Hi neuroscientists, I'm working on a Czech Wikipedia article on Brain (cs:mozek) and I got stuck with the "Brain function" chapter. I looked at the English article but the corresponding chapter seems to be a rather low-quality one as it rather mentions neurotransmitter system. It needs an "all-vertebrates" view, it should include things like neurohormones, reflexes, memory, motor control, ... Would you be able to rewrite the chapter in such an important article? Or, at least, would you please recommend me some book on the topic? Thank you in advance for answering, kind regards,--Vojtech.dostal (talk) 13:02, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
The difficulty is that "brain function" includes every aspect of human and animal behavior, so it's hard to write an account that touches on everything important without becoming either too long or too disorganized. I did the best I could at the time, but no doubt you're right that there is a lot of important stuff omitted. In any case, pretty much any introductory neuroscience textbook will cover the material in much greater depth. Looie496 (talk) 00:32, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I am a student from California Polytechnic State University in Pomona. My group is doing a class project for a Kinesiology class called Movement Anatomy and Kinesiology. As part of the project, our group is responsible for researching a topic and either updating a Wikipedia article or creating a new one. We decided to create the Median nerve palsy page. We've submitted for peer review and would like input from the Neuroscience community. Any input would be very helpful. Thanks!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjjballr911 (talk • contribs) 18:03, 8 December 2010
Hi, I've just had a browse on the four Top importance stub class articles to see what I could do, and none of them were stubs any more! I've reclassified them, but I may have been too conservative on one or two.Keepstherainoff (talk) 15:48, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Right now although nobody has opposed the image it still need 3 more positive votes to be featured... If anybody thinks it is worth it votes would be a great Christmas present. :-).--Garrondo (talk) 07:37, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Schizophrenia
I have nominated Schizophrenia for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Basket of Puppies23:40, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
I've personally steered clear of the main Schizophrenia article and the FAR, but I've become aware of what's going on with it by way of Mechanisms of schizophrenia. I'm beginning to notice that some of the more difficult issues under discussion arise from editors with different kinds of academic backgrounds talking past one another. (Example: physician objecting to describing schizophrenia as having neurological components because patients are referred to psychiatrists, not neurologists.) My reason for pointing this out here in this talk is that, perhaps, some editors with backgrounds in basic neuroscience may be interested in providing help with sourcing, and with clarifying where differences in terminology may be making it harder for other editors to sort through those sources. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:45, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Parkinson's disease at FAC
I have taken Parkinson's disease to FAC after almost a year of improving it.It is a vital article, and with a lot of visits (around 300k a mont). I await comments here from those of the project. Thanks in advance to everybody. --Garrondo (talk) 13:16, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
We have a situation at this article that could use outside input. Goodwillein (talk·contribs) added some material that I did not believe belonged, so I removed it, explaining why on the talk page. An IP, 24.69.142.114 (talk·contribs), re-added the material without explanation, but left a comment on their own talk page saying, "Looie496, you appear again you have abused your tools!". I have a policy against multi-reverting without support from other editors, so I won't do anything more here unless somebody else is also willing to get involved, in one way or another. Looie496 (talk) 04:30, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
I too have looked at this, and commented there that I agree with Looie and Anthony. But I'd just like to say here for the record that I see nothing abusive or out of policy in what Looie did—quite the opposite. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:08, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi all, this coming spring semester I am repeating an editing project that I ran in the Fall of 2009 for my Neuroscience class at Boston College. This semester I am hoping to write up a manuscript for a life science education journal about our experience, and I would like to solicit help from some of the knowledgeable Neuroscience WP editors. We will have 20 or so groups of students (3 students per group, 1 stub per group) improving specific Category:Neuroscience stubs that are in need of expansion, clarification and/or proper referencing. I am putting together a rubric that you can use to make quantitative judgments about how much improvement to the stub has been made by the students (and any other editors that help out during our course period). If I can get maybe 4 or 5 editors to volunteer a few hours of time to read through the before and after history for ~5 stubs each and give their assessments I would be most appreciative, and of course would acknowledge your efforts in the manuscript. Please feel free to respond back here or on my talk page. Thanks much, NeuroJoe (talk) 03:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
I'd like to encourage editors to participate in this very worthwhile project. Among other things, this kind of initiative helps grow this WikiProject. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:47, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks everyone, I'll be in touch soon with more information and some simple guidelines I've pulled together to evaluate the pre and post project content. NeuroJoe (talk) 19:19, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Final call for reviewers interested in helping out with reviewing our Neuroscience course Wikipedia stub edits. Another 1 or 2 would certainly be helpful and welcome. My estimation is that this would require 2-3 hours of effort per reviewer, all you have to do is read the stub page that currently exists as of 3/1/11, the "final" version at the end of the course (~2nd week of May), and evaluate them using an 8 point rubric that I pulled together from the Good Article criteria page as an illustration of what the students should be shooting for. Tryptofish, Garrondo and Keepstherainoff please let me know if you're still willing and able to participate. thanks NeuroJoe (talk) 18:23, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, although in two weeks I wont have access to internet for a week. Regarding more reviewers: you can leave a note at the medical project: there is more people involved there than here and some may be willing to help.--Garrondo (talk) 08:06, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
The article has aroused some interest over at WP:PSY. Please take a look, if you like. Since it rather clearly seems to be in the scope of WP:Neuroscience as well (categorized as cogn. neurosc.), I have added a project sticker. Morton Shumway—talk21:11, 21 February 2011 (UTC).
