Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 40

Archive 35

←

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

→

Archive 45

NCBI traffic data

If you have ideas or suggestions as to which data NCBI should make available about traffic they get from Wikimedia servers, please list them here. Thanks! -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 21:21, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

LASIK again

More unfolds in the LASIK story: [1]. Turns out concerns about undue weight were more than justified since paid editing has been going on to generate anti-LASIK content, not to mention the meat puppet recruitment in an attempt to save the non-notable article Dean Andrew Kantis from deletion. LASIK definitely needs attention, perhaps someone would be interested in helping with this big project? (@Alexbrn: ?)

I have also AfD'd Morris Waxler here [2]. Comments appreciated. Lesion (talk) 09:15, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Please check these unexplained changes to Endocrine gland

An IP's several edits remove a file and change HYPER to HYPO and vice versa. Needs checking, thanks. This series of edits. --Hordaland (talk) 19:38, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Some loon. Reverted. JFW | T@lk 17:17, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Jfdwolff. That's what I figured.  :) --Hordaland (talk) 23:15, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Is this theory too fresh?

[3]. The April 2013 source article doesn't appear in a PubMed search and there don't seem to have been any responses in the publishing journal or anywhere else yet. 175.38.144.134 (talk) 10:02, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

The term medical emergency

If I remember correctly, the DVT article said it was a medical emergency before I rewrote it. I didn't see an equivalent of that term being used in any MEDRS I used, so I didn't include it in the article. Now I see that the hemolytic-uremic syndrome article also uses the term medical emergency. And maybe that's OK or maybe it should be rewritten. I'm not sure. But I think it's a very important phrase to keep an eye on, given that, if people take the term seriously, it might encourage them to go to an ER. Thus, it could have been inserted in some articles just to drive economic behavior, perhaps? It's something to think about, in my opinion. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 10:19, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Medical emergency = threat to life (according to our article anyway). DVT complications could be a threat to life...pulmonary embolism etc. Ideally a source to say this for us. Lesion (talk) 10:27, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Our article needs some work. =) Driving a car is a threat to life, so things can get muddied. Does anyone agree on when an article should definitely use the term, because that's what MEDRS do? Or do MEDRS generally not use the term? Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 10:41, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

One thing to remember would be that a fair proportion of the readers would come from countries where driving 'economic behaviour' may not be a consideration of editors (eg publically-funded healthcare systems or articles written by well-meaning editors). As Lesion says above, such edits should be well-sourced. I feel this term may occur more in textbooks or clinical sources rather than journal-based literature, but I think it's quite a reasonable term to include if backed up by literature. LT910001 (talk) 10:51, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

OK, medical emergency = a medical condition which is a threat to life, which hopefully would exclude driving a car since this is not a medical condition (although the DSM-5 would probably manage to disagree somehow...). I personally have no objection to using the term medical emergency for DVT, not sure how others feel. The article already states "Untreated lower extremity DVT has a 3% mortality". You are right that many textbook-type sources come up in google books search "DVT medical emergency" [4] Lesion (talk) 12:11, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Personally I'd rather us just state the mortality statistics as that's factual. I'm not sure if there is any universally accepted definition for the economically-loaded term medical emergency. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 12:36, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Again, let's take a second to slow down and actually think about it. Let's reason together. In your definition the biggest word that needs clarification is the word threat. How big of a threat? In what conditions? Benign paroxysmal positional vertigo could be a medical condition which would threaten life if one were walking down stairs, no? Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 12:29, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Point well taken. Currently on medical emergency, we have: "A medical emergency is an injury or illness that is acute and poses an immediate risk to a person's life or long term health." The "acute" qualifier would rule out your example above. Perhaps that condition might be better termed a minor risk factor for a medical emergency to occur, say if serious life-threatening injury resulted from the fall. But, since our definition was unreferenced I had a quick search on google books and found this which I feel is good: "A situation which [the] patient requires urgent medical attention to prevent loss of life and limb" ... although I think most would call an eyesight-threatening condition a medical emergency too. Here is another source which supports a "life and limb" definition.[5]. Or, possibly a medicolegal POV [6]. Lesion (talk) 18:46, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

@Doc James: If he's around might have good insight. Lesion (talk) 18:50, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

We need to distinguish between a "medical emergency" and an "urgency"/"acute problem". Emergencies pose a persistent moment-to-moment risk to someone's life (e.g. STEMI), while suspected DVT is a good example of an urgency because it can evolve into potentially lethal pulmonary embolism. This terminology is also used in severe hypertension with and without evidence of organ damage. JFW | T@lk 20:51, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Jfd's definition sounds good. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:53, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I ran across a definition a few years back that said an "emergent" problem needed medical attention within one hour (or less), and an "urgent" problem needed medical attention sometime the same day (up to 24 hours). WhatamIdoing (talk) 12:20, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

MEDRS acceptable source?

[7] by Phyllis A. Balch, to support "pain felt behind the eyes" as a symptom of temporomandibular joint dysfunction. I question this because this symptom sounds more like a feature of migraine or tension headache than TMD... Lesion (talk) 11:38, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Coley

Hi all,
We have two separate articles on William Coley and Coley's toxins. They overlap each other (Coley only seems to be notable for his work with the "toxins"). Perhaps it would be a good idea to merge them? However, I'm concerned that the articles don't entirely reflect what reliable sources say on the topic, so it's not a simple merge... any suggestions? bobrayner (talk) 18:52, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Brassiere

An article recently appeared on Wikipediocracy about our article complaining about - among other things - its medical references. On reviewing the article it seems it did (it was true) have some problems in this respect - and I have edited it to align more closely with WP:MEDRS. There is some disagreement emerging on the Talk page about this, and so wise eyes would be helpful to inform the discussion ... Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 19:26, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I saw this note and thought, "Oh dear, it's the bras-cause-cancer people again. But it's not; this is about whether wearing a (properly fitted) bra causes pain. If anyone is aware of any good sources on this subject, I'm sure they'd be appreciated. Otherwise, the article seems to have improved quite a bit recently. WhatamIdoing (talk) 12:28, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

New MD

We have a fairly new MD to Wikipedia here User:Youtalkfunny. They have been working on some though subjects. May need a little guidance regarding referencing and writing style though. Extend them our welcome. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:47, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Welcome User:Youtalkfunny! I'll cite myself and say take a look at deep vein thrombosis, which I'm proud of. Too bad I haven't gotten around to rewriting pulmonary embolism as well. If you have any questions you can always ask at this page or at the WP:Teahouse. Best regards. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 09:11, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Best to ask medicine related question here than at the teahouse. Not many medicine focused editors hang out at the teahouse and thus often your questions will get more appropriate answers here. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:15, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

+1 Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 11:29, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Welcome Youtalkfunny. What nickname do you prefer: dysarthria or dysphasia? JFW | T@lk 13:06, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Cochrane editorial about WPMED

This was recently published in the Cochrane library. Not sure if people have seen it.[8]. I am hoping that a mailing list is set up were people can sign up to receive every weeks new Cochrane reviews. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:20, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Motor Neglect

Dear medical experts: This article has references, but they are not on line. Perhaps someone here will know if they are good ones. If the article is passed, it will need some cleanup of English by someone who understands the subject. —Anne Delong (talk) 16:32, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Hemispatial neglect already exists. LT910001 (talk) 20:21, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Opinion needed

I have just finished a major cleanup on a new article about an artificial urinary sphincter. This article appears to relate to one single manufacturer's version of this device, instead of any other devices that might fall into this category (if, indeed, there are any other such devices). The present device has just been written up in BJU International (an international edition of the British Journal of Urology, I suppose). As of Sep 2012 (the date of publication), the device was still in trial phase, with only 36 test subjects so far. Is there a standard by which such experimental devices/techniques are judged notable according to this project's guidelines? Please weigh in at Talk:Artificial urinary sphincter. Thanks!! WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:28, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Datamining clinical imagery

An interesting item just out in Nature Med explores the idea of datamining vast stores of clinical imagery, anonymized for privacy reasons. This seems like a prospect WPMED editors might wish to explore. Can this be done in an open data way that would be useful here? Should we be engaging with such work? If interested, where should we discuss it? LeadSongDog come howl! 21:19, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

We should definitely be involved. Clinical images are exceedingly important and hard to get. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:19, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

_{Don't try to host them on Wikimedia Commons though. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:40, 30 October 2013 (UTC)}

Please feel free to put gained wisdom at WP:MEDPIC, all. Thanks for the heads up, LeadSongDog. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 11:36, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Merge Infection to Infectious disease?

Opinions, please, at Talk:Infectious disease. Both are Top-importance.LeadSongDog come howl! 21:56, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I would merge infectious disease to infection per commons usage and that some infections may not yet be causing disease. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:17, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

PubMed Commons

PubMed has began allowing people to comment on the articles hosted there. This may be useful method for us to engage with authors of papers. [9] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:20, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Almost no one is allowed to post comments there. To get permission, you need to either have been published there or to have received a grant from them or partners. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:22, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

There may be interest to allow those of us here to comment. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:29, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Requested move of "Carcinoma of the penis" to "Penile cancer"

Hi folks, at Talk:Carcinoma_of_the_penis#Requested_move there's a requested move to rename the article to "Penile cancer". I took a quick look at the usual resources and couldn't come up with a clear direction, asking for input from here. Thanks... Zad68 19:22, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to move it as the latter term is simplier. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:35, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:Flow

WP:Flow is a software project designed to improve Wikipedia communication by the Wikimedia Foundation, and per User_talk:Maryana_(WMF)#Wikiprojects_interested_in_assisting_with_Flow.27s_first_release, we could participate, if we wanted. This could come with some aggravation and weird disruptions to our talk page, but we might also really help the software develop by spotting bugs and maybe we could suggest new features that will really help lots of Wikipedia/Wikimedia communication improve. I like what the WMF did with the recent notifications features, as you can see from my signature, so I'm leaning towards supporting this idea, but I'd still like to know more. User:Quiddity (WMF)? I think the plan would involve somehow linking some conversation from m:Wiki Project Med and here, perhaps, but that talk page doesn't get used much. Any ideas? Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 19:35, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Biosthmors, thanks for starting up a conversation here about this :) Some additional info:

• We're putting together a very early minimum viable product (basically a proof of concept of how structured discussions via Flow could work) that we're hoping to showcase to any WikiProject that's interested (so far, folks from MilHist, Video Games, and Hampshire, but we're open to more!).
• In the next couple of weeks, we'll invite you to try it out for yourself on a test wiki, play with the features, and let us know if this is something you could feasibly try out right here on this discussion space (and/or on m:Talk:Wiki Project Med – up to you).
• Then, once we've incorporated your feedback/fixed any outstanding bugs, and your project members feel comfortable with a Flow trial run, we would enable it here and see how it handles real Wikipedia discussions. The goal of this trial would be to 1) evaluate whether our design and product choices hold up for supporting good discussion/collaboration (and make changes where necessary), and 2) collaboratively prioritize the set of feature buckets we want to work on next to make this the Wikipedia discussion/collaboration software of your dreams :)

Benefits for you: your WikiProject basically becomes a part of the Flow development team, which will be incorporating your feedback into every new release and making sure Flow does what you need it to do! Risks: pretty low. We won't force Flow on you unless you want to be a part of the trial, and we can always disable it and return any Flow discussions you had to free-form wikitext.

So, that's my pitch ;) Please feel free to discuss this amongst yourselves, and we'll be in touch soon with an invitation to try out a working version of the MVP. Maryana (WMF) (talk) 20:45, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:39, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Please do leave a note here when the trial wiki is ready for testing. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 09:53, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Need a third party to provide some feedback

Hi everyone, another editor and I are dealing with a content dispute on amphetamine neurotoxicity. I'd appreciate it if a few of you could read through this thread and provide an impartial opinion. Thanks, Seppi333 (talk) 02:32, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Resolved

Submissions at WP:AfC

Anyone able to review these, or at least provide the reviewers with some guidance. Thanks for any pointers you can give.

You can put comments on the pages using {{afc comment|Blah blah ~~~~}} underneath the header, or I will come back here.

Rankersbo (talk) 13:03, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Early Mortality Syndrom / Acute Hepatopancreatic Necrosis Syndrome

Acute Hepatopancreatic Necrosis Syndrome is a disease of shrimp. I'd ask the veterinarians or marine biologists. JFW | T@lk 20:53, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Rankersbo (talk) 10:57, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Pediatric Trials Network

You can also review the articles yourselves by being bold . A weekly AfC perusal would be nice. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 15:32, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

As a general comment the AfC system is one of the most confusing and labyrinthine systems that has arisen on Wikipedia. It takes about two days and maybe five reviews to get to grips with good article nominations, yet it's been a month and I still can't make head or tail of how to accept or reject an article on AfC. No wonder there's such a backlog! LT910001 (talk) 00:21, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

These articles do appear to be reasonably cited, however I doubt they will ever progress beyond stubs. How about creating these as redirects to a list such as List of patient-reported quality of life surveys? That would preserve some of the content but also ensure there's not a whole farm of such articles individually created. I would be happy to assist in such a process if help is needed. LT910001 (talk) 00:28, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Eyes on plastic surgery articles

Please look at Trans-umbilical breast augmentation, Abdominoplasty, and Buttock augmentation. There is a user that is promoting two plastic surgeons quite flamboyantly, clearly violating WP:Promotion and WP:Medrs. I'm frustrated with how often this sort of thing happens in plastic surgery related articles, to the point where I barely feel motivated to resist anymore. I think assuming good faith sets the bar too high in this subject area which seems to be plagued with coi.--Taylornate (talk) 23:22, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I share Taylornate's concerns. The sources in question are nowhere near compliance with MEDRS. Eyes needed. --Andreas JN466 04:01, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

This is an obvious case of paid editing. He is working for the plastic surgeons in question. See the practice's page on LinkedIn[10] or this screen shot of the same page [11]. On his user page, he even states that he specializes in brand management. He should not be making any edits related to this surgical practice or any other topic where he is abusing a conflict of interest.--Taylornate (talk) 18:05, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

If this kind of thing gets out of control, we could also consider whether WP:BLACKLISTing the "sources" (my-vanities.com?) would be helpful. That said, if this guy really is a significant inventor of this procedure, we should be able to mention him—just without all the stuff about him being on TV and getting awards in school. WhatamIdoing (talk) 12:32, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Ref style

With respect to my understanding it is the primary contributors to content who determine what ref style is used. We at WikiProject Med seem to used the style created by the diberri tool (the cite templates with the full ref).

Lately we have had a number of editors (who do not add much content themselves) changing the citation styles.

One is User:564dude who is shortening the refs to just the DOI in many edits [12]. I do not care one way or another about the changes by User:Anrnusna.

All these changes are annoying as they light up ones watch list and add little. Additionally there is no consensus for making them. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:11, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Agree. Removing author sources is quite irritating, because it means any changes have to be constantly compared to a live version of the article, as poor sources can hind behind such DOIs when editing. Additionally it is possible for a user to accidentally alter the DOI and make the citation completely untrackable unless history is searched. This adds needless pain to the editing process. Other than that, I have no views about citation. LT910001 (talk) 03:15, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes that is the main bit. We need to fill in the DOI's and PMID's to keep things more stable. I am not set on an exact order. It is simply that WP:GA requires consistent ref formatting and thus I use the same style across the articles I bring to GA. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:32, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

You are looking for WP:CITEVAR, and I agree that it is very irritating to have the self-sufficient full citation (Virtanen, KA; Lidell, ME; Orava, J; Heglind, M; Westergren, R; Niemi, T; Taittonen, M; Laine, J; Savisto, NJ (2009). "Functional brown adipose tissue in healthy adults". The New England Journal of Medicine. 360 (15): 1518–25. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa0808949. PMID 19357407. reduced to a mere {{cite doi}} with only the number. If editors at the article find the full code to be disruptive, then they could consider moving to WP:List-defined references, which keeps the full citation in the article but moves it out of the way.

And, once again, for the record, WP:GA does not require consistent ref formatting. See WP:GACN. WhatamIdoing (talk) 12:36, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's right. I'll also emphasize that to Doc James. ;-) Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 16:27, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I keep forgetting to ask ... is Diberri totally dead? Do we have an alternative? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:47, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

As a followup to this discussion, I am trying to get Diberri's template filling tool running on Wikilabs. It works fine when run internally on the server, but generates an internal error when accessed via an external web browser. I have requested help, but no one is responding over there. The fix is probably something trivial, but without the help of a Wikilabs perl guru, the solution is difficult to track down. I will continue to try to fix this myself, but if anyone has a suggestion on how to get this running or how to wake up the Wikilabs administrators, I would be very grateful. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 18:29, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

It now works! At least "PubMed ID" and "PubMed Central ID" searches now work, there are problems with url and isbn and the rest). The link is here: citation-template-filling. I will try to get the rest of the template filling tool to work properly over the next few days. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 15:34, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Yay! Congratulations! Thanks! WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:05, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Medical literature as top importance?

I propose placing Talk:Medical literature as something of Top importance because the literature dictates how we write articles given our reliable sourcing guideline. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 15:58, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Changed with the edit summary: encyclopedic coverage of medical topics is dominated by the medical literature, which needs encyclopedic coverage of it as well, as it is how we write articles. Doctors do things based upon the literature, etc. It's fundamental to this project. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 10:31, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

While medical literature is exceedingly important to use writing Wikipedia it is not exceedingly important to most people when it comes to medicine. Most simply hope that it is well done and that the results are accurate. It is more these results people care about. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:41, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't really think that it's one of the most important articles we could be working on. It doesn't seem like our readers are going to care as much about this as they do about Myocardial infarction, or even Common cold.

