2010). Weedon's skin pathology (3rd ed. ed.). [Edinburgh]: Churchill Livingstone/Elsevier. ISBN 978-0702034855. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
^ James, William D.; Berger, Timothy G.; et al. (2006). Andrews' Diseases of the Skin: Clinical Dermatology. Saunders Elsevier. ISBN 0-7216-2921-0. {{cite book}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

[Weedon_2010-1] Weedon D (2010). Weedon's skin pathology (3rd ed. ed.). [Edinburgh]: Churchill Livingstone/Elsevier. ISBN 978-0702034855. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

[Andrews-2] James, William D.; Berger, Timothy G.; et al. (2006). Andrews' Diseases of the Skin: Clinical Dermatology. Saunders Elsevier. ISBN 0-7216-2921-0. {{cite book}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

[1]

[2]