Parkinson's disease has been at FAC for a month. While most reviewers have stated their support to the candidacy of this vital article there is at least an editor which believes it is not ready. More reviewers that could give their opinion on whether it is a FA and/or how to improve it would be of great help.--Garrondo (talk) 13:22, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
The full list of supported identifiers is given here (with dummy values):
{{cite journal
|author=John Smith
|year=2000
|title=How to Put Things into Other Things
|journal=Journal of Foobar
|volume=1 |issue=2 |pages=3–4
|arxiv=0123456789
|asin=0123456789
|bibcode=0123456789
|doi=0123456789
|jfm=0123456789
|jstor=0123456789
|lccn=0123456789
|isbn=0123456789
|issn=0123456789
|mr=0123456789
|oclc=0123456789
|ol=0123456789
|osti=0123456789
|rfc=0123456789
|pmc=0123456789
|pmid=0123456789
|ssrn=0123456789
|zbl=0123456789
|id={{para|id|____}}
}}
Obviously not all citations needs all parameters, but this streamlines the most popular ones and gives both better metadata and better appearances when printed. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books}03:09, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
I just discovered this stub. It was supported by a dead link and 2 commercial links - the link supporting treatment with Modafinil was also selling the product. So it is now without any supporting sources. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:54, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
(ec) There is a pretty extensive literature on fatigue in MS, some of which uses the term "neurological fatigue", so I think this is a legitimate article. I've added a couple of sources, removed the stuff about "tired neurons" (a term not used in the literature), and removed the prod. Which is not to say that the article cannot be improved... Looie496 (talk) 17:40, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes. I've seen WP:MEDRS articles using the term in relation to Parkinson's and stroke. It may just be a group name for fatigue associated with neurological diseases, but it may also be a distinct entity. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:51, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Another editor and I are discussing how best to describe with NPOV some findings pertinent to transgenderism and transsexualism. There is a small, but interesting, neuroscientific literature and a behavioural literature.
If interested, please review Transgender#Transgender_people_and_science with attention to the language used to say what researchers show versus provided evidence in support of, etc.
I see. I've been continuing to follow the edits there, and it's no longer clear to me what might be needed from this WikiProject. Is there still a need for anything from this project? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:41, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, please. I have added to the page several new cites, and it now contains a pretty through summary of the existing literature. Because of the strong POV's involved in the trans literatures, the page could use a thorough proof-reading from someone(s) undaunted by the neuro jargon.— James Cantor (talk) 22:49, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm such an undaunted person, and I'd like to be helpful, but what I'm seeing is a continuously fluid editing situation, so anything I try to do ends up being a moving target. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:18, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
University project articles at GAN
I'd just like to note that a few of the university project articles are starting to show up at WP:GAN. I have taken on Neurolaw, but there are others that don't yet have reviewers, and no doubt more will show up. Looie496 (talk) 15:54, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Can I get some input from the project on the Vilayanur S. Ramachandran page? There is an slow, ongoing debate relating to all things Ramachandran, but it has really escalated in regards to the mirror neuron hypothesis of autism; see Vilayanur_S._Ramachandran#Pathophysiology_of_autism. I might be losing my perspective on this, as I've been involved in a slow battle with several other editors, so I thought I'd ask for some outside input from other experts in the relevant areas. I've also asked a couple of other editors who are part of the neuroscience project for some input, and asked an admin to lock the page to promote discussion instead of edit-warring. Thanks Edhubbard (talk) 20:46, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, the guy is popular, but the subject of autism is hot-button no matter how you address it because it's such a prevalent disease that affects children. It's well known that there are many structural differences in autistic children than adults. I don't really see why people would not put his views on the page regarding him, I could see them not wanting to put it on the autism page. Bloomingdedalus (talk) 19:01, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Assessment
Through a discussion on the talk page of an article that I watch, I found out about Wikipedia:WikiProject Neuroscience/Assessment. Despite my relatively long involvement with this WikiProject, I'm embarrassed to realize that I didn't know about the assessment subpage before. I'm putting this note here in case anyone else has been in the same boat as me. If you are interested, you might want to add it to your watchlist, so that you can see when someone else has asked for review of a page within the project. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:29, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
The JCW compilation updated a while ago. Here's the top-cited missing journals that are neurology-related (at least as far as I could tell, incluuding neurochemistry, neurology, etc...). Feel free to edit the list as needed.