Importance ratings are primarily about selecting articles for offline releases. If you were putting together a list of just 100 medicine-related articles on a CD for people without internet access, would you really expect them to be excited about reading Medical literature instead of something more relevant to their lives? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:08, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes I suppose I that was a bit over the ... ;-) Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 20:14, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Sourcing at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Acupuncture

Over at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Acupuncture/ there is an ongoing discussion concerning the sources used to support claims about the effectiveness of acupuncture. This could really use another set of eyes looking at it. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:28, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, that's quite a shouting match-- one whose outcome will surely alter the course of the planet. I'm thinking I'll take the side of anyone who can make their case in 40 words or less. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:37, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

On second thought, maybe I'll take the side of anyone who has a reasonable username. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:43, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

This is being discussed at Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)#Acupuncture and TCM --Guy Macon (talk) 16:59, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Visual editor reference dialog

Although the visual editor has been disabled by default for now, work on it is ongoing. Just discovered this page here: a references dialog is currently being designed, which I think is particularly important for our project. --WS (talk) 20:07, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

A modified tool (perhaps STiki) to help us keep track of articles?

Hello all. This is just a note that long ago User:West.andrew.g expressed some level of interest in adapting Wikipedia:STiki to have the capability to focus on WikiProject Medicine articles. If we could find an efficient way to "team up" to watch all WP:MED articles (and triage them, though I'm unfamliar with STiki), then it could be a boon to the project. I'm not sure if Andrew would be interested, or if there is a current vocal interest in the project, but I just wanted to let people know this was a possibility. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 15:09, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I used to go through a lot of edits. But than the list of changes stopped working. Would be interested again. This tool might help. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:20, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

If we had a nice software feature like this, especially one that encouraged teamwork, it would be much more exciting to work with and to pitch to newbies as well. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 10:40, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I've asked again at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 135#Help needed tracking recent changes in medical content if someone can restore the old "Recent changes/Medicine" tool. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:00, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

In addition to recent changes, it would also be nice to have some tool to see which articles are actively being edited. I think editing is most satisfying when you can work together with others, but it is hard to keep track of who is working on what. I imagine it would be something like a list of articles with a certain number of edits or a percentage of text changed/added during the last few days. Anyone else would find that useful? Then maybe we can add it to the bot request. --WS (talk) 11:35, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

template:User WPMED

This is a discussion to change the appearance of the above template (if anyone cares). Lesion (talk) 23:13, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Still looking for consensus. Old one is on the left, new one on the right. Lesion (talk) 17:20, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

This user is a participant in WikiProject Medicine.

This user is a member of WikiProject Medicine.

 Done Lesion (talk) 12:02, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Cambridge Pulmonary Hypertension Outcome Review (CAMPHOR)

This seems to be the week for medical submissions at Afc! Can anyone help with this one? —Anne Delong (talk) 04:42, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

and here's another one:

• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Patient Reported Outcome Indices for Multiple Sclerosis (PRIMUS) —Anne Delong (talk) 04:48, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

They're from the same author (several others too) and might not meet notability criteria. JFW | T@lk 13:14, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes here's another:

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Psoriatic Arthritis Quality of Life measure (PsAQoL)

What should be done with these? —Anne Delong (talk) 23:43, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, see my above comment. Suggest move to a list. How to go about this? LT910001 (talk) 00:30, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, a list in Wikipedia is usually a list of existing related articles. That would mean first creating the articles, and then making a page listing them. If there was a list what would its title be? —Anne Delong (talk) 04:09, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

No requirements that it must be. Page would be List of patient-reported quality of life surveys. Could store information from these articles and may help in advance if there is going to be an armada of articles regarding pharmaceutical-company and disease-state specific quality of life measures that we are about to encounter. LT910001 (talk) 11:53, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't know how to go about this, but perhaps you or someone here with some expertise will take it on. —Anne Delong (talk) 16:00, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Anne Delong for your guidance. I've created the list List of patient-reported quality of life surveys and hopefully it can be used as a parent article for the surveys that have been created. LT910001 (talk) 01:21, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Jack Andraka

There seems to be some contesting of claims made by young scientist Jack Andraka about his Pancreatic Cancer test method by a new editor named User:CRBscientist. He has place in-line citations for third party sources, it would be appreciated if we had a few more eyes and edits/opinions on all this. Thanks! CaffeinAddict (talk) 18:47, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Scrolly box for TOC

Could we please nix the scrolly box for the TOC? I like to be able to see all the threads and for my mouse wheel to scroll up and down on the page. Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 20:11, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Did it. Thanks for the effort though! Any thoughts? Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 20:23, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I was trying to think of ways to make this page less daunting when first loaded. Also saved a block of white space, but for people who like to see all the TOC without scrolling this might be a disadvantage. Lesion (talk) 22:03, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

On a related note, whilst I agree we need fast turnover archiving for this page to prevent us getting swamped, I have noted that more comments/questions are going unanswered. I threw this problem out to the community Here but so far no solution. Lesion (talk) 22:12, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I've (hopefully) fixed this. [will see tomorrow, if the bot works!] There was a second archiving bot that had a duration of 10 days which I changed back to 5, which I recall was the number we concluded on about a month ago. LT910001 (talk) 00:43, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I understand now why the archiving did not match the number of days in the header (5). Agree I thought this was the consensus, so switching to another archiving bot because another was down, OK no problem. I also limited the TOC to not display level 3 headings and below. If there are any problems with display for some users please post here and I will try to fix it. Lesion (talk) 12:29, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the message on my talk, Lesion ... I had not seen this discussion, and I have restored the TOC limit to 2. I think it's goofy, but whatevs ... it just means we'll have more short sections. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:27, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

(From Sandy's talk page) " The rationale is to restrict the size of the page when loaded, it is getting out of hand because of the traffic. In a small way, I think this limit helps with this problem. Level 3 headings are not required for quick navigation since none of the level 3 headings are widely separated from their parent level 2 headings."

If consensus is for no TOC limiting, I will follow this. However I do not believe that navigation will be any slower with TOC limit to level 3 headings.

If anyone has any suggestions more ways we could make this page more compact and user friendly, please suggest. Lesion (talk) 01:41, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not fussed one way or another, Lesion ... too much big stuff with the effect of student editing to worry about the little stuff (but very glad that someone still has the energy for the day-to-day stuff :) My apologies for the change-- it's just that I hadn't read or seen this section. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:57, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I generally get by ignoring the big stuff ;p Lesion (talk) 02:02, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

A talk page without third-level headings is awkward (I could understand restricting to no fourth-level, but separating out related but separate discussions should be possible). If the problem is page loadtime, why isn't that gynormous template on the right added to the WP:MED and removed here? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:37, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Student editing alert

Please browse topics at

• Education Program talk:Georgia Institute of Technology/Introduction to Neuroscience (Fall 2013)/Timeline (some are already in student sandboxes)
• Education Program:Rice University/Poverty, Justice, Human Capabilities, Section 2 (Fall 2013)#Summary_and_students
• Boston College Developmental Biology

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:40, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

This last course, with the point structure, has quite an appealing way of marking that (I hope) will increase the quality of submissions. LT910001 (talk) 00:40, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

• Education Program:Case Western Reserve University/ANTH 302 Darwinian Medicine (Fall 2013)#Summary_and_students targets high-profile medical articles, and the course syllabus earlier suggested editing with a POV (a Darwinian perspective). The students have begun adding text from sandbox to articles. There are occasionally good sources, but more often there are not; there are sources I can't locate on Google Scholar or PubMed, and even when there is potentially one or two sentences that can be gleaned from a good source according to due weight, the text sometimes strays off-topic. Also, the students rarely link their sandboxes on talk, and don't always engage talk, so you have to browse the contribs of each student if you don't find the sandbox on article talk.

  As university term-end approaches, these articles (and classes listed above) will need attention! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:37, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Calling a bluff

@SandyGeorgia: recently claimed, at Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Another plea for review and accountability, that "many editors at Wikiproject Medicine are available to help-- you only need ask". As DYK has a perennial backlog that makes pride impractical, below is a list of medical related nominations that could use a timely review:

• Template:Did you know nominations/Eastern Maine Medical Center SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:29, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
• Template:Did you know nominations/Sahara Hospital SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:29, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
• Template:Did you know nominations/Epsom General Hospital SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:41, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
• Template:Did you know nominations/Homologous Chromosome
  •  Not done Could a doc, or biologist, or someone with journal access look into this one? I left comments. Also, this is a student editing project. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:26, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
    • I took a look at the journal articles but I'm the OA for that course and therefore can't approve it. I left comments over at that page. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 23:25, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
• Template:Did you know nominations/The Sacred Twenty SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:15, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
• Template:Did you know nominations/Canada Fitness Award Program
  • Possible minor problem with health-related claims in the "Results" section-- I cannot access sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:00, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
• Template:Did you know nominations/Violence against doctors in China SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:44, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
• Template:Did you know nominations/Sex-selective abortion
  •  Not done Ugh ... I'm not touching this one. Anyone? User:MastCell? This is a student editing project. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:27, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Those with limited exposure to DYK can find the criteria against which nominations are reviewed at Wikipedia:Did you know#DYK rules with additional explanations, clarifications, and interpretations available at Wikipedia:Did you know/Supplementary guidelines. --Allen3 ^talk 19:02, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the list (you might want to adjust your heading). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:03, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

On a related note: Deep dermatophytosis could be a nice medical DYK if anyone has the opportunity to expand it sufficiently within the next few days. --WS (talk) 22:25, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Work needed at Progeria

I have just reverted a large chunk of text about a newly-published paper on a promising clinical trial for patients with progeria. The disorder is so very rare that I can see a case for considering primary sources, but this was a clear copyvio of a Progeria Research Foundation press release—which happens to be a poor summation of the study (they didn't even get the number of participants correct). The full text of the paper can be found here; at present, there is a single sentence about this toward the end of the Treatment section, cited to an NPR article. Would appreciate it if anyone felt like taking this on; I'm a bit under the weather. Maralia (talk) 04:31, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm totally fine with primary per WP:MEDDATE. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 21:33, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Your version is preserved at the moment, which is fine with me. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 21:35, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Kombucha

Expert help is needed with this article - claims of health benefits, and downplaying of risks, using non-WP:MEDRS sourcing etc. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:37, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Odd thing on the talk page of a wp:med editor

Can someone explain that edit? I don't know what it means. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 17:30, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Someone or something has gone very wrong and lots of users are getting auto-blocked. There's a thread at WP:AN/I (and elsewhere). Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 17:33, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I edit from mobile connection often, and this is the 3rd time I've been autoblocked. It's infrequent and generally ok though as the IP changes fairly regularly... Lesion (talk) 17:39, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Link to the ANI discussion: [13] What is lovely about situations like this is that it sometimes allows others to discern geographical location of editors, so I don't post anywhere public when I see this happening. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:40, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I think I've narrowed it down to Georgia (country) or Georgia (U.S. state)... Lesion (talk) 17:54, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

bwaaaaaaahaahaaa ... <bzzzzzt> :) :) :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:55, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

=D Lesion (talk) 17:58, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Have been hit by something similar a few times and some kind admin gave me an IP block exemption (Wikipedia:IP block exemption). Richiez (talk) 22:47, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Merges - seeking opinions

I've been going through the merge list, and there have been some difficult mergers that have been proposed (by me or others), and I'd like some opinion as to whether or not they should proceed. Some are difficult because I'm not too sure whether they are the same, and others because I'm not sure if they are unique articles or branches (eg PET/MRI and PET). Would value some extra eyes. Am seeking opinions either way: I have provided some opinions below. LT910001 (talk) 23:37, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Ongoing

Please comment on the talk pages rather than here

• Talusitis and Achilles tendinitis (talk page here: Talk:Achilles tendinitis)
• Aneurysm of heart and Ventricular aneurysm (talk page here: Talk:Ventricular aneurysm)
• Bloating and Abdominal distension (talk page here: Talk:Abdominal distension)
  • Disagree. these relate to different topics. LT910001 (talk) 23:37, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment-- I am not confident to say they are synonyms, but as the articles currently read, they are not clearly distinguishable topics. If indeed they are to remain separate articles, then the content will have to be moved around a bit. E.g. in many places on abdominal distension, bloating is used synonymously to refer to the topic of the article. The definition of each article uses the other too. Appears that bloating is trying to stay focused on intestinal gas causing abdominal distension. I would assume that someone might report bloating as a symptom and there might not necessarily be any abdominal distension. Maybe this is the difference? Abdominal distension is not restricted to enlargement caused by intestinal gas, and includes any cause, e.g. pregnancy. Both articles are also poorly referenced and contain a lot of unsourced content. *Sigh* Lesion (talk) 00:01, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

To me, "bloating" seems to define a psychological sense of distension, whereas "distension" implies a sign that can be found on examination. Would you mind commenting on one or two other items here as well? LT910001 (talk) 11:38, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Agree. That's what I was trying to say above ("someone might report bloating as a symptom and there might not necessarily be any abdominal distension"), but you have said it more clearly. To say bloating=symptom, abdominal distension=sign sounds perfectly reasonable, but we need a source, otherwise might constitute OR. Both articles are poorly sourced currently. Lesion (talk) 12:50, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

• Dyskaryosis and Bethesda system (talk page here: Talk:Bethesda system)
• Chronic venous insufficiency and Chronic venous congestion (Talk page here: Talk:Chronic venous insufficiency)
  • Agree. these are synonymous. LT910001 (talk) 23:37, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
• Infection and Infectious disease (talk here: Talk:Infectious disease)
  • Disagree. these relate to different topics. LT910001 (talk) 23:37, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Disagree-- the lead of both articles is clear that they are indeed separate topics. Lesion (talk) 12:50, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
• Merging Wernicke's encephalopathy and Korsakoff's psychosis to Wernicke-Korsakoff syndrome (talk here: Talk:Wernicke–Korsakoff syndrome)
  • Agree. these are part of the same spectrum of diseases and information is significantly duplicated. LT910001 (talk) 23:37, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
• PET/MRI, PET-CT and Positron emission tomography (talk here: Talk:Positron emission tomography)
  • Disagree -- They're three different imaging systems and enough can be said about each to justify an article. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:19, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. Any chance you could comment on one or two of the other proposed merges as well? I'd like at least one or two more opinions before I act on some of these merges. LT910001 (talk) 11:38, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Resolved

• Muscle weakness and weakness (talk here: Talk:Weakness)
  • Disagree--according to the definition in the weakness article, the topic of muscular weakness is one possible meaning of weakness, but there are others such as fatigue, malaise, etc. Lesion (talk) 00:01, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Have removed the tags. LT910001 (talk) 00:05, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Depending on consensus I will either remove the tags or perform a merge. LT910001 (talk) 23:37, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Might want to take a look at Active metabolite & Active metabolites(prodrug). Seppi333 (talk) 06:40, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, good point. I've proposed a merge (talk here: Talk:Prodrug#Proposed_merge). LT910001 (talk) 11:38, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure that active metabolite and prodrug should be merged (I left a comment there), but for now I have retargeted the redirect Active metabolites to active metabolite rather than prodrug. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:38, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Bump, need clear consensus for these merges... Lesion (talk) 10:01, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Still looking for input? Are there particular merges you're still puzzling over? Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 20:16, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes please! If you could comment on any of the un-resolved issues that would be wonderful. In particular the aneurysm of heart and chronic venous congestion topics. LT910001 (talk) 00:09, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Just saw this. Note to self. And will put on my to do list to take a look. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 17:02, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

COTM - November 2013

Selected per consensus (of 3, more than Psoriasis). Last month's collaboration produced a B-class article. This month let's aim for a GA-class article. The layout of the article, Digestive diseases, will first need to be discussed. At the moment it appears to be filling the role of a category. Let the editing begin! LT910001 (talk) 23:36, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

(As a sidenote, it would be nice to have this box be blue like the new layout... not too sure how to go about this though.) LT910001 (talk) 23:37, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

At last, something I know how to do! Maralia (talk) 01:41, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Can I point out that this article (Digestive diseases) claims to refer to "any disease which involves the gastrointestinal (GI) tract... or the accessory digestive organs". Any opinions on reverse-redirecting this to point to Gastrointestinal disease? In contrast to GI disease, digestive disease would surely refer to pathologies affecting digestion, i.e. stomach, duodenum and SI. Yes there is a small role played enzymatically and in water absorption by other organs, and certainly an anatomical role played by the oesophagus and rectum, but it would seem to me this title is a little askew. LT910001 (talk) 11:51, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I was thinking the same. Gastrointestinal disease sounds more precise. The definition is still unreferenced btw. I suspect a good source for a definition would be found in the prelude to a GI textbook, but I have yet to find a suitable one. Lesion (talk) 12:24, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Have made the change. Now perhaps we can start editing? Manually signed: LT910001 (talk)

I started to tinker with the page, but then realized I had no idea what was the desired finished state of the article, layout etc. I left a few comments on the talk page to ask more opinions. Lesion (talk) 18:22, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Infobox appearance makes me very unhappy

I know people don't seem to be able to agree on anything regarding the content of infoboxes, but what about changing the background color of the title field to anything but grey. E.g. would it look better if the infobox matched the style of the tables in Alzheimer's disease? Thoughts? Lesion (talk) 12:52, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh wow, I made that table. I like the blue title but it is not compliant with WP:ACCESSIBLE and I was supposed to fix it some time ago.

There is a policy called Wikipedia:Don't edit war over the colour of templates so if we did propose to change colors, it should go through an RfC. Probably the color change should be thoughtfully done and intended to apply in many or all places. Like for example, all templates could be listed and an RfC could suggest changing the color for all of them.