I came across this article while stub-sorting. It's not really a stub, just a list of three other articles - and each of those is a pretty mal-formed Wikipedia article, with no coherent text but a few lines of Species, Genus, Order, Gestation and then a tabular timeline, with references. Someone from this project might like to have a look at the whole assemblage and decide what to do with them. As far as I can see they form a walled garden, only linking to each other. Thanks. PamD19:40, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Hmmm. I agree they are probably not very useful, but they don't look particularly harmful either. Not sure anything really needs to be done. In any case I think probably "orphan" is a better term than "walled garden", since they are really only isolated due to neglect rather than anything strange about them -- they are basically just list articles. Looie496 (talk) 19:47, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with Looie's assessment. In fact, the three species pages contain quite useful information about day-to-day development, with sourcing. I'll try to de-orphan them a bit. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:29, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm about to PROD it. Hard to tell whether it was really a prank or just some sort of OR, because it superficially resembles a true description of laminar development. But I find ZERO Google Scholar or Google Books hits for it, and the only Google Web hits are Wikipedia mirrors, so it fails WP:N at a minimum. --Tryptofish (talk) 13:39, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Hendry is probably S. H. C. Hendry, who has done extensive work on the anatomy of the visual system. But anyhow the current article is too stubby and poorly written to have any value at all. Looie496 (talk) 15:57, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
I've been doing this Neuroscience thing for a while, and I've never heard of Hendry's law of Lamination. On it's face, I can think of several examples where this "law" doesn't hold up anyway. It does, I note, have a facebook page, with zero friends. Myself, I've always preferred Fudd's First Law of Opposition. Synaptidude (talk) 17:47, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
I'd like to leave a note that I am planning on nominating Brain for Featured Article in the next few days -- the main things I want to do first are to develop the Cognition section a bit more, and fill in a bunch of missing or incomplete refs. In the meantime, any feedback would be useful. Looie496 (talk) 17:04, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Let me add a note that the review is still active, with support for promotion from three editors and outright opposition from none, but it has basically ground to a halt, with no activity for the past few days. Without further input it isn't clear what will happen. Looie496 (talk) 16:38, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Maybe the opinion of a non-med, non-neuro reader regarding its accessibility to the lay reader would useful. SandyGeorgia could recommend a competent writer or two that you could ask. It seems pretty readable to me but I'm already familiar with many of the basics. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:00, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
That's a good point. Also, what I think you really need to move the process along would be to have a delegate, which Sandy is, look in on it. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:25, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Is there an article on Left brain interpreter with a different title?
I looked up Left brain interpreter and had no article, so I started one. But I have a feeling there may be an article on it with a different name or something, I would be surprised if not. Anyway, if there is one, please merge/redirect. Else, you guys may want to help write more on it, given that it is only peripheral to my interests, and I had not even looked at the topic for a decade, so what I know may be dated. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 20:36, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
I see that article now. And it does mention Gazzaniga and Sperry. But it is a much more general topic and not about the LB interpreter which is a more detailed topic in its own right and probably needs an article by itself, given that it is just one of the many elements that are lateralized. The LBI is specifically about explanations of course, rather than all the other lateralized elements - and that should probably get explained in the Lateralization of brain function page, with the LBI page growing on its own. As for the term, it is really widely used, and also here, so it is a distinct term really. I think over time the LBI article should grow to be at least 3 or 4 pages. Not that I can do it this week, but in time it needs to explain the issues in more detail. And help on that will be appreciated. History2007 (talk) 21:12, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
I don't think your stub does any harm -- this is not exactly a universally known concept, but there is probably enough literature on Gazzaniga's idea to justify an independent article. Looie496 (talk) 21:56, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
I recall hearing Ramachandran talk about it, so it isn't only him. And in any case that's not an area of expertise for me, so there could be a good bit of stuff I don't know about. Looie496 (talk) 22:34, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry if this annoys anyone, but I am kind of desperate at this point. I need to recruit 200 people to participate in an online survey and, due to bureaucratic issues, I have a week (10/31/2011-11/7/2011). If you can help me that would be great! You are invited to participate in my survey on stereotype content. This study may help enhance our understanding of stereotype formation and the relationships between social perceptions of stereotyped groups. Specifically, we hope that the results can be used to inform a larger project on the processes and neural correlates of social decisions about stereotyped groups.
The survey consists of 51 questions, which ask you to indicate how groups are perceived in American society, two questions about your perceptions of these groups, and 18 demographics questions. Demographics questions ask about your age, education and relationship with the groups you were asked to rate. You will be asked take the survey in a single session, without simultaneous activities (if you have IM, we will ask you to turn it off it off or set your status to busy.) It should take you 45 minutes to an hour, but subjects have been known to spend up to 90 minutes, answering questions. Try not to over analyze the questions, when in doubt, go for your initial or "gut" response.
To participate you must be over 18 years old and "familiar with American culture." For the purposes of this study assume "familiar with American culture" means you are an United States citizen, were born in or grew up in the United States, or are currently living in the United States and have lived there for more than 5 years. I need at least 200 participants and you are encouraged to invite people other to take the survey. Thank you!
Does anyone have any advice on free places to look for participants online?
I also thought there might be other people on here, who have had similar issues and I wanted to ask if anyone had any brilliant or even just ok ideas for other places to post my request? Thank you! --Xttina.Garnet (talk) 23:31, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
I realize from looking at your user page that your surveys are somewhat neuroscience (EEG)-related. As best as I can tell, however, they are not about Wikipedia or Wikipedia editors. Since Wikipedia really isn't a place for stuff not about improving Wikipedia (see also WP:NOTPROMOTION and WP:NOTWEBHOST), please don't be disappointed if you don't get much of a response. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:44, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Thank you and I won't be. I'm just really desperate at this point and trying everything I can think of, on the off chance something works. I was really hesitant to post here at all, for exactly the reasons you mention. I'm more worried about inappropriate use and etiquette breaches, than I am about not getting much of a response. Again thanks! --Xttina.Garnet (talk) 08:04, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Another class project
User:AlexNewArtBot/NeuroscienceSearchResult is showing a bunch of new neuroscience articles that are clearly coming from a class project, but it isn't one that I know about. Does anybody know anything about who is in charge of that particular class? There are some obvious problems, but based on past experiences I am reluctant to try to explain them to the students (most of whom are probably not even aware that they have talk pages). Looie496 (talk) 16:54, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Class projects
I'm starting to wonder whether these projects don't do more harm than good... Have a look at the articles being edited by this project, for example. I have looked at two articles in detail (Human Cognome Project and Neurogenetics and am wondering whether these should not be whole-scale reverted to the stubs that they were before these students started editing... --Guillaume2303 (talk) 22:26, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
I've been wondering the same thing, and I see it as a tough balancing act between, on the one hand, a legitimate educational process as well as WP:BITE, and, on the other hand, our need to maintain a good quality encyclopedia. My conclusion (your mileage may differ) is that it's best to treat these projects exactly the same as any other edits by new editors, no more, no less. If the content is flawed but improvable, be welcoming but also either improve or tag or comment on the talk page what's wrong. If it's just junk, or the students fail to show that they can respond via talk, feel free to treat it according to what Wikipedia does, including CSD, PROD, and AfD, as well as reverting whatever should be reverted. Wikipedia isn't a classroom. It may not be the real world either, but to the extent that it's the real world, the instructors sent the students here to gain experience in whatever form of the real world we are. So that's what they should get from us. Including the experience of finding one's work reverted. No university has the right to ask us to set aside a special part of article space that operates outside of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. If an instructor wants to create a learning environment that looks just like Wikipedia but which exists outside of Wikipedia's practices, they should do it on their university's own computers. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:43, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
I agree and so that's what I have done, even if in one case (Neurogenetics) it basically meant telling those poor students that they needed to start almost from scrap again... Most contributions that come from these students read (surprise!) like the essays that they normally have to produce in classes. So they start explaining everything about all kinds of peripheral subjects that have already been covered adequately in other articles (or if not adequately, at least should be incorporated in those articles)... As this class has been making a lot of contributions, the problem is rather widespread. On the other hand, at least the articles look reasonable and are not necessarily worse than the stubs they replace (although in the case of Neurogenetics, the article contained several factual errors that had not been picked up by the "peer review" they got from their classmates). --Guillaume2303 (talk) 15:51, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
The FA nomination for Brain is going well but is currently stuck on a large number of references being too unspecific. Needs help from someone with a good library (access). --Ettrig (talk) 12:04, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Local field potential
I just added local field potential to WikiProject Neuroscience. Unfortunately, the article is short and not of very good quality, although I think it is a rather important topic. Needs help from someone with expertise in this subject (and some spare time..). TjeerdB (talk) 22:48, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Class editing of medical/neuroscience articles