I would also prefer light blue to light grey but I am not sure how others feel. There is a precedent for this - last year a Wikimedia fellow did a redesign of WP:HELP as described at Help_talk:Contents#RfC:_Redesign_of_Help:Contents. Color was not part of the discussion, but it was an attempt to make broad aesthetic changes to improve user experience. If we were to do this then I would propose the following scheme:

1. List all templates to be changed
2. Propose a stylistic change to apply to all templates
3. Get feedback from someone who can give a professional opinion on design
4. Once professional feedback is collected, solicit feedback from this board
5. Once this board gives feedback, solicit feedback from the general Wikipedia community
6. If everyone supports, implement the change

I think that managing this formally is the best way since this would affect so many articles. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:36, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Hang on, in defence of Lesion, there is indeed an active thread on this very talk page regarding the colour of the template. Also, by 'accessibility', do you mean that there is insufficient contrast? It is hard to deal with an identified problem that is not substantiated. LT910001 (talk) 00:48, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Panoramic radiograph
MeSH	D011862

::Apologies, missed your response. Did not mean to offend with original title, but I feel it has been inadequately "translated" during the censorship. I have therefore updated the wording.

May I ask how those tables are not accessible? Can I point out infobox procedure (right) which is exactly what I propose. There is nothing wrong with a tiny bit of color. To start a list of templates that could use some color: infobox:disease, infobox:symptom. I'm sure there are more. Lesion (talk) 01:34, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Blue is talking about the "square" of information about the different stages of memory problems, not about the infobox. Infoboxes are generally pretty good for accessibility. For the one Blue is talking about, you'll find the conversation somewhere in the archives. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:03, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Interesting. I accessed this page on mobile and the infobox color appeared OK. Is this because the infobox is a transcluded template, and the table is wikimarkup in the article? I think I remember reading somewhere that tables of any sort are generally discouraged for accessibility. Does anyone have any opinions about making infobox disease and infobox symptom to look more like the this infobx? Not necessarily blue, this was just one with color I found. Anatomy infoboxes tend to be more colorful too. Lesion (talk) 09:48, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

The "square" table violates ACCESS because the columns and rows are meaningless. A thoughtfully constructed table can be an excellent thing for accessibility. Color is only an access issue if the color is meaningful and that meaning isn't given elsewhere (e.g., showing the colors of a flag, but not typing out the words "red and white"), or if it makes the text head to read (low contrast, including low contrast that looks fine to you but is low contrast for people with color blindness).

I've heard that anatomy templates follow some traditional color scheme. I think it's something like nerves are yellow, blood vessels are red, etc. WhatamIdoing (talk) 11:52, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Yep. Not too sure "meaningless" is a criteria for accessibility, though. Regarding the colourful anatomy templates... I think colour-coded rows is a good idea in theory, but with more and more rows the infoboxes end up looking like a big mess, and in my opinion, quite amateurish. There also arise additional concerns with colouring: eg, if arteries are red and veins are blue, what colour are lymph nodes? Does the latin translation need a special colour? If not, then why do only some rows have colours? Not, in my opinion, a kettle of fish I'd be willing to test the waters of (to somewhat mix my metaphors !). I vote no colours except for the top, and good contrast for text colour per WhatamIdoing's comments about accessibility. LT910001 (talk) 02:59, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

OK, let's forget anatomy infoboxes. Yes just the color on the top (instead of grey background that we have currently). I could come up with several color options to see which are better contrast for accessibility. Lesion (talk) 18:09, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Perfluorooctanoic acid

There is a discussion on the Talk page of this article about whether WP:MEDRS applies to content (a lot of of content, many thousands of bytes worth) describing the relationship between this chemical and human health. More eyes would be very welcome. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 06:24, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Diarrhea in Developing Regions

We have a new article here. The problem with it is that it more or less overlaps the article on infectious diarrhea (also known as gastroenteritis). There is little special about infectious diarrhea in the developing world verses infectious diarrhea generally and that little bit can be and should be in the general article. The second issue with it is that much of it is based on primary sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:55, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Is this an article coming from the class of Diana Strassmann, the chair of the new WP:WEF? Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 13:28, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I think that there is quite a bit about the social, cultural, and logistical issues associated with infections diarrhea in the developing world that differs substantially from infectious diarrhea in the developed world. For example, where most of us live, it's not one of the leading killers of children and elderly people, and it's not usually exacerbated by a lack of sewer systems. The subject is clearly notable, and we need a {{main}} summary of the subtopic in the main article. A couple of sentences isn't going to cut it. If we've got sources like this book chapter wholly dedicated to the subject, then we can support an article on the subject. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:16, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

The topic is notable and a summary of that book chapter would be great. That kind of information is not what is there, though. It would be easier to judge the article if duplicated content were merged first and then people could see what is left. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:46, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you, WhatamIdoing. I agree that articles about prevalent diseases in the developing world warrant their own notability. Although the quality of the present article might not be GA or FA standards, I don't think that's a reason to carry out a merge. Lastly, I'd point out that this article now has discussions on the GA page, here (in at least 2 threads, one archived) on the article's talk page, and on the page of the creater. LT910001 (talk) 00:40, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

This Education business is going to chase me out of here yet (and I am not kidding). OK, so the topic may be notable, but the article is a mess and uses primary sources, and the class is wasting editor time by nominating it for GA. Who is going to deal with that? Why is a student article going from sandbox to GA in one swoop? And, as part of the ongoing Education mess, where does one find the prof and course page to understand if the prof is suggesting they go to GA? If students are nominating sandbox articles to GA, that needs to be stopped. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:49, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I emailed the professor and pointed to WP:INSTRUCTORS, which deals with this... Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 17:11, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I've previously emailed them to request students put the course page on their user page per WP:STUDENTUSER so that should get you there. And this professor does have all the materials up at the course page and transparent. They might be the only one that does this (at least for this semester). But still. We need quality content. And my impression here is that this work isn't cutting it. Wikipedia isn't a repository for undergraduate essays. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 17:14, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

GrahamColm (our resident poop doctor) has weighed in at Talk:Diarrhea in developing regions/GA1 (a good read). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:03, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm one of the online ambassadors for that class. I'd already engaged with this student on their talk page, and had suggested that they keep the work in user space since there seemed to be legitimate debate about the need for a separate article on this topic. I'm disappointed to see that they later moved it to article space without further discussion, and quickly nominated it for GA with no further review. I've emailed the professor to say that I think this was a mistake of judgement on the student's part. The professor and I have talked several times about GA and FA status, and we're in agreement that it should never be a required part of the course; this isn't something that the professor requires the students to do for credit. She does allow it as optional, but we have also discussed the fact that slow review processes often mean that the review won't take place till after semester end, so it should be done only by students who are willing to commit to follow up after grading is complete, or who will remove the unreviewed nomination at the end of the semester if they cannot follow up. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:04, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I just spoke to the professor; she's not where she can look at her grading rubric right now, but she thinks Jpoles1 may have decided to move the article from user space because the rubric requires the students not to leave their articles in a sandbox. If so, she's going to change the rubric for next semester to make it clear that under some circumstances (such as this case), leaving the article in user space is the right thing to do, while discussion takes place.

I also talked to her about the difficulties that WP:MED has had with the education program. I think those difficulties are because WP:MED has (appropriately) high standards and an active and knowledgeable group of editors, and also because medical topics are difficult to write well about -- casual reading isn't likely to provide enough information to add anything useful to an article, and the topics are often inherently complicated. I've also heard it suggested that medical students are more likely to be bad writers, but that seems speculative. Anyway, I suggested that she let her students know that medical topics would be more of a challenge, and that if they were to write on those topics they should take additional care to get feedback from the community before making edits, and they should expect to engage with knowledgeable editors whose opinion should be taken seriously. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 04:52, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

NB that the student did discuss this idea at length on this page: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 39#Diarrhea_in_Developing_Regions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:08, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Where DocJames gave the editor the correct information, but it seems the student editor didn't listen, perhaps because of the noise in that thread ... we have editors who are more "expert" on given topics, we should attempt to know who those editors are-- as in the case of GrahamColm and diahrrea-- perhaps we need an update of our member list to remind others here who to consult on given topics ? Let's not continue to over-burden those editors who do know specific topics in favor of cheerleading for ill-prepared student edits. Doc James said early on what GrahamColm had to come in later to say, only because I pinged him. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:49, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Mike, I owe you a WikiProject Medicine barnstar. Anthony deserves one too for his work on those recent changes (note for myself). WhatamIdoing deserves one for being wise. Sandy deserves one for their persistence, and I've given Doc James one before. I'm just rambling at this point, I guess! =) Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 21:26, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! It really helps that the professor in this case is diligent, but even so I'm very sensitive to student articles in WP:MED areas as I know this Wikiproject has suffered more than almost any other area of the encyclopedia from poorly managed student edits. I know that one of the things Sandy looks for from the Education Noticeboard is a prompt and helpful response in cases like this; I hope this qualifies.

I can add that I spoke to the student, Jpoles1, on the phone this evening, and suggested to them that they move the article back to user space so that the content can be considered by other editors for inclusion in gastroenterology if they wish, without the controversy of leaving it in mainspace. As I thought, they were motivated to move it to main space because of the grading rubric, so now that's understood we can fix the rubric for next time round. As for the GA nomination, they told me that they didn't understand how big a commitment it was, and agree it wasn't a good move to nominate it. The professor has already sent me the latest version of the course design for review and asked me to help craft a wording for the GA option that makes it clearer to students that this is not something to be undertaken lightly. Perhaps the best approach would be to recommend to students that the OA should be asked if the article is ready for a GA nomination -- that would have prevented the problem in this case. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:42, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Mike, you're the best. But you don't need a barnstar from me to know that I think that :) Your final suggestion depends on the OA-- depending on the course, remember, there are very few editors in general who understand the correct application of MEDRS relative to DUE WEIGHT. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:51, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

+1 Mike, you're the best. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 12:03, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, both. Sandy, re the OA issue: I think the OA's job would be to make sure the article was ready for nomination, not necessarily to make that call themselves. They could ask at WT:MED or elsewhere if necessary. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:21, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Student editing alert

Please browse topics at

• Education Program talk:Georgia Institute of Technology/Introduction to Neuroscience (Fall 2013)/Timeline (some are already in student sandboxes)
• Education Program:Rice University/Poverty, Justice, Human Capabilities, Section 2 (Fall 2013)#Summary_and_students
• Boston College Developmental Biology

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:40, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

This last course, with the point structure, has quite an appealing way of marking that (I hope) will increase the quality of submissions. LT910001 (talk) 00:40, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

• Education Program:Case Western Reserve University/ANTH 302 Darwinian Medicine (Fall 2013)#Summary_and_students targets high-profile medical articles, and the course syllabus earlier suggested editing with a POV (a Darwinian perspective). The students have begun adding text from sandbox to articles. There are occasionally good sources, but more often there are not; there are sources I can't locate on Google Scholar or PubMed, and even when there is potentially one or two sentences that can be gleaned from a good source according to due weight, the text sometimes strays off-topic. Also, the students rarely link their sandboxes on talk, and don't always engage talk, so you have to browse the contribs of each student if you don't find the sandbox on article talk.

  As university term-end approaches, these articles (and classes listed above) will need attention! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:37, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Related issue

Speaking of, can we please start tagging articles like this (or chocolate or whatever else) that has a "health" section with WP:MED, please? The content ends up being crap. We should take responsibility for it. I really don't care if it screws up the clinical look of WP:MED1500. I only care about good information. =) Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 21:30, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Although I'm quite anti-expanding our scope, I think if they present a big issue they could be provisionally added (but not in batch!). And I do not believe that adding to our scope has any bearing on the quality of topics about non clinical-medicine. An alternative would be watchlist and add the delightful template {{Reliable sources for medical articles}} which could be placed on the talk page. LT910001 (talk) 22:27, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. An alternate alternate solution would be something I proposed above. Such articles could be added to a new taskforce, Society & Medicine, so that they are categorised, and then removed at a later date. LT910001 (talk) 22:27, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

All of our taskforces are part of us. Putting something in your proposed task force will require tagging it with {{WPMED}}. The main problem with your taskforce proposal (which I otherwise like) is that a task force is editors, not a subject area. WhatamIdoing (talk) 12:02, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Of course, and there's be no compulsion for other editors to be involved unless they wanted to. Bluerasberry has expressed some interest. I will create this task force, and see where this goes. The taskforce certainly couldn't be any less active than existing task forces, and I think it fills an important gap. Watch this space; LT910001 (talk) 01:18, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

As user:WhatamIdoing says, a task force is currently "editors", but I have been discussing changing that definition at the WikiProject Council. If a task force were a subject area then that would be more intuitive to everyone, plus it could mean that all items in a task force could be set up to automatically be the target of metrics reporting. I would be interested to know, for example, more about the audience which looks up articles on local hospitals. Right now only pageviews are accessible, but the mw:Analytics/Hypercube project will eventually lead to a lot more functionality. In the case of all hospitals metrics reports could be generated with categories, but if someone wanted only 100 hospitals in an odd political district then WikiProject or task-force tagging are currently the only acceptable ways to make arbitrary sets of articles unless we change rules to permit researchers to put hidden categories on things. AHRQ in the United States has some fascinating regional health organization data which could be integrated into Wikipedia through a queue built into an odd task force, but there would never be a strong Wikipedia community around such a project. I cannot imagine any of this coming to pass any sooner than within 2-3 years, and even still I no of no one who would want to explore this.

I do support User:Biosthmors idea of us planning to someday have awareness of all conceivable mentions of health in any article on Wikipedia, and someday some how all of this content will need to be developed. Task forces may or may not be the way to do it, but it seems like a starting point for conversation. Blue Rasberry (talk) 01:55, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't see the discussion you speak of, but I also don't see the point. You don't need to usurp existing structures to create something else. Just create the new thing, and give it a new name. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:43, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Transcendental meditation, homeopathy, scientology, etc.

We have a template for primary sources in medicine, but not one for primary sources in faith-based or belief systems. Please review the discussion at Template talk:Religion primary. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:32, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

My gut says this would be beneficial though I haven't evaluated yet (note to self). Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 06:31, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Merges - seeking opinions

I've been going through the merge list, and there have been some difficult mergers that have been proposed (by me or others), and I'd like some opinion as to whether or not they should proceed. Some are difficult because I'm not too sure whether they are the same, and others because I'm not sure if they are unique articles or branches (eg PET/MRI and PET). Would value some extra eyes. Am seeking opinions either way: I have provided some opinions below. LT910001 (talk) 23:37, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Ongoing

Please comment on the talk pages rather than here

• Talusitis and Achilles tendinitis (talk page here: Talk:Achilles tendinitis)
• Aneurysm of heart and Ventricular aneurysm (talk page here: Talk:Ventricular aneurysm)
• Bloating and Abdominal distension (talk page here: Talk:Abdominal distension)
  • Disagree. these relate to different topics. LT910001 (talk) 23:37, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment-- I am not confident to say they are synonyms, but as the articles currently read, they are not clearly distinguishable topics. If indeed they are to remain separate articles, then the content will have to be moved around a bit. E.g. in many places on abdominal distension, bloating is used synonymously to refer to the topic of the article. The definition of each article uses the other too. Appears that bloating is trying to stay focused on intestinal gas causing abdominal distension. I would assume that someone might report bloating as a symptom and there might not necessarily be any abdominal distension. Maybe this is the difference? Abdominal distension is not restricted to enlargement caused by intestinal gas, and includes any cause, e.g. pregnancy. Both articles are also poorly referenced and contain a lot of unsourced content. *Sigh* Lesion (talk) 00:01, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

To me, "bloating" seems to define a psychological sense of distension, whereas "distension" implies a sign that can be found on examination. Would you mind commenting on one or two other items here as well? LT910001 (talk) 11:38, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Agree. That's what I was trying to say above ("someone might report bloating as a symptom and there might not necessarily be any abdominal distension"), but you have said it more clearly. To say bloating=symptom, abdominal distension=sign sounds perfectly reasonable, but we need a source, otherwise might constitute OR. Both articles are poorly sourced currently. Lesion (talk) 12:50, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

• Dyskaryosis and Bethesda system (talk page here: Talk:Bethesda system)
• Chronic venous insufficiency and Chronic venous congestion (Talk page here: Talk:Chronic venous insufficiency)
  • Agree. these are synonymous. LT910001 (talk) 23:37, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
• Infection and Infectious disease (talk here: Talk:Infectious disease)
  • Disagree. these relate to different topics. LT910001 (talk) 23:37, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Disagree-- the lead of both articles is clear that they are indeed separate topics. Lesion (talk) 12:50, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
• Merging Wernicke's encephalopathy and Korsakoff's psychosis to Wernicke-Korsakoff syndrome (talk here: Talk:Wernicke–Korsakoff syndrome)
  • Agree. these are part of the same spectrum of diseases and information is significantly duplicated. LT910001 (talk) 23:37, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
• PET/MRI, PET-CT and Positron emission tomography (talk here: Talk:Positron emission tomography)
  • Disagree -- They're three different imaging systems and enough can be said about each to justify an article. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:19, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. Any chance you could comment on one or two of the other proposed merges as well? I'd like at least one or two more opinions before I act on some of these merges. LT910001 (talk) 11:38, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Resolved

• Muscle weakness and weakness (talk here: Talk:Weakness)
  • Disagree--according to the definition in the weakness article, the topic of muscular weakness is one possible meaning of weakness, but there are others such as fatigue, malaise, etc. Lesion (talk) 00:01, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Have removed the tags. LT910001 (talk) 00:05, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Depending on consensus I will either remove the tags or perform a merge. LT910001 (talk) 23:37, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Might want to take a look at Active metabolite & Active metabolites(prodrug). Seppi333 (talk) 06:40, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, good point. I've proposed a merge (talk here: Talk:Prodrug#Proposed_merge). LT910001 (talk) 11:38, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure that active metabolite and prodrug should be merged (I left a comment there), but for now I have retargeted the redirect Active metabolites to active metabolite rather than prodrug. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:38, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Bump, need clear consensus for these merges... Lesion (talk) 10:01, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Still looking for input? Are there particular merges you're still puzzling over? Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 20:16, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes please! If you could comment on any of the un-resolved issues that would be wonderful. In particular the aneurysm of heart and chronic venous congestion topics. LT910001 (talk) 00:09, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Just saw this. Note to self. And will put on my to do list to take a look. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 17:02, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Diarrhea in Developing Regions