Hi. I'm seeing some potential problems from Biol373.cwru (talk·contribs) - basically pasting in entire class papers over existing articles - but I currently have a final exam to create. Could someone deal with this? Thanks! Allens (talk) 17:45, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
On first look, it actually does look like they have expanded the pages with adequate sourcing, although they are messing up pretty badly with respect to page formatting, including redlinks, section headers, and inline cites. I don't want to roll them back, since they are expanding the pages, but I'm going to draw their attention to this discussion here. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:59, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Given the expansion (which I hadn't quite spotted the extent of - from stubs, basically), I hadn't wanted to roll them back either. It looks like at least some of them are being repaired regarding the formatting problems; it would be nice if the students learned how, but perhaps they can learn from observing as well as any edits they (using individual accounts!) do themselves? Allens (talk) 19:11, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Dear All, First, let me apologize for creating more work for you by not insisting that my students put all references in Wikipedia format. For the course, we created a Wiki in a virtual machine on a local server which did not have the reference template installed, and so the students were not "forced" to use the correct referencing format. In retrospect, this was a mistake, since it means that busy editors on Wikipedia may have to help fix the references; I apologize for this, and in the future will insist that the references (and other formatting) are done in Wikipedia style so that students may post without creating more headaches for you. If you wish us to remove these articles, we can certainly use the history to revert them; however, I only allowed students to work on creating articles (on our local wiki) that were currently stubs and/or inadequately sourced, because I thought this would be of use to the community. Students had to submit components of their Wikipedia article over several weeks, and respond to edits from the instructors and other members of the class. We encouraged the students to post the articles themselves, and the articles on Neurotoxins and the Theta Model (posted after December 9th) were created by students in the class. We posted three additional articles today, because we thought they would be more useful to the community than the versions that were there previously, and these are all the articles we intend to post at this time (until the course is offered again next fall). Again, I apologize for causing unnecessary extra effort to the hardworking editors on Wikipedia; I have already noted with pleasure that tryptofish and looie496 have made very helpful comments on the Neurotoxins and Theta Model articles. Once again, if you would prefer us to roll back these changes, we would be happy to do so. --Biol373.cwru (talk) 19:55, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
We will contact the students, and ask them to do this. It's finals time here, so I'm not sure how willing they will be to do this; but all three of the students whose articles we posted took the assignment very seriously, and may well be willing to do this. Again, my apologies for not enforcing correct formatting from the start.--Biol373.cwru (talk) 20:04, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
We greatly appreciate your targeting articles that were stubs or close to it, BTW; thanks for your efforts! I understand about finals time... Allens (talk) 20:07, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
I've just sent email to the three students whose articles I just posted. By the way, I did this with their permission, so it is not the case that there are multiple users for this one account. Thanks again for your very helpful responses!--Biol373.cwru (talk) 20:20, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
The class is over and the students are doen. Looking over the article and Googling a bit, I actually cannot find any "Human Cognome Project" (HCP). It does not seem to be an actual tangible project (like the Human Genome Project was), but more something like a research program/manifesto. I'm a bit at a loss what to do with this article. There's some nice content, but it has nothing to do with any HCP as far as I can see and all this stuff is already covered elsewhere (and often better). I've played with the thought of taking this to AfD, but I can't find a good rationale (although "doesn't exist" may come close). I've also thought about redirecting it somewhere, but can't think of a good target. Perhaps cognitive neuroscience? Any thoughts will be appreciated. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 15:34, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
The essence of the complaint is that is fully documented that van Gogh's painting is not at all, nor was ever meant to be, a portrayal of depressive disorder but is rather merely a study of an old man. For that reason alone it should be removed for reasons of encyclopaedic accuracy.
As it stands it necessarily makes a judgement about the nature of depressive disorder, that it necessarily implies despair, even that it necessarily implies suicidal ideation (because of its title and van Gogh's own well known suicide). It is very much to be regretted indeed in my opinion that a Wikipedia administrator, Casliber, a practicising psychiatrist it seems but a poor historian of art, appears to be the prime mover behind perpetuating these poor judgements.
It also mythologises Vincent van Gogh himself who took the greatest care to separate his difficulties in life from his work; the nature of whose illness is not settled but which is not certainly typical of a depressive disorder; who is not documented as suffering from suicidal depressive moods in the last months of his life when this painting was completed and whose suicide itself has in the past year been plausibly questioned by a respected source as rather a manslaughter.
I ask that the image be removed. If it is felt necessary, and I cannot imagine why it should be, that the article be illustrated by a fine art image, then I suggest the original image, Durer's Melancholia, be reinserted. Skirtopodes (talk) 22:33, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
FAR
I have nominated Free will for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Dana boomer (talk) 22:13, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
There is currently a rather heated dispute in progress about whether it is appropriate for the article to discuss the idea that low-frequency radio waves can serve as a basis for a BCI. It is pretty close to a state of edit-warring, so input from additional editors would be welcome. Looie496 (talk) 00:12, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Well, on second thought, I'm more or less OK with what the page says now, although I'm not entirely confident, and I'm throwing up my hands with the two editors who are sniping at each other (yeah, and it takes a lot for me to throw up my hands!). If anyone else around here can give it some fresh eyes, that would be very nice. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:36, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
This article has made a lot of progress and a reassessment would be appreciated. I'm trying to get it up FA but that will require additional expert input. Any input for other editors would be most welcome.TjeerdB (talk) 11:20, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Correlations in association with Epilepsy
Without much ado, Neuroscience has accomplished much; in addendum I must add that it is placing Wiki in "Ancient History" while indeed advanced much therein is my several questions:
Why so many dated and old notations (this does not imply on the Drugs / Medications - we need that for Historical background information; but even that is severely lacking) are so far behind whereas if one read up; for example in a Physician's Office on Neurology*Now, or EpilepsyUSA, whatever might be lying around and then returns home to do more research in Wiki. It is no wonder one is going to be bound to be confused.
For example: There have been findings as well as affirmations of Autism, Lennox-Gasult Syndrome, Leigh's Disease (or Syndrome), Angelman's, et al --> that are correlated to Epilepsy and more researches are finding more and more facts which is a fantastic finding; especially with the ILAE (International League Against Epilepsy), the world-wide organization. And for those who are familiar, they are known for their magazine "Epilepsia".
ILAE has already changed the terminology to break down, narrowing the scope even further in the classification of types of Epilepsies that are out there; Wiki needs to begin to use the new terminology, e.g. Tonic Clonic with the old terminology in italics "formerly known as Grand Mal"; this would reduce Wiki's being "scatter-brained" (pardon the pun) and cleaning up the mess.
My questions here are:
1) Why hasn't anyone provided any provisions of the latest up-to-date provisions of the newest, confirmed and valid studies? (There are many who joined world-wide in these massive huge studies, and these cases, findings, all the way to the conclusions is broad and vast; far more than ample and sufficient to warrant and merit as valid and fit to be published in my humble opinion.)
2) Why hasn't there been any information on the latest Neuroscience technology such as MEG in more in depth as well as the newer type of Neurosurgery? (Just a thought there...)
3) It is NOT a difficult thing for one to obtain information on Epilepsy anymore as so it was 5 years ago, 10, 15, 20+ years ago. Superimposed, when I glance upon other medical conditions, they very much keep theirs clean and up-to-date; frankly, I ask ... "Why are we still in the dark ages?"
This is 2012, RMS Titanic sank March 1912; 100 years ago - so why are the articles/citations/references in there old and dated as far back in the 80s', 90s', and even early 2000s'?
05:50, 21 March 2012 (Original Post posted in old place - Special thanks to Looie496 for redirecting me!)
AwahiliGuni (talk) 01:45, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
I have been talking about Savant Syndrome with Dr Darold Treffert. The symptoms seem to be narrowed memory recall. Also he thinks Einstein is not autistic, he is a neuron typical genius. A person does not have to be autistic to be a savant and it could happen to anyone, including later acquired abilities. Which raised an interesting question, what is the anatomy of a savant brain? Is there any common structure that lead to the abilities? Would there be similarity to Kim Peek's brain? Did anyone do any research in this area or have any data to share? Thanks! -- RexRowan Talk 09:22, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi. I've copied your question to the science reference desk, which is a noticeboard designed to address this kind of question. This page is mostly for addressing Wikipedia's handling of the topic. You may get an answer here, but it's more likely at the reference desk. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:39, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
There are a number of neuroscience-related classes working with the Wikipedia Education Program that are starting up around now, and several could use the help of experienced editors. If that sounds like something you want to do, you can become an Online Ambassador. If you're interested, let me know, or if you've got questions about the role, please ask. In any case, the work done by students in these classes may be of interest.