We have a new article here. The problem with it is that it more or less overlaps the article on infectious diarrhea (also known as gastroenteritis). There is little special about infectious diarrhea in the developing world verses infectious diarrhea generally and that little bit can be and should be in the general article. The second issue with it is that much of it is based on primary sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:55, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Is this an article coming from the class of Diana Strassmann, the chair of the new WP:WEF? Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 13:28, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I think that there is quite a bit about the social, cultural, and logistical issues associated with infections diarrhea in the developing world that differs substantially from infectious diarrhea in the developed world. For example, where most of us live, it's not one of the leading killers of children and elderly people, and it's not usually exacerbated by a lack of sewer systems. The subject is clearly notable, and we need a {{main}} summary of the subtopic in the main article. A couple of sentences isn't going to cut it. If we've got sources like this book chapter wholly dedicated to the subject, then we can support an article on the subject. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:16, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

The topic is notable and a summary of that book chapter would be great. That kind of information is not what is there, though. It would be easier to judge the article if duplicated content were merged first and then people could see what is left. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:46, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you, WhatamIdoing. I agree that articles about prevalent diseases in the developing world warrant their own notability. Although the quality of the present article might not be GA or FA standards, I don't think that's a reason to carry out a merge. Lastly, I'd point out that this article now has discussions on the GA page, here (in at least 2 threads, one archived) on the article's talk page, and on the page of the creater. LT910001 (talk) 00:40, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

This Education business is going to chase me out of here yet (and I am not kidding). OK, so the topic may be notable, but the article is a mess and uses primary sources, and the class is wasting editor time by nominating it for GA. Who is going to deal with that? Why is a student article going from sandbox to GA in one swoop? And, as part of the ongoing Education mess, where does one find the prof and course page to understand if the prof is suggesting they go to GA? If students are nominating sandbox articles to GA, that needs to be stopped. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:49, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I emailed the professor and pointed to WP:INSTRUCTORS, which deals with this... Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 17:11, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I've previously emailed them to request students put the course page on their user page per WP:STUDENTUSER so that should get you there. And this professor does have all the materials up at the course page and transparent. They might be the only one that does this (at least for this semester). But still. We need quality content. And my impression here is that this work isn't cutting it. Wikipedia isn't a repository for undergraduate essays. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 17:14, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

GrahamColm (our resident poop doctor) has weighed in at Talk:Diarrhea in developing regions/GA1 (a good read). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:03, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm one of the online ambassadors for that class. I'd already engaged with this student on their talk page, and had suggested that they keep the work in user space since there seemed to be legitimate debate about the need for a separate article on this topic. I'm disappointed to see that they later moved it to article space without further discussion, and quickly nominated it for GA with no further review. I've emailed the professor to say that I think this was a mistake of judgement on the student's part. The professor and I have talked several times about GA and FA status, and we're in agreement that it should never be a required part of the course; this isn't something that the professor requires the students to do for credit. She does allow it as optional, but we have also discussed the fact that slow review processes often mean that the review won't take place till after semester end, so it should be done only by students who are willing to commit to follow up after grading is complete, or who will remove the unreviewed nomination at the end of the semester if they cannot follow up. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:04, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I just spoke to the professor; she's not where she can look at her grading rubric right now, but she thinks Jpoles1 may have decided to move the article from user space because the rubric requires the students not to leave their articles in a sandbox. If so, she's going to change the rubric for next semester to make it clear that under some circumstances (such as this case), leaving the article in user space is the right thing to do, while discussion takes place.

I also talked to her about the difficulties that WP:MED has had with the education program. I think those difficulties are because WP:MED has (appropriately) high standards and an active and knowledgeable group of editors, and also because medical topics are difficult to write well about -- casual reading isn't likely to provide enough information to add anything useful to an article, and the topics are often inherently complicated. I've also heard it suggested that medical students are more likely to be bad writers, but that seems speculative. Anyway, I suggested that she let her students know that medical topics would be more of a challenge, and that if they were to write on those topics they should take additional care to get feedback from the community before making edits, and they should expect to engage with knowledgeable editors whose opinion should be taken seriously. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 04:52, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

NB that the student did discuss this idea at length on this page: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 39#Diarrhea_in_Developing_Regions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:08, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Where DocJames gave the editor the correct information, but it seems the student editor didn't listen, perhaps because of the noise in that thread ... we have editors who are more "expert" on given topics, we should attempt to know who those editors are-- as in the case of GrahamColm and diahrrea-- perhaps we need an update of our member list to remind others here who to consult on given topics ? Let's not continue to over-burden those editors who do know specific topics in favor of cheerleading for ill-prepared student edits. Doc James said early on what GrahamColm had to come in later to say, only because I pinged him. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:49, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Mike, I owe you a WikiProject Medicine barnstar. Anthony deserves one too for his work on those recent changes (note for myself). WhatamIdoing deserves one for being wise. Sandy deserves one for their persistence, and I've given Doc James one before. I'm just rambling at this point, I guess! =) Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 21:26, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! It really helps that the professor in this case is diligent, but even so I'm very sensitive to student articles in WP:MED areas as I know this Wikiproject has suffered more than almost any other area of the encyclopedia from poorly managed student edits. I know that one of the things Sandy looks for from the Education Noticeboard is a prompt and helpful response in cases like this; I hope this qualifies.

I can add that I spoke to the student, Jpoles1, on the phone this evening, and suggested to them that they move the article back to user space so that the content can be considered by other editors for inclusion in gastroenterology if they wish, without the controversy of leaving it in mainspace. As I thought, they were motivated to move it to main space because of the grading rubric, so now that's understood we can fix the rubric for next time round. As for the GA nomination, they told me that they didn't understand how big a commitment it was, and agree it wasn't a good move to nominate it. The professor has already sent me the latest version of the course design for review and asked me to help craft a wording for the GA option that makes it clearer to students that this is not something to be undertaken lightly. Perhaps the best approach would be to recommend to students that the OA should be asked if the article is ready for a GA nomination -- that would have prevented the problem in this case. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:42, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Mike, you're the best. But you don't need a barnstar from me to know that I think that :) Your final suggestion depends on the OA-- depending on the course, remember, there are very few editors in general who understand the correct application of MEDRS relative to DUE WEIGHT. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:51, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

+1 Mike, you're the best. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 12:03, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, both. Sandy, re the OA issue: I think the OA's job would be to make sure the article was ready for nomination, not necessarily to make that call themselves. They could ask at WT:MED or elsewhere if necessary. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:21, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

COTM - November 2013

Selected per consensus (of 3, more than Psoriasis). Last month's collaboration produced a B-class article. This month let's aim for a GA-class article. The layout of the article, Digestive diseases, will first need to be discussed. At the moment it appears to be filling the role of a category. Let the editing begin! LT910001 (talk) 23:36, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

(As a sidenote, it would be nice to have this box be blue like the new layout... not too sure how to go about this though.) LT910001 (talk) 23:37, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

At last, something I know how to do! Maralia (talk) 01:41, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Can I point out that this article (Digestive diseases) claims to refer to "any disease which involves the gastrointestinal (GI) tract... or the accessory digestive organs". Any opinions on reverse-redirecting this to point to Gastrointestinal disease? In contrast to GI disease, digestive disease would surely refer to pathologies affecting digestion, i.e. stomach, duodenum and SI. Yes there is a small role played enzymatically and in water absorption by other organs, and certainly an anatomical role played by the oesophagus and rectum, but it would seem to me this title is a little askew. LT910001 (talk) 11:51, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I was thinking the same. Gastrointestinal disease sounds more precise. The definition is still unreferenced btw. I suspect a good source for a definition would be found in the prelude to a GI textbook, but I have yet to find a suitable one. Lesion (talk) 12:24, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Have made the change. Now perhaps we can start editing? Manually signed: LT910001 (talk)

I started to tinker with the page, but then realized I had no idea what was the desired finished state of the article, layout etc. I left a few comments on the talk page to ask more opinions. Lesion (talk) 18:22, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

COTM - November 2013

Selected per consensus (of 3, more than Psoriasis). Last month's collaboration produced a B-class article. This month let's aim for a GA-class article. The layout of the article, Digestive diseases, will first need to be discussed. At the moment it appears to be filling the role of a category. Let the editing begin! LT910001 (talk) 23:36, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

(As a sidenote, it would be nice to have this box be blue like the new layout... not too sure how to go about this though.) LT910001 (talk) 23:37, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

At last, something I know how to do! Maralia (talk) 01:41, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Can I point out that this article (Digestive diseases) claims to refer to "any disease which involves the gastrointestinal (GI) tract... or the accessory digestive organs". Any opinions on reverse-redirecting this to point to Gastrointestinal disease? In contrast to GI disease, digestive disease would surely refer to pathologies affecting digestion, i.e. stomach, duodenum and SI. Yes there is a small role played enzymatically and in water absorption by other organs, and certainly an anatomical role played by the oesophagus and rectum, but it would seem to me this title is a little askew. LT910001 (talk) 11:51, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I was thinking the same. Gastrointestinal disease sounds more precise. The definition is still unreferenced btw. I suspect a good source for a definition would be found in the prelude to a GI textbook, but I have yet to find a suitable one. Lesion (talk) 12:24, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Have made the change. Now perhaps we can start editing? Manually signed: LT910001 (talk)

I started to tinker with the page, but then realized I had no idea what was the desired finished state of the article, layout etc. I left a few comments on the talk page to ask more opinions. Lesion (talk) 18:22, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Scope - Companies & Organisations

Hello to all again! Wikiproject Med is increasingly being loaded up with organizations and charities. The majority of these are small and in local areas. I propose:

• Moving organisations (such as NGOs, charities) to Wikipedia:WikiProject Organizations
• Moving companies (such as providers of emergency services, manufacturers etc) to Wikipedia:WikiProject Companies
• Keep any particularly notable organisations/companies under this scope (eg large companies, transnational organisations/companies/charities).

The reasons for this are:

• (1) These articles aren't really to do with medicine
• (2) get some more realistic stats on articles that have promotional tone, spam, read like press releases etc. (significant amount of which are organisations/companies that operate in the field of medicine).
• (3) disambiguate GAN/RfC process... have had some company articles listed as Natural Sciences because of this. I also feel that the category you would list an article for GAN (Good article nomination) for is a pretty good indication of which Wikiproject it falls under.
• (4) would be handing over to two relatively active Wikiprojects.

Thoughts? LT910001 (talk) 23:23, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Interesting suggestion as always LT and I can see the advantages. My first thought is what is the scale of this proposal? Roughly how many articles would we stand to move? Lesion (talk) 23:26, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

It's hard to tell. Having had a look at the spam list, and done some searches for 'charity' and 'organis/zation' and so on, I'd have to say at least 200+, but that's just a guess. LT910001 (talk) 00:41, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

This proposal has my support. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:30, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't really care, so long as I don't have to do the work. However, WikiProject tags do not indicate any sort of "ownership". We're not "handing them over" to anyone. They aren't "ours" now, and they won't become "theirs" if we remove our tags. (Also, there are only a couple dozen people watching those projects' talk pages, compared to a few hundred here, so "relatively active" may not be an accurate description.)

We only get to decide whether we choose to be involved in the article. We can place our tag on the talk page, in which case we'll get article alerts if it's up for deletion or has problems and people with questions can consider contacting us for help (e.g., if an article about a healthcare company is making health-related claims). We can alternatively choose not to place our tag on the talk page, in which case we won't hear anything about what happens to it, and nobody (except a few hundred extremely experienced editors) with a question will have any idea that we might be able to help them.

Those are the two options: we are connected and informed and willing to help with the article—or we are not. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:07, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

If it were possible, I wish that medical organizations could be part of a medical task force so that they could still be part of this project but that no one would have to see them if they wished to not see them. I am not adept with re-tagging, but it is possible to automate this process. I have looked at the WikiProject categorizing and tagging schemes and there are some non-intuitive aspects to them. Also, I would expect that this would need to be maintained, because people tend to tag health organizations with the medicine tag.

If I were to vote for something it would be for procrastination in hopes of WikiProject infrastructure reform, which I hope would happen in a few years. The problem is not so great that it needs to be addressed now, even though I do agree that this is a serious problem. Also, any work put into this would not be a permanent solution, but rather just of shifting the problem elsewhere. The correct categorization really is a tag that they are medical organizations and of some interest both to projects managing medicine and organizations, and right now, that might not be worth setting up. I am not sure. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:44, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Everything that belongs to a WPMED task force also belongs to the main project. But I agree about wishing for infrastructure improvements. It's possible that WP:Flow might eventually be helpful that way. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:01, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Bluerasberry, segmenting seems like an excellent idea. One idea I have had previously would be to set up a "Society & Medicine" task force, and categorise these articles under that task force. This would provide some way of segmenting them from the rest of the articles. I proposed this earlier and consensus was to move everything to WP:Hospitals, but I think as a placeholder to hold these articles, it might be quite valuable. What do you think? LT910001 (talk) 22:22, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

It seems appropriate. Would biographies go in this group also? I do not think that WP:Hospitals is the best place, especially with so much interesting care being done in medical centers which are not hospitals as most people imagine them. Perhaps this group could be a catch-all for regional health care providers and related medical organizations, including individual physicians, companies, medical schools, health care legislation, and perhaps other things. I support the idea of this in practice, especially because I am interested in eventually setting up a way to collect traffic metrics on only health-related articles related to medicine. I am not sure how to articulate a distinction but there is one. Blue Rasberry (talk) 02:58, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Student editing alert

Please browse topics at

• Education Program talk:Georgia Institute of Technology/Introduction to Neuroscience (Fall 2013)/Timeline (some are already in student sandboxes)
• Education Program:Rice University/Poverty, Justice, Human Capabilities, Section 2 (Fall 2013)#Summary_and_students
• Boston College Developmental Biology

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:40, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

This last course, with the point structure, has quite an appealing way of marking that (I hope) will increase the quality of submissions. LT910001 (talk) 00:40, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

• Education Program:Case Western Reserve University/ANTH 302 Darwinian Medicine (Fall 2013)#Summary_and_students targets high-profile medical articles, and the course syllabus earlier suggested editing with a POV (a Darwinian perspective). The students have begun adding text from sandbox to articles. There are occasionally good sources, but more often there are not; there are sources I can't locate on Google Scholar or PubMed, and even when there is potentially one or two sentences that can be gleaned from a good source according to due weight, the text sometimes strays off-topic. Also, the students rarely link their sandboxes on talk, and don't always engage talk, so you have to browse the contribs of each student if you don't find the sandbox on article talk.

  As university term-end approaches, these articles (and classes listed above) will need attention! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:37, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Related changes - up to date now

The template mentioned here is renamed into "Template:Page reports". Earlier links will keep working

The "related changes" page is updated today. It has a new setup, so the link has changed. Here it is:

{{Page reports}}

It is a very big list

• The page follows 28.391 pages, and these are just the WP:MED Articles. That produces more than 500 edits a day, so you cannot see them all in one go. Please say what suggestions you have to improve this. Split A-M and N-Z or even threeway, fourway (each with its own link)?

Possible extensions

• We can also add their talkpages to the same list, to track both: Psychiatric medication and Talk:Psychiatric medication

(This sure needs splitting the alphabet into four or so)

We can also add a list for the non-article pages (like the project pages and template pages). That would give you one more link to click on.

Put the link on your userpage or projectpage

• You can add the link to any page. Just copy-paste this code (as you see it) on a page:

{{Page reports|project name=Medicine}}

By the way, it is actually a table. In-line (regular text) is this:

{{Page reports|project name=Medicine|inline=yes}}

→ Some text here, then {{Page reports}} and more text here.

Note: we made this a pilot task, we're thinking about setting it up this systematically for other projects. You are the first to enjoy. Any remarks? -DePiep (talk) 17:15, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Wow! Thank you so much. That was very good of you. I'm happy with it just as it is. Would it be possible to change the label to "Recent changes"? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 21:11, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

You're an angel User:DePiep. Will you fly away or stick around? ;-) Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 21:33, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Wow, fantastic! Many thanks to the developers. I'm not too sure about the technology (ie if it is feasible and achievable), but sorting by task force may be useful. That'd let interested users view articles about their specialty of interest. Thanks again to the developers, this is wonderful. LT910001 (talk) 22:30, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Have added this to the navigation tree for easy access. LT910001 (talk) 22:44, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

LT910001, couldn't find it. Can you point me to it? -DePiep (talk) 23:03, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Yep! I added it to the blue navigation bar (top right) thing under "Recent changes". LT910001 (talk) 01:22, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks you all (including Biosthmors by request).

- In the near future, you can change the label text. But there will be a similar page "non-articles" soon, so you'll have two links. Then you'll want labels "Related changes (articles)" and "Related changes (other)". Near future for you.

A major question: how do you manage and use the huge overview list? Per day there are 1500 edits or more to show. If you wake up after 8 hours, the first edits are already off the list. Any ideas? A list split, but how? -DePiep (talk) 22:58, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Presently, all of an article's edits are listed. Can you set it to only list the most recent edit to each article? Would that help with your last question? And can't the list be 1500 items long? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 05:08, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I believe that these are unfortunate limitations in the underlying software. I'd particularly like to have an option to see only the most recent change per article (with a link to the page history or a diff of all recent changes), but I don't think it can be done right now. Also, since there's no "updated since your last visit" feature (unless the page is on your personal watchlist), then you might miss anything except the most recent. WhatamIdoing (talk) 11:58, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

If you want to split the list, I suggest putting low-priority articles into a separate one. That's half the pages we're supporting (including all people, places, organizations, etc.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 12:00, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Well DePiep I think the ultimate answer might be to get a WikiProject specific version of Wikipedia:STiki going, but I'm not familiar with the software. Are you? Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 12:01, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I am not familiar with that. First I want to figure it out as much as possible with the bot programmer (me doing the templates). Adding another software layer would complicate it 3-fold (3 points of communication, from 1 now).