Sage, if you haven't done so already, you might want to tell each of the course instructors that they should feel free to come to this talk page with any questions they might have. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:21, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
A new wikiversity learning project on Parkinson's Science
A group of us are looking for help in continuing the development of a Wikiversity learning project. Is this an appropriate place to contact wikipedians who might be interested in giving assistance or spreading the word? The project is The Science Behind Parkinson's. I invite you to visit it to look at its aims and state of development. We have, in fact, got a lot of material on it already. But we want more people to join us in developing it and making it a valuable resource particularly for those affected by Parkinson's who want to understand more about the science underlying the condition.
It would be good if you could suggest other ways in which we could find other people who would be interested in helping with its development. I am prepared to write individually to all the active wikipedians on the Neuroscience project if that is the best way of contacting relevant people but I don't want to be accused of spamming! Thanks. My user name on Wikiversity is Droflet. Please write on my user talk page there, http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Droflet , or on my user talk page here on wikipedia. Jtelford (talk) 12:19, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
This is a good place to ask; others are Talk:Parkinson's disease and WT:MED. Anybody who is interested would see a message at one of those places. The editor primarily responsible for taking the Parkinson's disease article to FA status was Garrondo (talk·contribs), who disappeared immediately after FA was achieved and has never been heard from since. I personally have grave doubts that the Wiki model will work for something that large, but it'll be interesting to watch what develops. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 17:35, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Although Template {{Cerebral cortex}} has links to BA already, the links to BA in {{Cerebral cortex}} spread around the template randomly (because numbering of BA is not continuous topologically). So I made template for BA. Your commenting and editing are welcome! Thanks. --Was a bee (talk) 13:49, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for doing it. Wow – I never realized before that there are so many of them! I made an edit to it, making the title plural. Is there some way to make it something other than this long list of numbers? Could we use word names for them? Could we group them functionally? --Tryptofish (talk) 16:27, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
I don't see how one could make it anything other than numbers without defeating the purpose. One could fantasize about including miniature versions of the clickable maps (see Brodmann area), but I don't actually see how to do that in a reasonable way. There is the alternative von Economo scheme, using names like V1, V2, TE, etc, but I don't think it would make sense to combine the two. Looie496 (talk) 18:20, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for editing and commenting! Certainly, this long list style is not easy to understand for new learners, but functionalities and its anatomical connectivities are hot research subjects on going. So dividing these areas into some categories is, i think, difficult. Perhaps this commons page (commons:Brodmann_areas) can provide alternative way to understanding. There are no clickable maps, but imagestack is available. How about adding link to commons:Brodmann areas somewhere on this template ?--Was a bee (talk) 07:26, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Other than misspelling Korsakoff as "Karsakoff" (which I've fixed), I think basically they've improved the article. It's still no better than Start class, but it's a higher level of Start class, if that means anything. Looie496 (talk) 17:19, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Would anyone be interested in helping create a list of potential topics for the Fall (and potentially Summer) round of this class? That way we can target need instead of getting questionable articles. I know Category:Stub-Class neuroscience articles and Category:Stub-Class neurology articles exist. Are there any other lists that could be useful? Identifying stub/start class articles that are in need of cleanup and get lots of hits and/or have high importance would be great. Biosthmors (talk) 20:21, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
There is also User:Skysmith/Missing topics about Neurology, but I don't know how up-to-date it is. I don't mean what I'm going to say to sound unwelcoming, but it kind of seems to me that identifying good topics, and especially avoiding questionable topics, is part of the learning experience for the class, and is something where the instructor ought to carry a lot of responsibility. But I think it's fine to start from those categories, and I definitely don't want to discourage anyone else from saying here that such-and-such would be topics that would benefit from student work. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:54, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
As long as redirects exist for whichever version is unused, I personally don't care one way or the other -- so go ahead if you want to. Looie496 (talk) 16:48, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
FYI, I've made sure they all have current titles at the course page. And I've moved quite a few due to every word being capitalized today. Drafts went up today. Final version due in about a week. Biosthmors (talk) 05:57, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
That's no reason to stop you in my opinion! (An administrator can provide a copy of the version before deletion if that is what was needed for a grade.) Thanks for taking a look. Biosthmors (talk) 17:25, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
I agree. For whatever it may be worth, my opinion about class projects is that we should treat them the same as other editing on Wikipedia, no better, no worse. No better: the same policies and guidelines apply as everywhere else. If it means AfD, so be it; the class does not WP:OWN the page. No worse: WP:BITE also applies, so I make a strong effort to explain helpfully whatever I think needs explaining – once! Sometimes, the students' response is very, well, responsive, and it ends up being a good experience for them and for me. Other times, not so much. Something that has been a pet peeve of mine is that I have had a couple of experiences when I've contacted the course instructor about something that concerned me, and I've been pretty much blown off. Although I like it when class projects bring young new editors to Wikipedia, I hate it when instructors think Wikipedia is a place to dump students so the instructor doesn't have to try hard to teach anything. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:12, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Well in this scenario I've had good communication with the Professor online thus far so hopefully it can develop into a positive outlier. I'm hoping to improve upon the process. Biosthmors (talk) 05:14, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Thank you (and Randykitty) for chipping in. I had sensed that most of the references cited don't really support the article content, but being a non-expert, I was afraid that I'd end up unfairly biting a newcomer. Can you also have a look at Man~Machine Dilemma, yet another article created by the same user? And perhaps drop a note on the creator's talk page about why these articles are not suitable for Wikipedia? utcursch | talk14:42, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
fMRS article is a new article which is related to neuroscience. Should there be a Neuroscience project template on the talk page? What else should be done? Thanks. Dcdace (talk) 12:16, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Over the last few months a biology class has made a real mess of this article. I'm considering just undoing all the edits of the last few months, rolling things back to things as of Nov 2012 but I wanted to get input from this wikiproject first. I know that it's not explicitly a WP:Neuroscience page, but I figured it might still fall under your purview. I will also post on the Neurology Task force of WP:MED and probably on the education project page as well.