Also I am very interested in all yours opinion on how to tailor this huge Page reports into something more usefull. Now: if you don't check the list after every 8 hrs, you may miss edits to you pet pages (and that may be reduced to 4 or 6 hrs when we add all the talkpages). I think cutting out the Low Importance pages is a good suggestion. Takes some tough programming, so don't expect it in bot version 1.0.

Now here is the good news. I think we can produce a presentation form like [[14]] soon. -DePiep (talk) 12:17, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

DePiep, I'll tell you what the real issues are, in my opinion. By the way, do you have contact with the devs?

Unfortunately, the good news did not materialize. I could not create a different view format. -DePiep (talk) 00:29, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

So we don't have smart software. To get smart software to encourage collaboration we need two things: 1) a triage system and 2) the capability to anonymously "trust" other users' decisions when they triage/make edits. If users such as WhatamIdoing or Sandy or Doc James or Axl—for four examples that came to mind—make a recent edit to a WP:MED page, I don't want to see it. I trust them. It duplicates effort to check behind them, for me at least. When I view a watchlist that doesn't allow me to trust other editors I see it as a philosophical contradiction to the idea of a collaborative wiki.

So that's how the function of optional trusted users would work. How about the details of the triage system? It would be simple. It would only require two categories: 1) OK and 2) suspect because the third option would just result in a revert. What do you think? Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 13:00, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

All sound like useful features. Another thing I personally would like to be able to see is which articles are currently undergoing significant editing; based on the amount of text changed/added during a certain recent time period. A list of individual edits doesn't tell that story. --WS (talk) 13:46, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

No, I have no contact with developers. Closest is me asking things on Tech village pump and module pages. Next improvement I will do in software is learning module programming (so quite user-side not mediawiki-side).

About the "trust" option. I am not able to initiate that. My personal experience, in my pet project, with this edits list is a bit different. I like to see what trusted editors do: what are they up to? Whatsapp? It can also inspire me to spend time on that topic. That looks like a very collaborative way to go, I think. Interaction. It brings me to active changes, and I can contribute in the sideline (e.g., in related templates). Seeing trusted edits keeps me in touch with my wikiproject. Nice. So I do not use that view to hunt vandals and not-that-good edits (and reverting vandalism is not a collaboration, really). So this is why I would not use that option, and I don't feel the need to propose or refine that feature.

re Wouterstomp about most active pages list: yes, that is an useful view too. See the WP:ELEM with the vertical gauge (last weeks fluorine is steady on top): "by number of edits lat four days". I don't know how it is produced, I can take a look into that if you want. There must be a bot filing a page. -DePiep (talk) 00:48, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, that is very interesting, it is updated by HotArticleBot, however unfortunately is doesn't handle anything with >2500 articles. Have left a message at its operator's tak page. --WS (talk) 08:29, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Maybe ask some five different stacks for article qualities? They as <2500 (not the Low one). -DePiep (talk) 12:54, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

• Note: The template mentioned here is renamed into "Template:Page reports". Earlier links ("RELC list") will keep working, but using the new name is preferred. The tool is discussed here Template talk:Page reports. -DePiep (talk) 21:30, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Using STiki like tool

I split off this talk into a section of its own. It does not relate to the "Related changes" tool discussed above.

-DePiep (talk) 21:34, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

• DePiep, (and anyone else who likes their collaborative idea), please see Wikipedia:ENB#Development_of_the_extension, because the WMF already has developed the software capability, they just haven't released it to the community. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 13:29, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Bug/feature request started

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T58719

I need to elaborate on it. I have a registered WP:Bugzilla account—though User:AKlapper (WMF) was nice enough to start this for me—and anyone else please feel free to register one as well and comment or edit the bug/feature request. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 14:14, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Related issue

Speaking of, can we please start tagging articles like this (or chocolate or whatever else) that has a "health" section with WP:MED, please? The content ends up being crap. We should take responsibility for it. I really don't care if it screws up the clinical look of WP:MED1500. I only care about good information. =) Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 21:30, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Although I'm quite anti-expanding our scope, I think if they present a big issue they could be provisionally added (but not in batch!). And I do not believe that adding to our scope has any bearing on the quality of topics about non clinical-medicine. An alternative would be watchlist and add the delightful template {{Reliable sources for medical articles}} which could be placed on the talk page. LT910001 (talk) 22:27, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. An alternate alternate solution would be something I proposed above. Such articles could be added to a new taskforce, Society & Medicine, so that they are categorised, and then removed at a later date. LT910001 (talk) 22:27, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

All of our taskforces are part of us. Putting something in your proposed task force will require tagging it with {{WPMED}}. The main problem with your taskforce proposal (which I otherwise like) is that a task force is editors, not a subject area. WhatamIdoing (talk) 12:02, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Of course, and there's be no compulsion for other editors to be involved unless they wanted to. Bluerasberry has expressed some interest. I will create this task force, and see where this goes. The taskforce certainly couldn't be any less active than existing task forces, and I think it fills an important gap. Watch this space; LT910001 (talk) 01:18, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

As user:WhatamIdoing says, a task force is currently "editors", but I have been discussing changing that definition at the WikiProject Council. If a task force were a subject area then that would be more intuitive to everyone, plus it could mean that all items in a task force could be set up to automatically be the target of metrics reporting. I would be interested to know, for example, more about the audience which looks up articles on local hospitals. Right now only pageviews are accessible, but the mw:Analytics/Hypercube project will eventually lead to a lot more functionality. In the case of all hospitals metrics reports could be generated with categories, but if someone wanted only 100 hospitals in an odd political district then WikiProject or task-force tagging are currently the only acceptable ways to make arbitrary sets of articles unless we change rules to permit researchers to put hidden categories on things. AHRQ in the United States has some fascinating regional health organization data which could be integrated into Wikipedia through a queue built into an odd task force, but there would never be a strong Wikipedia community around such a project. I cannot imagine any of this coming to pass any sooner than within 2-3 years, and even still I no of no one who would want to explore this.

I do support User:Biosthmors idea of us planning to someday have awareness of all conceivable mentions of health in any article on Wikipedia, and someday some how all of this content will need to be developed. Task forces may or may not be the way to do it, but it seems like a starting point for conversation. Blue Rasberry (talk) 01:55, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't see the discussion you speak of, but I also don't see the point. You don't need to usurp existing structures to create something else. Just create the new thing, and give it a new name. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:43, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Transcendental meditation, homeopathy, scientology, etc.

We have a template for primary sources in medicine, but not one for primary sources in faith-based or belief systems. Please review the discussion at Template talk:Religion primary. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:32, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

My gut says this would be beneficial though I haven't evaluated yet (note to self). Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 06:31, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Use of Benazepril in treating dilated cardiomyopathy

Dear medical experts: This draft at Afc was declined as being too essay-like. Can someone take another look? It will soon be deleted unless someone intervenes to keep it. —Anne Delong (talk) 10:03, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

This appears to be primarily about dogs (Doberman Pinschers), uses several primary sources, and contributes nothing that wouldn't already be on Wikipedia already, other than one or two sentences on cardiomyopathy in Doberman's, which I think may be a bit of a niche topic. LT910001 (talk) 11:04, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I think it can be merged into an existing article as a subsection, either at Benazepril or somewhere else. --benlisquare_T•C•E 11:05, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to start the merger in a sec, if nobody has any objections. I'm going to remove anything that's already covered (e.g. definitions) and any essay-like commentary, format the references, and place it into Benazepril#Veterinary use (this subsection already exists, but it's only quite brief). --benlisquare_T•C•E 11:07, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Done. I've only merged a tiny amount, because everything else is covered in multiple articles already (Angiotensin, Cardiomyopathy, etc). --benlisquare_T•C•E 11:17, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

All primary sources, I removed most of it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:22, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Okay, it sounds as though anything useful has been merged, so I will arrange for the old draft to be deleted. Thanks! —Anne Delong (talk) 00:56, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Calling a bluff

@SandyGeorgia: recently claimed, at Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Another plea for review and accountability, that "many editors at Wikiproject Medicine are available to help-- you only need ask". As DYK has a perennial backlog that makes pride impractical, below is a list of medical related nominations that could use a timely review:

• Template:Did you know nominations/Eastern Maine Medical Center SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:29, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
• Template:Did you know nominations/Sahara Hospital SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:29, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
• Template:Did you know nominations/Epsom General Hospital SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:41, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
• Template:Did you know nominations/Homologous Chromosome
  •  Not done Could a doc, or biologist, or someone with journal access look into this one? I left comments. Also, this is a student editing project. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:26, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
    • I took a look at the journal articles but I'm the OA for that course and therefore can't approve it. I left comments over at that page. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 23:25, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
• Template:Did you know nominations/The Sacred Twenty SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:15, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
• Template:Did you know nominations/Canada Fitness Award Program
  • Possible minor problem with health-related claims in the "Results" section-- I cannot access sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:00, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
• Template:Did you know nominations/Violence against doctors in China SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:44, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
• Template:Did you know nominations/Sex-selective abortion
  •  Not done Ugh ... I'm not touching this one. Anyone? User:MastCell? This is a student editing project. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:27, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Those with limited exposure to DYK can find the criteria against which nominations are reviewed at Wikipedia:Did you know#DYK rules with additional explanations, clarifications, and interpretations available at Wikipedia:Did you know/Supplementary guidelines. --Allen3 ^talk 19:02, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the list (you might want to adjust your heading). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:03, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

On a related note: Deep dermatophytosis could be a nice medical DYK if anyone has the opportunity to expand it sufficiently within the next few days. --WS (talk) 22:25, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Is anyone able to look at those not done? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:12, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Otto_Placik

There is only one user who would remove a COI tag from a plastic surgery article and also edit Philistinism from a Chicago IP.[15] Is WP:SPI the appropriate venue for this, or is there something better for an obvious circumvention of an indef block and topic ban?--Taylornate (talk) 20:01, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Easy to jump to conclusions, Chicago is a big place. If it is, I would suggest that it might be called delusional to equate being a plastic surgeon to being an intellectual or culturally superior. Some would say, it is more likely to equate to moral bankruptcy, ego, and an over-privileged background. Whilst a degree of Tall poppy syndrome may have been at play during this user's block, I would think the main reason they were blocked was persistent perversion of the neutrality of wikipedia articles for personal gain. Lesion (talk) 13:44, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

"Coordinators"? "Bureaucracy"? "Organization"? Pride. Motivation. Incentives.

Hello all. I have been a bit disconnected from the raw editing of content lately, for better or for worse. But I've wondered for a while now if WP:MED might benefit from the structure that is used over at WP:MILHIST, which uses coordinators to help provide some "direction"/"leadership" to the project. My opinion is that, as I've done over at WP:Neutrality cabal it would help create a more sustainable online community if we did so. Why? Because when you have your name associated with a project publicly, it adds to the sense of one's responsibility, in a good way, I would argue. I think this is similar to the way getting a green plus sign or a bronze star on an article helps add a sense of pride over one's contributions. Best. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 13:21, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

We are still a small number. Not sure if adding coordinators is needed until such time as we become larger. What are you thinking of? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:58, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure. I haven't studied the military history example yet. I'd rather see what they say first, to see how it worked for their project. I just wanted to get the idea down at first I guess. =) Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 20:13, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. Agree that we don't have enough members who are actively engaged. However, Biosthmors, something I feel this project lacks and would be very useful, is a pathway of small, incremental steps to bring a select group of articles to a higher quality. I feel that's one thing which distinguishes the MilHist project. Surfing through their project page it feels much easier to contribute a small amount in a significant way. Would you be so kind as to tax yourself for a week or two and think about how we might integrate such a thing into this Wiki project? I think the place to start would be to identify what we want to achieve (ie bring the quality of top-class articles up). LT910001 (talk) 11:32, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

That said, a regular (fortnightly or monthly) newsletter noting: contributors; major published secondary reviews during that period (could spur some edits); COTM and/or peer reviews or articles seeking help, might be very useful in spurring development. I also really liked how the MilHist had an editorial every month about how to improve an aspect of the project. LT910001 (talk) 11:32, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Newsletter or update sounds interesting. I proposed something like this for progress in goals here. Update of progress of goals could of course be included in a short newsletter. Maybe monthly is too frequent... Bi monthly? Lesion (talk) 01:44, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Bimonthly would be good. If it included some recently-released reviews or meta-analyses, we could spur editing on relevant pages. LT910001 (talk) 08:42, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

LT910001, please see my question in #Publishing articles below. and a lowercase U when notifying didn't work for me above — thanks WMF... Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 12:17, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I definitely want to radically reform the WP:MED page. I think you're spot on! That's why I submitted a grant (also because I want things I learn to dramatically catalyze all other WikiProjects). But I'm going to have to withdraw it because I'm too busy with other things at the moment. Maybe I can pick it back up on a volunteer basis in December, but January is looking more likely... =( Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 12:20, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Biosthmors, if your complaint is that this edit didn't ping you, then you should report it at WT:Echo. I'm certain that the software is case insensitive, but it might not be prepared to cope with multiple signatures in the same edit. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:01, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks WAID and done. WhatamIdoing. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 14:21, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

This is a test to replicate the "bug", if it's real. Were you notified? Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 14:21, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I was not notified: no little red numbers for me this morning. I just scanned the list of bugs open on Echo, and I didn't see one that was obviously relevant. You may have discovered a new bug today. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:46, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Excellent! We better contact Wikipedia:WikiProject Microbiology just to be sure =D. LT910001 (talk) 04:44, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Lol. That's good to hear WhatamIdoing. =) Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 10:35, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

On reflection, Biosthmors, I think a 'coordinator' would be a great idea. Should be a voluntary designation given to willing users with 6+ months participation. I think the role could be defined as with the aim to recruit and retain WP:Med editors and some responsibilities might include updating the COTM; publishing a little monthly newsletter with information on goals, GA promotions issues this month and major secondary reviews published during the period; and shepherding new users whilst they learn the ropes (just discovered {{Welcome to Wikipedia}}). Ping to Wouterstomp, who posted something similar I saw on your talk page whilst scrolling. LT910001 (talk) 03:30, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Ocaasi is working on the newletter for WPMEDF. Maybe we could combine it with this? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:40, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I think that's a bad idea. WikiProject Medicine at the English Wikipedia and Wiki Project Med Foundation are not the same organization, even if some people belong to both groups and both groups have some general goals in common. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:03, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

While different things no reason collaboration could not occur. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:27, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Agree with WhatamIdoing. I also don't think we have active enough membership to even consider, at this stage, having a "coordinator". There are rather substantial differences between WPMED and MILHIST, where the coordinator model works. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:10, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. No opposition here. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 16:12, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Xanthogranulomatous Process (Xanthogranulomatous Inflammation)

Dear medical experts: This Afc submission is about to be deleted as a stale draft. Should we let it go? The reviewer seemed to think it was less important than it appeared. —Anne Delong (talk) 22:53, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Anne Delong. This article has a useful place under Xanthogranulomatous Inflammation, and it's clear there are several articles already that refer to this form of inflammation. I'd be happy to accept it, but it appears to already have been declined. What to do? LT910001 (talk) 23:43, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello, LT910001. Since this is an old abandoned article, you can adopt it. just click on the "resubmit" button and it will be submitted again. Then you can accept it. I hope that you will read it over first to see if there are any places where medical jargon can be replaced with plain language without decreasing the accuracy of the information; people who aren't doctors may want to read about this. Thanks for taking one more article out of AfC. There are about 43,000 more of these old drafts to be dealt with. (You can see them at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/G13 rescue.) —Anne Delong (talk) 05:25, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Done and dusted. LT910001 (talk) 06:32, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Great! —Anne Delong (talk) 15:18, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Christopher Heeschen

Dear medical experts: This abandoned submission at AfC appears to have references, but needs some inline citations. Can someone who understands the subject help to improve it? —Anne Delong (talk) 01:14, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Anne Delong, sorry, but I don't typically work at AFC, so don't understand how it works. The article is created on a talk page, so where do we make comments? Or do we just edit what's there? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:48, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with the article's citations. It contains 14 inline citations. The only thing it doesn't do is happen to use the (absolutely not required) <ref> tags to mark the inline citations. This problem is called out as item #2 under "Avoid the following errors" at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewing instructions.

This was tagged as not containing inline citations by a poorly coded bot, which is obviously unable to apply any judgment to the task. Fortunately, the bot has been inactive for over a year. We can only hope that nobody has copied the code and continued to inflict this kind of sloppy tagging on AFC users since then. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:56, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Fine, but if I'm going to work on it, the first thing I will do is clean up the citations so I can see if there is any salvageable, well sourced text. Not an AFC reviewer, don't plan to become one. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:07, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

To the best of my understanding, biographies of living people do need citations for certain types of information, but WhatamIdoing is correct that ref tags are not required. However, they do make it easier to renumber when new references are added, so thanks for offering to fix these up, SandyGeorgia. There's no need to be an Afc reviewer; when you are done, you can click on the submit button, or if you don't want to deal with it, just leave a message for me and I will do it. The bot that left the original message doesn't appear to be operating any more, perhaps because of this problem. —Anne Delong (talk) 19:18, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, User:Anne Delong for pinging us and for the work you are doing there, but that article is a mess. Many of the citations are to self (Heeschen's own website or lab), I don't read German, and there is inappropriate use of primary sources (that is, original research from citing to his articles indexed in PubMed). I have a hard time finding motivation to work on something that looks pretty bad on the surface. Someone should figure out first if the fellow is notable, but German language may be needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:52, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Don't stress SandyGeorgia! I misunderstood your previous message to mean that you wanted to fix it. There are always more articles needing improvement than there are willing editors, and editing Wikipedia is supposed to be fun, so please don't feel that you have to do anything about this one. Sorry. —Anne Delong (talk) 18:40, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I worked further on this (not much there, inappropriate use of primary sources), but now it needs someone who speaks German. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:15, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Colon cleansing

I am concerned about recent edits to this article which (as I see it) have removed critical content and added poorly-sourced claims for this altmed practice. I have been told the editor in question is "a doctor" so it's all okay (at WP:FT/N where this is also raised). Wider opinions welcome. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 16:38, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Fine, I will continue helping that user to come up with more reliable/notable sources, I helped her on Wikipedia Help-Desk. And more users contributing to this article would be appreciated. Danger^Mouse (talk) 17:04, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm going to rant. I know there has been some soul-searching on this noticeboard recently about burning new editors who enter the medical space, but this episode shows the other side of the coin. Editors pushing a POV, especially a POV which embodies bogus health claims, waste an awful lot of time. This editor, who evidently is trying to promote two altmed businesses, obviously has not expended any effort whatsoever to gain familiarity with core WP principles before launching into huge edits and has caused a lot of talk page discussion, two article mergers, and now has two noticeboards involved in trying to pursuing the matter. Things are not improved when other editors, who have apparently insufficient familiarity with core neutrality policies, do not push back on the bad edits. The result now is that, to put it bluntly, this article is a bloody disgrace ... with more work down the track to get it into shape. Makes me wonder if WP is worth the effort: much better maybe to write it off as a serious source of health information and give the quacks their head? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 17:15, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I can help. I'm sorry you've had difficulty with this article and editor. It can be pretty lonely out there. I've watchlisted the article and will help you take up some of the slack and make sure it meets our sourcing and accuracy standards. MastCell ^Talk 18:54, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

"email redacted" Danger^Mouse (talk) 10:00, 16 November 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by IDangerMouse (talk • contribs) 20:36, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh, crumbs, IDM: could you reformat some of the text above so it's a bit easier to decipher? Sounds like somebody is dropping clumsy heavy-handed hints of legal action against anybody who disputes their claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orangemike (talk • contribs) 21:03, 14 November 2013 (UTC) (channeling Penfold)

Have watched. Ping me if legal attacks on Wikipedia. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:22, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't know where Danger^Mouse gets the idea that she is a "doctor". Her clinic's website has this:

"....is a qualified nutritionist and nurse. She is also a trained physical exercise trainer and holds qualification in a number of alternative therapies.

EDUCATION: Post Graduate
2010 H.Dip in Ebusiness (Post Grad, Level 9), National College of Ireland) (First Class Hons)
2013 ITEC – Anatomy & Physiology
2013 ITEC - Fitness Instruction for Gym based exercise
2013 Fetac - Nutrition
2011 NEBDN – National Certificate In Dental Nursing
2011 Microdermabrasion - BABTEC
2011 Diathermy - Wigmore Medical, Bond Street, London
2010 Biomeridial Body Analysis Testing – Nutri UK
2009 IACT- Certificate in Colonic Hydrotherepy, New York
2009 – Google Adwords Professional (GAP)
2006 – 2D Computer Aided Design, City & Guilds (CAD)
2005 – Adobe Flash Training Certificate – Irish Academy of Computer Training
1996 - 1997 Graphic Design NCVA (Level 6) Photoshop, Illustrator, InDesign, Dreamweaver, Flash
1994 – 1995 Information Technology RSA Certificate (Level 6)

End quote. She has provided this link to her website: http://www.dublinvitalitycenter.com/index.html

I see nothing about "doctor" there, and even the "nurse" part is iffy. Maybe they allow anyone with a short certificate course to call themselves a nurse in Ireland. I don't know. She's also a beginning level colonic practitioner. The I-ACT lists her as "Cert. Level: Foundation Level". So she's no great expert, and has relatively little experience. At least she's had a class in Anatomy & Physiology!

She's in the process of trying to talk for a 3,000 member association using veiled legal threats? She's going to embarrass her profession, especially if RS, like the press, get hold of what she's doing here! If that happens, we could document her actions here. She really needs to be careful. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:38, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

The quality of the edits and failure to properly source is the real problem here. That is a problem regardless of what qualifications this user may or may not possess in real life. I feel statements made above ("The Association will be making a case "... "They will be taking the matter further ") constitute a legal threat and this should be dealt with accordingly. -LT910001 (talk) 07:45, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

There's other stuff here too: I am composing something for ANI. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 08:00, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

(Update) See here for the AN/I thread. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 08:48, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Right, I am not taking any sides here, I've told her a number of times, make drafts, and on your sandbox etc... and gave her the chance to edit the article, and I agreed with the revert, and fully supported it, I told her you have issues with quackwatch, come up with better references, and prove this one wrong, then started with the threats, and what not, accusing Alex of having 2 accounts etc... oldest trick in the book what not, told her ask for a check user then, if you feel this way. I have enough of her accusations, accusing me, Alex, and other editors, commenting on the merger, and calling it unethical and unfair, she doesn't want to listen, not my fault, I tried to help her, and I apologized for my action of commenting, calling her "superpretty/pretty as she says sleazy, and apologized for" I have nothing further to add, nor I want a conflict or edit war. Danger^Mouse (talk) 09:15, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

"We offer total body detox using the latest colonic irrigation from Harley Street London. And for an additional detox, we provide colonic herbal coffee enemas which allows the liver to release years of toxic matter. This targets dark circles under the eyes"

I had to read this section several times. You would actually need a flow chart to fully explain the many ways in which that is fubar. Lesion (talk) 12:52, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

This was ugly, and the interpersonal issues have been dealt with via ANI. MastCell and Doc James have cleaned up the article; does anyone object if we archive this? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:18, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

MastCell did all the work. I deserve no credit. Archive away. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:52, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Deep transcranial magnetic stimulation

One of everything-- hard to know where to start. Many primary sources, might be promotional, loads of uncited text, how-to, and I'm off for the morning and haven't had time to check for copyvio. New editor. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:29, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I found one review, I cleaned out all primary sources, but I do not have journal access to the review. Could someone else access that review and finish cleanup? We have a new editor focused on a product that got FDA approval early this year, company Brainsway, SPI, potential COI. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:28, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Research Hack-a-thon: Did anybody attend?

Does anyone know anything about what happened at meta:Research:Labs2/Hackathons/November_9th,_2013? Will there be another one? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:42, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Erlotinib

See notes on my talk page (section "Pingie pongie"). I'm concerned that depressingly sad facts about this drug's limited abilities are being suppressed in a recent edit that was discussed at Wikipediocracy. That forum, the writer said "The drug is in fact highly effective about 60% of the time for certain otherwise fatal types of lung cancer" -- so we've got an editor who is claiming a 60% cure rate for nasty lung cancers. Could editors here research the current guidelines/evidence surrounding this drug (e.g. NICE, etc) and inject a little reality, even if it is depressing. Colin°^Talk 22:12, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Recent review, free full text available, not cited in our article:

• Chen X, Liu Y, Røe OD; et al. (2013). "Gefitinib or erlotinib as maintenance therapy in patients with advanced stage non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic review". PLOS ONE. 8 (3): e59314. Bibcode:2013PLoSO...859314C. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0059314. PMC 3605444. PMID 23555654. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

I am not a Dr., and I don't even watch TV. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:19, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Strange. This paper does not state how much it extends life in months... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:15, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Wow, those Wikipediocracy commentators are rather cynical. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:55, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

There are a few primary sources and the whole article needs a bit of clean-up. I have added a couple of references, including this one. There are several end-points of relevance when describing chemotherapy outcomes. Qi's paper describes improvement (better than standard second-line chemotherapy) in one of these outcome measures: overall response rate (ORR). ORR is really detected on x-ray/CT scan and is not directly related to an improvement in the patient's health. Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:36, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I think that Chemotherapy ought to list some of these ways of measuring outcomes. I've just started a new section ==Efficacy== in the hope that someone who knows something about this will list and define some terms like overall response. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:41, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Response criteria vary a bit by disease. The RECIST criteria are probably the most widely used for solid tumors; the revised IWG criteria are often used for lymphoma; and so on. These criteria define terms like "complete response" and "partial response", and "overall response" is typically complete + partial responses. I'll try to take a look at the chemotherapy article in the near future and work on clarifying this. MastCell ^Talk 22:32, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Additional reviews:

• Roengvoraphoj, M.; Tsongalis, G. J.; Dragnev, K. H.; Rigas, J. R. (2013). "Epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors as initial therapy for non-small cell lung cancer: Focus on epidermal growth factor receptor mutation testing and mutation-positive patients". Cancer Treatment Reviews. 39 (8): 839–850. doi:10.1016/j.ctrv.2013.05.001. PMID 23768755.
• Lee, C. K.; Brown, C.; Gralla, R. J.; Hirsh, V.; Thongprasert, S.; Tsai, C. -M.; Tan, E. H.; Ho, J. C. -M.; Chu, D. T.; Zaatar, A.; Osorio Sanchez, J. A.; Vu, V. V.; Au, J. S. K.; Inoue, A.; Lee, S. M.; Gebski, V.; Yang, J. C. -H. (2013). "Impact of EGFR Inhibitor in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer on Progression-Free and Overall Survival: A Meta-Analysis". JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute. 105 (9): 595–605. doi:10.1093/jnci/djt072. PMID 23594426.

Jinkinson talk to me 14:41, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Welcome for new editors

I have created a template, in keeping with some previous discussions, that can be posted on the pages of new users. I created this so that we can inform new users about what I feel we agree as the three main things: (1) welcoming them, notifying them we exist; (2) informing about the user of sources, and (3) informing about the need to discuss some changes.

The template is accessible here: {{WPMED welcome}}. (here: {{WPMED welcome}}) It needs to be signed when you post it (I don't know how to make that automatic). I would recommend you use {{subst:WPMED welcome}} so that the plain text is visible. Please drop this on the talk pages of new users before they're warned about something, so that at least the first interaction with WPMed is a positive one.

I hope we all find this useful! Ping to Biosthmors, who mentioned this idea earlier. LT910001 (talk) 01:36, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Example is here (heading deprecated by one):

Welcome to Wikipedia from Wikiproject Medicine!

Welcome to Wikipedia from Wikiproject Medicine! We're a group of interested editors who strive to improve the quality of medical articles here on Wikipedia. One of our members has noticed that you are interested in editing medical articles, and it's great to have a new interested editor on board! In your wiki-travels, a few things that may be relevant to editing wikipedia articles are:

• Firstly, thanks for coming aboard! We always appreciate a new editor. Feel free to leave us a message at any time here (talk page), or if interested, join the project yourself! (participant list). We are always interested in improving the quality of articles and collaborating, so feel free to give us a shout if you have any problems, suggestions, would like some review, need some more articles to edit, or would like some collaboration when editing!
• Secondly, us Wikiproject:Medicine editors are vigilant about using sources, particularly for medical articles. For an introduction to sources, and a guideline for medical sources can be found here: WP:MEDRS. We almost always try and use recent secondary sources to support information. We almost never use primary sources, especially if the primary sources are produced by the organisation or individual who is promoting a claim.
• Thirdly, Wikipedia is a kingdom full of a wide variety of Wikipedia:WikiFauna, including trolls (WP:TROLL), hardened knights (WP:Knight) and other horrible megafauna. We all manage to get along, but this is only through a lot of discussion that happens under the scenes and through the bold, edit, discuss editing cycle. If you encounter any problems, you can discuss it on an article's talk page or post a message on WP:Med for help here (talk page).

Feel free to drop a note on my talk page if you have any problems. I wish you all the best on your wikitravels!

Commentary

I like it. Made a small change to the wording. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:53, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm all for improved templates, so thank you for making this! Feel free to use it whenever you'd like. As for me, I still prefer personalized messages. ;-) Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 11:09, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Yep! I hope this is used often. {{WPMED welcome}} can be put in the userbox of new users without having to re-write the same information (about sources, participation etc) again and again, and followed by a personalised greeting. LT910001 (talk) 11:27, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

That third point doesn't make wikipedia look like a very attractive environment to work in. I would just keep it at: "If you encounter any problems, you can discuss it on an article's talk page or post a message on WP:Med for help here (talk page)." Maybe a short note about the WP:MEDMOS before that for general guidance. --WS (talk) 14:12, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Agree with WS on that small point, otherwise great job and I think this will be a better way of greeting new editors. Especially agree with the sentiment: ."try to ensure this template appears on the talk page before any warnings." Lesion (talk) 15:50, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Hah, well to some extent I don't think Wikipedia is very welcoming for new users. My general feeling is that new users cop criticism and acronyms for a period of months until they either stop editing or grow a thicker skin. I would rather be somewhat harsher up front, so at least this new editor knows what they are dealing with, and can adjust their behavior accordingly. LT910001 (talk) 20:57, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Folks, please don't start using this template until it has been properly copyedited and worked over; the tone is off, it has grammatical errors, and we shouldn't throw acronyms at newcomers. I will get around to looking at it later today, and will also ask User:Colin (one of WPMED's better copyeditors) to have a look. It is not ready for primetime (and it should always be subst'd). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:28, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: started tweaking this template here: [16]. I think it is going to be hard to find any consensus on this kind of thing because everyone will have their own idea of how best to welcome new editors. As long as they get some kind of friendly message is the main thing, this version or others, or a custom message per Biosthmors' comment above. Lesion (talk) 17:04, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Not to belittle LT910001's work or anything but I think a template like this already existed: Template:WPMED-welcome Jinkinson talk to me 17:09, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I was only aware of the text-based one. LT910001 (talk) 20:57, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I think there are now 3 of these templates to be honest. However, I like this approach more. Image looks good, more friendly. Lesion (talk) 17:12, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Um, we need to be clear. We cannot use a template that throws all kinds of negative language and acronyms at newcomers. Compare the version linked by Jinkinson to LT's proposal. Is this Project dying or turning in to a comedy of errors? Let's get this sorted out. I'll copyedit later as I find time ... for now, I haven't gotten yet through my morning unpaid unwanted TA duties for the Education Program, I haven't yet responded to Jinkinson (which I've owed him for several days), and I haven't yet gotten through my watchlist. Maybe by the time I've done all of that, someone will have gotten around to making LT's version look more friendly and less acronym-filled like the version linked by Jinkinson. The problem with that version is that it is not aimed at new editors-- it is aimed at editors who have signed up for the project. Which means it really isn't needed. We should ditch LT's version (which isn't very friendly, isn't well worded, and included too many acronyms rather than real English), and rework the version linked by Jinkinson to include a broader audience ... that is, any new editor editing medical articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:32, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, it's nice to have this edited collaboratively, but I do feel this has been mischaracterised. There was only one acronym before (a link to MEDRS), and now there are 6. I think fair enough to post your own point of view about the template's quality, but it's difficult to accept criticism that's not based on fact. LT910001 (talk) 20:57, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I've reworked it; sorry, but it was daunting, negative, and a wall of text and acronyms. It should be subst'd like this:

• {{subst:WPMED welcome}} ~~~~

I also think the other is better:

• {{subst:WPMED-welcome}} ~~~~

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:16, 11 November 2013 (UTC) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:16, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits, this template has been developed to welcome new users only, and there is no need to use this template if you don't want to. LT910001 (talk) 20:57, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

With respect to thick skin, this isn't just needed by newcomers, the longer one is here the thicker there skin must because. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:18, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

+1 and Wikipedia:Don't-give-a-fuckism is helpful. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 10:33, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Today I'll teach medical students about using Wikipedia and I always struggle which first page/entry to show them when they register. Well, here is the solution. Thank you! NCurse _work 08:18, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Perfluorooctanoic acid

There is a discussion on the Talk page of this article about whether WP:MEDRS applies to content (a lot of of content, many thousands of bytes worth) describing the relationship between this chemical and human health. More eyes would be very welcome. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 06:24, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

It looks like a list of secondary sources has been supplied on talk. Alexbrn, should this section be archived now? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:41, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm still not happy with the state of the article in respect of human health claims, but encountering push back on my removal of what looked like poorly-sourced biomedical content I'd given it up as a bad case (at least for now). Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 15:54, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Further opinions

We have a user who is unhappy with the position of the CDC, FDA and WHO here [17]. They wish to go with the position of ASH. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:39, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Started a RfC here [18] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:54, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

So others won't have to sort through a long list of acronyms, ASH refers to a UK non-profit, Action on Smoking and Health. [19] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:55, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

A pharmaceutical article

Hello Truebreath and welcome to Wikipedia. What drives your interest in dabigatran? I worked on the deep vein thrombosis article, and I have an interest in that disease. What brings you to Wikipedia? Welcome. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 22:00, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

With all the discussion about this talk page being too long, premature archiving, elimination of third-level headings, etc ... why is this post here instead of on a (new user's) talk page? I hope we're not expecting a new user to understand how the new notification system works. Bios, if you are worried about this user's work and want more eyes, spell it out; otherwise, this belongs on his/her talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:40, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I think we have systemic problem with non-neutral pharmaceutical article edits, but I don't think implying a conflict-of-interest in a welcoming message is advisable. Any ideas? Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 16:05, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Publishing articles

If people are interested in the idea of getting our medical articles published in the medical literature then please see User_talk:Alexbrn#By_the_way, where I raise some specific issues about the details of how to do this. I'm not sure how we should proceed. Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 13:26, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

This project has a lot of work to do in terms of improving many articles rather than publishing the few articles of GA or FA status that exist. If these articles were published, there is the secondary problem in 5-10 years that a variety of sources will use which cite the original Wikipedia article. There is the additional problem of attribution in such publication. I think we may need to step carefully on this one.LT910001 (talk) 00:18, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Are you against the idea of volunteers coming together to create a pipeline for other volunteers who might wish to volunteer in this way? Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 12:12, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Of course not! I think it's great that there are lots of different ideas that are being tried, but I don't think it should be made a goal (central or minor) of WPMed. LT910001 (talk) 05:31, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with LT91 string of numbers. We have much more necessary work to do in here than getting a few articles published, that may or may not even be good articles (regardless of internal assessment-- several of our FAs are already out of date), and I am against the idea, period. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:43, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree, I just think establishing a new incentive structure could get more people involved to help. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 16:08, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Use of Caps when referring to people with health problems

There is a RfC here [20] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:58, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

WTMED mainpage, Goals

Who, where, how and why was the "Goals" section of this page set up? There is pretty much a nil chance that this project can generate 200 FAs, so why is that there? Nothing against this project, but that is not a doable goal. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:57, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

My idea. I was thinking it could be a 5 year goal. Would you rather it be 100? Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 16:01, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

We won't make 200 in five years, and we probably won't make 100 either. ever. We should be focusing instead on cleaning up REALLY bad articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:04, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

That's goal 4. =) Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 16:06, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

As long as we don't start calling it the five year plan (still, better than the four year plan). There has been recent discussion on User talk:Biosthmors about adjusting the FA goal to a more realistic target. On a side note, I had a suspicion that few WPMED editors were aware of the goals, and rarely frequent the project page. If you haven't visited it before, check it out as there is a lot of helpful stuff there. Lesion (talk) 16:50, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Really? What became of the template where we used to track FAC, FAR, GA and PR submissions? If I ever find a few free moments, I'll go looking for it-- but perhaps the person who removed it will speak up before I get there. And then maybe I'll find time to respond to Jinkinson on his BLP list ... notice that I'm feeling like the mainpage and talk page here have spun a bit outta control?  :/  :/ SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:00, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Are you talking about this: Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Article alerts?

Sorry to hear that you finding the mainpage and talk page are out of control ... request more specific feedback so these concerns can be addressed. Lesion (talk) 17:07, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Not the template I was referencing, but that one will do the job (I think-- assuming it flags FACs, FARs, etc). I see now that template is hidden on our mainpage here. I believe I have been addressing specifics :) :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:14, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, not sure what template you are talking about then ... I don't remember any other template which fits this description. My suggestion would be to look here Category:Medicine templates (but this assumes the template you talk of is tagged as WPMED ... not all of them are unfortunately). Project page and appearance of this talk page should be considered a work in progress, everything is still too messy imo. Please anyone feel free to leave feedback. Lesion (talk) 17:29, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

FWIW over at User:Biosthmors/Things I have {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Article alerts}} and {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Medicine}}, which might be useful. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 17:48, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Stem Cell Therapy needs significant reworking

This article has become very heavy with edits from individuals that are promoting a particular study (citing primary literature or a University press release) such that minor topics are prominantly discussed but the broad consensus in the field is hard to discern. I don't have time to deal with it, but perhaps WikiProject Medicine would consider tackling it for a collaboration of the month? Biolprof (talk) 19:24, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

That'd be a lot easier to do if we knew of some good (ideally free/online) sources about the subject. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:48, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Possible suggestions: There are some open access articles in the 29 Aug 2013 special issue of Stem Cell Research & Therapy on "Clinical Applications of Stem Cells" (http://stemcellres.com/series/clinical). Also an open source book called StemBook on Pubmed books (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK27044/). Biolprof (talk) 20:48, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the note Biolprof. =) Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 18:51, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

More than one image in the lead

There are efforts to add more than one image to the leads of a number of articles [21] [22]. I am unhappy with this as it makes the infobox too big. Others thoughts? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:27, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Well as far as I'm concerned that argument may have been justified on Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease as the image added was very large. On the other hand the header is very small and does not give any real insight for a layman (who honestly wouldn't by virtue of the image alone tell that they're seeing a lung). CFCF (talk) 16:41, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Jmh; the clutter is off-putting. To avoid another infobox war, where is the general discussion? The two additions given as examples are awful; where does it end? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:43, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

My reading of the conclusions of the "infobox wars" was that the primary editor of the article gets an extra say with respect to formatting of the infobox. And the same with respect to reference style. This of course need to take into account general consensus and efforts for consistency across a subject area and within an article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:48, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

That's not my read on the Infobox conclusions. An RFC was recommended, has been put off 'til the New Year, and IMO, and those findings and remedies you mention were only to deal with the disruptive users who were identified (there are more). Whether WikiProjects have broader input on infoboxes has not been determined, because there hasn't been an RFC. So, at our level (WPMED), and at any level (WikiWide), I am opposed to long infoboxes, and see no reason at all for two images in an infobox, ever. CDCF, I believe you are using infoboxes inappropriately, and you should discuss on each article's talk page which image should be in the lead, and which belongs better in the body. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:04, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that anyone should attempt to issue a blanket ban on dual images. I also think it's worth remembering that images can be placed in the lead but outside the infobox, even when an infobox is present.

I don't think that WPMED has any special say in this: it's up to the editors at each article, not people here. That said, this is often a good place to get extra eyes if the editors at the specific article in question are unable to resolve the question on their own. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:01, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

WTMED mainpage, Welcome templates

See: Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Welcome templates RFC SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:28, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Why do we have five welcome templates? Consolidation needed:

• Welcome messages (all of these substituted onto a user's talk page):
  • {{subst:WPMED-welcome}} - Welcome message for new Wikipedians (with invitation to join us)
  • {{subst:WPMED welcome}} - Welcome message for new Wikipedians (with invitation to join us)
  • {{subst:MedWelcome}} - Welcome template to greet new Wikipedians and invite them to join WikiProject Medicine.
  • {{subst:MedInvitation}} - Invite for established Wikipedians to join WikiProject Medicine.
  • {{subst:MedGreeting}} - After editor added to participation list.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:04, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

=D I guess the answer to that Q is difficult to pin down exactly. Some of these templates were not tagged with WPMED, and each of them is so uncommonly used that it may have lead the various parties to believe that no such previous template existed before, and to take it upon themselves to be helpful and create one. Now that the true situation has been uncovered, we probably should not need 5 of these templates ... Lesion (talk) 16:36, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I see these are all listed on the WP:MED project page. Hmm... Lesion (talk) 16:39, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Considering the concerns about length of this page, I've started a sub-page at Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Welcome templates RFC where we can hopefully resolve this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:28, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Some are short, some are long. I guess it depends on the situation; sometimes a user just needs a brief welcome, and sometimes they might need something different. I'm all fine for consolidation, but there should at least be some kind of variety for how detailed each welcome is. --benlisquare_T•C•E 01:15, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Primary versus secondary sources

We have users wanting to use primary sources. Wondering if others can comment. Talk:Suicide#Social_Networking_Sites Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:17, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Table of contents

So why does the table of contents at WP:MED create whitespace before the goals section shows? Is it because of something in Template:Wikiproject Medicine Header? Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 16:10, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

It looks fine on my screen, so I have difficulty figuring out the problem for you =( Lesion (talk) 16:15, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Tried a work around: NOTOC. See if layout improved without TOC. Again looks fine on my screen with no whitespace. Lesion (talk) 16:22, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I want a table of contents. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 16:58, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Except for a single white line (regular height or less), I see no whitespace below the TOC. (Firefox atop WinXP). -DePiep (talk) 17:18, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Nevermind I just meant to the right of the TOC but I guess this is unavoidable. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 17:48, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Delphian Lymph Node

Dear medical experts: When this Afc submission was declined last year, it was recommended that the information be added to the article Lymph node. It doesn't look as though that has happened, and the article will be deleted within the next few days. If anyone would like to take this on, now is the time! —Anne Delong (talk) 16:12, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Why not "projectify" it and paste it into WikiProject medicine space, kind of like how one can paste into userspace to save things? I don't understand AfC. Why does it exist? Why can't people work in their sandboxes? Was it some poorly executed WP:WMF idea? Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 16:14, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I think IP users don't have personal sandboxes. Lesion (talk) 16:24, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, people who don't have accounts don't have a personal space to create articles. Afc gives them a way to make articles, and it's also used a lot by editors who have COI and beginners who want to make sure that their articles won't be deleted before they figure out how to make them follow policy. However sometimes these users just dump a first draft in Afc and never come back (or their IP addresses change), or they lose interest, or find editing is too much bother, or whatever, so eventually these are considered abandoned and either are "adopted" by someone else or end up being deleted. In Afc these drafts have a better chance to become articles than if they were left in sandboxes of users who don't edit any more. There have been about 34,000 articles created through Afc so far. —Anne Delong (talk) 17:36, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Just a side note: If content is merged from an AFC into another page, then I believe that the AFC page has to be kept (permanently) for the history (for license/legal reasons). Does anyone know if this is being handled properly? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:56, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

A case like this came up the other day, and this is what was done: (1) The info was merged into the page (2) the old page was moved to a sub-talk page of the article (so if the article was FOO, the page was moved to Talk:FOO/attribution). (3) The content on the attribution page was blanked and replaced by a notice that the page should be kept because it contained part of the attribution history of FOO. That way, it was no longer in Articles for creation, and so safe from db-g13 deletion. Thanks for bringing this up, WhatamIdoing, because I think that there are a lot of editors who aren't aware of the need to keep history. There are only a few of us checking the old drafts, but I've actually only come across two old Afc drafts so far that were being kept for this purpose; I think the more common thing that was done was to move the page to mainspace with a slightly different article name and then change it to a redirect, which keeps the history. —Anne Delong (talk) 01:42, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Image of narcolepsy? See the Narcolepsy article

Moved from Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine); meant to post this here instead.

Does this image pass for inclusion solely because the editor who uploaded the image to WP:Commons presents it as an illustration of narcolepsy? By that, I mean are we supposed to take the editor's word for it that this is a narcolepsy image? Flyer22 (talk) 22:20, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Several years ago I remember a lecturer played a video clip of narcoleptic dogs, which was pretty entertaining. I think it might be hard for any photo to successfully depict narcolepsy. At least in a video we can see someone who one moment is awake and the next asleep for a short period. It is questionable how much this image adds to the article as it stands. Lesion (talk) 00:56, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

No, that image should be removed. There is no way to determine whether the person is asleep, nor whether they have a "chronic neurological disorder". We only know two things about this proposal: (a) there is no track record indicating any related expertise by the editor; and (b) putting a snapshot on narcolepsy of a colleague relaxing during a break would be a great joke. I have reverted the edit. Johnuniq (talk) 02:06, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree, Lesion and John, and thanks. Flyer22 (talk) 02:15, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't agree with this approach. Flyer22 asked a specific question: is the photo really narcolepsy? Lesion addressed a completely different question: is the image useful for illustrating the article?

To address Flyer's question: it is, of course, impossible to tell just by looking at the photo. Johnuniq has implied a sensible second step. Look at the user profile and contributions. The username is a new account at Wikimedia Commons, and uploading this photo is his only activity. Therefore the next step should be to discuss the matter with the editor. I have invited him to do so at his talk page.

To Lesion: I think that a photo of a narcoleptic person asleep in a situation where he would be expected to be awake would indeed be a useful addition to the article—more so than no photo at all. If this photo is confirmed as narcolepsy, then the photo would illustrate this point and therefore would be suitable for the article. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:41, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I never deal with images, so forgive me if I'm missing something, but isn't there an ethical problem with us saying an identifiable person is suffering a neurological disorder without a really strong reliable source to confirm it? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:11, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Does this depend if it is a public setting? Certainly I would certainly feel more comfortable if we had the express consent from the person in the photograph, which would also strengthen (or not) the credibility that this is narcolepsy. All this would be solved if we had access to a short video clip of narcoleptic dogs, I might point out. Lesion (talk) 14:16, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

@Hordaland: (in case he/she has any opinion or anything more suitable...) Lesion (talk) 14:20, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

There are cataplexy clips (of humans) on YouTube. Haven't any better suggestion. WhatamIdoing's suggestion below may be useful. Else, perhaps we should have an article on the well-established non-profit organization Narcolepsy Network? And/or, with their permission, use Narcolepsy Network's logo to illustrate the narcolepsy article? Hordaland (talk) 16:11, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Contacted them via their website to see if they have any more suitable images. I personally would not think their logo would be the best choice though? Lesion (talk) 23:13, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

See WP:PERTINENCE. The image need not be verifiably a person with the exact condition. Indeed, it need not even be a photo of an actual human. It only needs to be an image that looks like what we're trying to illustrate.

If you are concerned about misidentifying someone as having narcolepsy (and can't find a better image, such as one that doesn't show the sleeping person's face), then try a somewhat different caption, like "A person with narcolepsy may fall asleep in unusual places, such as at work."

And, yes, you can then take the same image to Sleep apnea and give it a new caption: "A person with severe sleep apnea may fall asleep in unusual places, such as at work", and to Sleep deprivation with the caption, "A person who is sleep deprived...", and to Parenting#Newborns_and_infants with the caption, "A person caring for an infant may get so little sleep that..."

The point is what the image looks like, not what the person's actual medical or social history is. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:34, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that WP:PERTINENCE allows or suggests that we call the image narcolepsy if it is not narcolepsy, any more than I think WP:PERTINENCE allows or suggests that we call an image breast cancer if the image is not of breast cancer; the same goes for images identifying any medical condition (exceptions being drawings or paintings, whether they are hand-drawn or made via digital art).

That stated, I agree with your wording in cases such as these. Flyer22 (talk) 15:48, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

(ec) Broadly speaking, I question the educational value added by inserting such a photograph in those cases. In case you didn't know what a person sleeping looks like, here's a picture! Sometimes adding a tangentially-relevant stock photo just for the sake of having a picture doesn't make an article appreciably better; it just slows down the page load and eats up bandwidth for mobile device users.

I am also uncomfortable about the potential ethical (BLP etc.) issues that surround making randomly-selected sleeping individuals into poster children for sleep disorders—regardless of whatever disclaimers we add to thumbnail captions. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:14, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

"Our" initiatives ??

Who's we? Where's the consensus. How many of "us" have endorsed all of these activities and why are we putting off-en.wikipedia activities as part of WPMED ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:26, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't call the activity related at Talk:Dengue fever or User:Biosthmors/Dengue or User_talk:Alexbrn#By_the_way off-wiki behavior. ;-) If the project wants to oppose this activity then let's start an RfC here? I'm not sure the best way to proceed. Doc James would also be involved. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 16:57, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

In fact, I want more on-wiki resources to do off-wiki things. I hope to give a talk soon at the WHO about Wikipedia, and I should start looking at preparing for that talk with slides. Can we get a WP:MEDPRES, a list of WP:Presentations about editing medical content page? Could someone be bold and start that, or do we already have one somewhere? Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 17:06, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Potential canvassing warning: because I was going to email people involved with m:Wiki Project Med already about these outreach materials, I'll ping them to comment here about the presentations, but I hope that doesn't bias this thread in a pro-meta-wiki kind of way. Best. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 17:50, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

"We" is people involved with Wikiproject Medicine. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:47, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Agree. Am very happy to have an active WikiProject. There is no compulsion for any members to contribute if they don't want. --LT910001 (talk) 10:04, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, it sure used to be active, and I'm beginning to see what happened. It's been taken over by off-Wiki ventures. No wonder nothing is getting answered or addressed in here. Everybody left. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:34, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

There is really no other very active place were they have gone (at least nothing dealing with Wikipedia that I know of). We have some previously very active editors that are much less so now (thinking of User:Jfdwolff, User:Davidruben, User:RexxS and User:Arcadian). This is from what I understand because real life has taken over. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:04, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Another is User:WLU. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:15, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

That's what the cabal wants you to think... Lesion (talk) 01:18, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Huge issue with copyright infringement found

See this topic at WP:AN

Most of what User:DrMicro has added to Wikipedia is copyright infringement as per here [23]. I have blocked the user in question as they edit extensively and we need less to clean up. Am bringing it to AN. They have made 19,722 edits to 1742 articles since 2006. 18,542 have occurred in article space.[24] I have block this editor as an emergency measure and am bringing the case to WP:AN. Should have caught this sooner :-( What do we do? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:51, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Here is the list of his top 50 articles [25] and his last 500 edits have occurred in less than 3 months [26] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:52, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

All the 20 or so random edits I have looked at or more or less copy and pasted from the source. What do we do now? Any suggestions? Could a bot revert all his edits? Do we simply delete his most edited articles? Revert back to before his first edits which occurred often year ago? Give up? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:07, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

User even had copyright concerns flagged on their talk page in 2010 [27] and again in 2012 [28] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:55, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Is there a tool that can list all articles that this user has edited? If ten of us each take 170, we could sort this out. Big job though. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 08:20, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I have found some edits that were not plagiarised. The other issue is that he extensively uses primary sources. For example his most edited article has 648 refs Plasmodium_falciparum_biology. And most are primary sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:33, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I suggest the discussion be centralised in one place, preferably at AN (see hatnote). This may become very confusing. -DePiep (talk) 09:06, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

If I may suggest the opposite - AN is well-equipped with deciding what to do with the editor, but I suspect that in particular in this specific field of expertise, many of the WP:CCI regulars may shy away from the cleanup effort, both for a potential lack of access to some of the sources (medical publications behind a paywall for instance) and a lack of expertise to fix the problems. If this indeed proves to be systemic and widespread, WP:MED support would be invaluable with cleaning up the mess without severely crippling medical articles. MLauba ^(Talk) 12:40, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

CCI opened: Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/DrMicro. MER-C 12:37, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I have suggestions on how to deal with it, am awaiting a response from DocJames, think it should be dealt with on the AN thread (as we will need broad consensus and the help of the CCI folk); the first thing we need to know is if the copyvios come from text behind paywall, as that dramatically changes the cleanup effort. Most of them I have checked are not behind paywall, and most of his edits are to new stubs created by him, so my recommendation at AN is likely to be that everything created by him should be mass AFD'd, and everything else reverted. But first want to know how much of his text comes from behind paywall, and how much can be checked by people without journal access. I'd also like to point out that many of his edits are biological, as he was identified as a med editor on my talk page: I have never interacted on an article with this editor. And, I do not think we should be dividing up this work to fix it: we have an equally big problem with student editing from sources behind paywall or textbooks, so we should have a global way of dealing with these situations-- as in, revert the edits, delete the articles. We don't have the resources to be checking this amount of copyvio, especially not when we know it is as huge as DrMicro's, especially not when we are already stretched too thin, especially not when we have huge amounts of copyvio coming in from students whose sources are behind paywall. So, please, let's get a global approach to this at AN, my recommendation, depending on what DocJames says, is likely to be a mass AFD any article created by DrMicro (unless someone shows a reason not to). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:25, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

It is very possible mass rollback may be warranted. but I hope we try to engage the editor. I glanced at the talk page, and I see hints that it may not be simply a disregarding of the rules, but a misunderstanding that we have a more stringent guideline for fair use than the law requires. If the editor accepts that, the editor may be inclined to help with the cleanup, which would be very useful.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:52, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I reviewed three articles:

1. History of malaria I concluded there were problems, and manually rolled it back.
2. Bimodal distribution I thought sure there would be problems, but haven't identified any in the first few edits I reviewed.
3. Plasmodium vacuolatum Can't be sure without journal access, but it might survive.

Too small a sample to draw definitive conclusions, but we need to do a little more looking. There seem to be articles in both biology and math. If, for example, the math articles were fine, while the biology articles mostly copy-paste, we might take a different approach than if we find pervasive copy-paste problems. The editor acknowledges copy-pasting guidelines, but argues it is OK. I'm neither agreeing nor disagreeing, just pointing out that we need to be cautious about broad-brush solutions. --S Philbrick(Talk) 15:02, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Let's get more data, then, but the idea of all of us dividing up this amount of work-- not on, at least not for me! Mass solution will be needed-- agree with SPhilbrick that we should look at a sample to see what that might be, but still say AFD all of his stubs, because we have other things to do with our time. Like keep up with the huge number of students creating the same problem. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:16, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I started working on a subsection of the CCI page, and reviewed a number of his plasmodium stubs. They were all extremely short—plasmodium vacuolatum, mentioned above, is typical, with only 6 sentences of actual text—and I found no significant copyvio in those. The non-stubs are another story. Maralia (talk) 15:27, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I also reviewed Staphylococcus nepalensis. Review write-up on Talk:Staphylococcus nepalensis. That looks to me like it should be nuked. Were it a one-off, I'd urge a rewrite, but if there are hundreds like this, they should be removed, and let someone start over. I haven't carried out the deletion, so that others can weigh in, both on this specific articles, and on the general approach.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:35, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

• In terms of cleanup, cases like this are exactly why policy has this line: "If contributors have been shown to have a history of extensive copyright violation, it may be assumed without further evidence that all of their major contributions are copyright violations, and they may be removed indiscriminately." Before the sports article cleanup referenced earlier, there was the gastropod cleanup - not the first mass-copyright cleanup we had done, but the proximate inspiration for creating WP:CCI. Sometimes, the atomic remedy is the only one that makes sense. I have not had a chance to look at this contributor's work myself yet, but if that's the pattern we're finding in the non-stubs, we have the option of rolling back to an earlier version or reducing to stubs immediately, and we even have a template for it: {{CCI}}. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:47, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
• If there is a significant proportion of a significant majority of medical articles affected, I would be interested in becoming involved in a cleanup effort. Suggest that we prioritise by (if possible) providing a list of top/high importance med articles affected. We can then work through those articles by either rewriting or removing. For this subset, I worry that the nuclear option may leave a big gap in these articles, and would prefer to deal with this now rather than wait a few years for the gap to fill. No requirement for other Wikipedians to participate in this effort. --LT910001 (talk) 11:56, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
  • For what is worth, I just reviewed two articles about Hepatitis for issues (which I found). As a complete layperson, those articles are totally hermetic to me. As a general encyclopedia, if all is made of the same cloth, it's perhaps worth asking whether losing articles incomprehensible to the average reader is really a loss. MLauba ^(Talk) 12:14, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

This article lists all the articles he has significantly edited or which there are more than 500 Wikipedia:Contributor_copyright_investigations/DrMicro Most of his major work thankfully was on malaria related issues. And most of his copy and pasting seems to be from the abstract so that anyone can address it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:34, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

New medical editor needs some guidance

Appears to be an ophthalmologist. User:Pardianto Issues [29] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:16, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Alleged leprosy image

The image File:Victim of Leprosy.JPG was added to Leprosy and Poverty in India around August. It states that the person is a victim of leprosy, however an IP said "incorrect this is just a guy with hand severed" on the image description. I'd like to know what you think (the IP proposition seems at least equally plausible to me), and if we should remove the image from leprosy and possibly rename it. Cenarium (talk) 20:11, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I've left a note for the uploader to see whether he can tell us more about it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:19, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

It is impossible to be sure from the photo. The left hand appears relatively normal. If this is leprosy, this would be a severe deformity (amputation) of the right hand, which would be unusual with a normal left hand. This makes me more inclined to think that it is more likely to be traumatic amputation of the right hand. Axl ¤ [Talk] 00:07, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Since we can't know for sure if the person is affected and on balance an amputation for reasons other than leprosy seems at least equally probable, I think we should then be prudent and remove the image from the article. Cenarium (talk) 23:35, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

If you haven't noticed, Cenarium, a similar matter is being discussed in the #Image of narcolepsy? See the Narcolepsy article section below; how that has been handled and what has been stated with regard to it is relevant to the leprosy matter. Flyer22 (talk) 23:49, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

There's an important difference: this picture doesn't exactly look like a (reasonably) typical person with leprosy. Even if we could prove that he really, truly had leprosy, it still wouldn't be an ideal illustration for the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:38, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Two issues with Pluripotent Stem Cell

This new article contains a few instances of close paraphrasing from http://cdn.preterhuman.net/texts/other/crystalinks/stemcells.html Duplication Detector Report. It is not so prevalent as to constitute a copyright violation, but this needs to be addressed. The article should also be checked to ensure there are no further instances of close paraphrasing/copying from other texts listed in the references.

The title capitalisation also needs to be changed. However Pluripotent stem cell currently exists as a redirect to Cell potency#Pluripotency and needs an admin to move it over the redirect. Not being a specialist in this area, I am unclear as to whether this should exist as a separate article or should be merged into Cell potency#Pluripotency. - Voceditenore (talk) 11:18, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Large number of new medical BLPs need eyes

This is too much for one editor to handle.

See these articles created by User:Jinkinson. They came to my attention because two of them were recently at DYK: Paul Ashwood (version before and version after I edited) and Max Wiznitzer (minor cleanup, not too bad). A press release was used as the source for the DYK hook (that is, not MEDRS-compliant) at Paul Ashwood, and the article uses original research to draw conclusions about Ashwood's connection to Andrew Wakefield (as odious as Wakefield may be, Wikipedia needs to let secondary sources make the connection, and they need to be attributed).

The BLPs sometimes use independent secondary sources to discuss the physician's accomplishments, research, statement in the text, etc, but they too often are original research based on primary sources, with the author of the articles (Jinkinson) drawing conclusions or making statements about the subjects of the bio by citing only the subject's own journal articles (primary sources), rather than using Independent secondary sources who discuss the bio subjects. (Jinkinson does that correctly many times, but there are enough misses that I'm afraid there is a cleanup task ahead.)

I don't know where to begin. There is also uncited text in BLPs (I cited a few I found, but it is bad practice to create BLPs with uncited text), and I've found examples of text that doesn't accurately represent sources. They also have "Select publications" lists where it's hard to see what is the selection criteria. As an example, see this version of Michael Pichichero before I edited, and my changes.

I am assuming that the new notification will ping Jinkinson to this discussion, but will also ping his talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:15, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I've begun cleaning up from the top of the list (worked through about the first 10, some are fairly good with few problems, others are riddled with problems of all types), found many more issues including too-close-paraphrasing, but need help getting through all of these. I'm hoping Jinkinson will weigh in and receive some guidance on writing BLPs on Wikipedia, and correct sourcing. Also, none of his articles are wikilinked. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:48, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Why does this name sound familiar? Lesion (talk) 09:23, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

It's a strange mixture of by-the-book strictness, and exposure of some decidedly fringe ideas and iffy sourcing, with a lean in the direction of material on controversial autism causes. I had raised Jose G. Dorea at WP:FT/N. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 10:01, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

This is nice, insofar as people are actually noticing my work. I acknowledge that the articles I have created probably need more sources, and that I should make it clear that statements in articles are "according to" certain people (e.g. Brian Deer) rather than flatly stating that the statement is true. Thanks for your advice SandyGeorgia. Jinkinson talk to me 15:01, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Are you sure all these persons are notable enough for a stand alone article? Lesion (talk) 15:06, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

No. However, I think most of them probably are, since they have published a number of highly cited papers. E.g. for Palmer see here, and for Pichichero see here. But determining whether they are or not is what AFD is for. Jinkinson talk to me 15:45, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm concerned about notability on several of them, and a whole lot more. Jinkinson, I'm glad you've responded here, and I want to impress upon you that the particular combination of a biography of a living person and a medical topic requires some care, consideration and expertise, and I wish you would slow down, as every one of your BLPs needs attention in a serious way. The way you synthesized about Wakefield and Ashwood is as bad as it gets (I'm very happy to know that someone at MIND Institute was affiliated with Wakefield and hence may be a charlatan, which shows that you did a fine job of possibly impugning an innocent man, displayed on the mainpage of a top website via DYK, since nothing in your sources tells me anything more than he might have been in the wrong place at the wrong time and got paid for giving testimony, which sure isn't a crime).

Publishing a number of highly cited papers is not how we determine notability. Please stop creating BLPs unless you run a few of them by others on this talk page, and please help in the cleanup of all of your past editing, since these articles are more of a burden than we can all take on. I am very concerned that you don't understand the correct use of sources, either for BLPs, or for medical topics, and certainly not for the combination of the two. And your statement about determining whether these articles meet notability is what AFD is for is very troubling; it seems to indicate that you don't mind creating all of this work for other editors.

In case you will find these samples helpful, Donald J. Cohen and James F. Leckman are two medical bios about top researchers in TS-- note the use of secondary sources. I am troubled by the work you have created, and troubled by the cavalier attitude your response above shows, to the extent that if you create another BLP like those you've created so far, something will need to happen. You can convince me otherwise by helping cleanup the 100 articles you have already created, and countless others you may have edited.

Are you being paid to create these articles? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:14, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Separate discussion on h-indexes refactored to new section below. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:29, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Paid to create articles. I can't believe what I am reading. The answer is no. I just do this because I want to contribute to something constructively (evidently I am not being as successful as I had hoped). Thank you once again for advising me as to my behavior on this site (i.e. telling me to be less "cavalier"). Also thank you for telling me not to use the h-indices from the Google Scholar pages of certain academics. I sincerely hope this can be resolved, and you and the rest of editors who agree with you can regain faith in me. Jinkinson talk to me 03:05, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your civil reply, Jinkinson. I'd like to ask SandyGeorgia if you've made any incivil remarks that have warranted these accusations? Sandy's made some legitimate remarks about citing and paraphrasing, but I would remark that we can't keep scaring away new editors with extremely strong language just because their editing is suboptimal! This is not conducive to a good atmosphere for current or prospective editors, and if Wikimed is to expand (and Wikipedia in general) then we will have to accept that editors come in lots of shapes and sizes and not go trolloping over all and sundry. LT910001 (talk) 08:40, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with LT in principle, but I am uncomfortable with the statement "I am not sure if these articles are all notable, that is what AfD is for" (paraphrase). I do not think that is not what AfD is for. AfD is a last resort for things which have fallen through the net. Please carefully consider the notability of the individual before creating a bio article. If there are doubts, dare I suggest that you utilize AfC for more opinions? Lesion (talk) 10:56, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Jinkinson, I am sorry for the delay in responding, and am finally catching up here. Because we have an unusual situation on this page with limiting the table of contents, if you don't mind, I will refactor this discussion to separate out the h-index discussion, as it has gotten no attention (probably because we have a messed-up TOC situation here where separate topics are missed, and we can't add third-level headings for separate discussions). Then I will respond separately on each. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:25, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Back after refactoring out separate h-index discussion, to account for no third-level headings. Jinkinson, I am relieved to hear that you are not paid to edit, and sorry that question had to be raised; your response about AFD (which I characterized as "cavalier" but could be a reflection only of your newness) led me to wonder.

You have made numerous constructive and quite good contributions, but the troublesome BLPs triggered my long-standing concern about inadequate review at DYK, and I sincerely apologize to you that my concern about DYK resulted in coming down too hard on you. DYK is infamous for letting problems through, putting articles on the mainpage that breach core policies like BLP and COPYVIO and guidelines like MEDRS, so that new editors get the wrong impression about Wikipedia policies, and go on to do much more of same, with problems not being detected until after hundreds of articles not compliant with our policies are created by DYK regulars.

I did not tell you not to use h-indices: I don't know if they are user-inputted (hence unreliable) and am asking other editors for help and feedback on h-indices in google scholar profiles. I've refactored that to a separate discussion below.

As to "regaining faith in you", we were all new once, and we're all always on a learning curve in here; if Ashwood is the worst mistake you make in here, you're in good shape!!! I haven't "lost faith" in you, but neither have I seen you cleaning up the BLPs that have problems. We are all overworked in here. If you will go back and clean those up, you will find that I will be one of your biggest fans and cheerleaders. It would be helpful if other editors here would give some guidance on the cleanup needed, mostly related to how you use sources. Please check every BLP you created, and please don't leave them in that shape. If I can be of assistance to you in any way, just ask, but on issues like the h-index, I don't know the answer (yet)! Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:51, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

For review

I have compiled an incomplete list of all the medical BLPs I have created. I have worked on most of them a little bit to try to add more reliable sources. However, it would be awesome if one of you would be so kind as to specify which ones need the most work with regard to sourcing and whatnot. The list is as follows:

• Thomas W. Clarkson
• David Baskin
• Raymond F. Palmer
• Valerie Hu
• Julio Licinio
• Marshalyn Yeargin-Allsopp
• Jill James
• James B. Adams (professor)
• Richard E. Frye
• Jon Poling
• Dan Rossignol
• Carlos Pardo-Villamizar
• Kimball Atwood
• Jim Laidler
• Max Wiznitzer
• Paul Shattuck
• Paul Shattock
• Paul Ashwood
• Michael Pichichero
• Martha Herbert
• Frank DeStefano
• Diane Harper
• Jeffrey Brent
• Jane El-Dahr

Jinkinson talk to me 01:38, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I've wikilinked your list so we can begin checking them. I don't see Jose G. Dorea. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:31, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Raymond F. Palmer and Thomas W. Clarkson

Raymond F. Palmer and Thomas W. Clarkson

OK, I've looked at the two most recent to pop on my watchlist. I appreciate User:Jinkinson's ongoing efforts to clean up these BLPs, but we still have issues that could use more feedback.

These are the changes I just made to the article, subsequent to Jinkinson's cleanup.

1. The infobox contained uncited text (referring to "controversial" research)
2. The lead states that he is a prof, but the institution's website does not list him, and the source used is from archive.org

   Fixed, struck. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:08, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

3. The sources are news accounts of two or three journal-published primary sources. I cannot discern that this fellow even meets notability, per WP:PROF.

Feedback from others would be helpful before continuing.

Jinkinson cleaned up Clarkson; does Clarkson meet notability?

By the way, I also found this inappropriate use of a primary source in another article (that was not added by Jinkinson, although the link to Palmer was). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:02, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

H-index

Refactored from section above. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:28, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I have a separate question on how Jinkinson is using the h-index in BLPs (example Jose G. Dorea). Our article indicates that

Harzing's Publish or Perish program calculates the h-index based on Google Scholar entries. In July 2011 Google trialled a tool which allows scholars to keep track of their own citations and also produces an h-index and an i10-index.

Does this mean the "scholars" are inputting that data themselves? I cannot find any way of locating these h-indexes on google scholar of physicians and researchers known by me to be top in their field, so I don't know if this is user-input data (not a reliable source) or original research or what, and I'm unsure we should be adding this to articles unless the h-index is mentioned in a secondary (independent) source. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:58, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Does anyone know if these h-indexes on Google scholar profiles are user-inputted (not reliable)? I am unable to find them on most researchers I am familiar with, and do not know where the data is coming from. If the users themselves are calculating and entering them on a Google Scholar profile, that would not be a reliable source. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:33, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Our article at h-index also says that:

The h-index can be manipulated through self-citations ...

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:10, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I believe Google Scholar allows a scholar to tell Google which articles actually belong to them. Basically, you could figure out J. Smith's h-index, but it isn't going to mean much. There are tools out there that allow you to say, these are all the articles that belong to this particular J. Smith, what is the h-index? So, the list of citations is likely user generated at some level. And pretty much all citation measures can be inflated by self-citation, but most authour's will cite their previous works because they are working in the same field. Canada Hky (talk) 02:04, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Is anyone able to answer this question? Are h-indexes from Google Scholar user-sourced (hence not reliable)? Should we not be referencing H-index in BLPs unless a secondary reliable source does so ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:37, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

No feedback; perhaps User:DGG can help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:12, 16 November 2013 (UTC)