Does anyone have a contact with the class that was doing this?
I'm in favor of rolling back to Nov 12 and see if there are parts in the present version that can be copied into the article. Lova Falktalk10:20, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Oh no, not another class! I know the intent is good and the idea is sound in principle. However, all too often these students are "guided" by professors and campus ambassadors who have only limited (or no) experience with WP themselves and a lot of the time, they do more damage than good. I have reverted to the old version, anyone interested in seeing whether there is anything useful in the material added by those students can have a look in the article history. --Randykitty (talk) 10:32, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
And this ludicrous edit summary: "I am a biology student and is currently studying this topic area as a project. Can you please hold it off til late December to delete or make any changes since my Professor needs to view and grade it. Please and Thank you"... Lova Falktalk10:58, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
As someone who is starting to become involved with a pilot project using WP in a course, I am sensitive to your concerns. Over time I have gotten the sense that not only is supervision important, but it may also be that there is too much emphasis by course directors on contributions in the form of additional text. One of the student editors on this article in fact made some edit summary comments that were quite telling along these lines, that they were being graded and please refrain from reverting their edits etc. This seems exactly the wrong way to go about things. It seems to me that because identification of weak spots in an article and the removal of extraneous information are both just as useful, perhaps moreso than simple addition of text, and because contributions seem so often to line up in people's minds with additions, we might do better with emphasizing the assessment and removal aspects of editing to new editors and courses. This might be a comment better intended for the education project pages, but I would be interested in hearing the thoughts of folks here, since as I understand it one of the professional neuroscience societies has endorsed wp editing as an educational activity. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 11:00, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Honestly, I think this is a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Yes, it was somewhat sloppily done and could use some serious reformatting, but the additions were overall accurate and useful. I'm reverting this deletion, and I'll try to take a whack at reformatting later. It's always better to have the information there in some form, even if a bit "wall-of-text" at the moment. HCA (talk) 20:56, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm certainly interested, but my knowledge in that area is pretty sketchy. If somebody with real expertise could set up the framework of the article properly, I might be able to contribute to sections of it. Looie496 (talk) 17:58, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Noted. Please feel free to make notes for the benefit of WikiProject Neuroscience there, as this course page can be used to show the same professor at a later date what problems to avoid. I assume the class will go at it again in Fall 2013. Biosthmors (talk) 16:54, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
I probably took more words than necessary to explain why he should not be editing the article, but I also went on to surmise why Wikipedia's coverage of scholarly journals is likely to be a challenge. I'll drop my comments in a collapsed box below.
I hope someone in this Wikiproject might have interest in talking a look at the article, and improving it.
My thoughts regarding articles on scholarly journals
padding
As a former editor of a professional journal, I can sympathize with your concerns. I agree with your observation that "scholarly assistance is something sorely needed at wikipedia". On the one hand we do have some success stories, on the other hand, there are major gaps.
If I may ramble a moment, the interaction between Wikipedia and scholars is an uneasy one. Within scholarly communities, expertise is highly valued. While ultimately, science triumphs, whether done by a Nobel Laureate or a high school student, one generally know who one is more likely to believe if one of them makes an interesting claim and the other disagrees. Wikipedia, deliberately, and somewhat proudly, takes a different approach, believing that the cv of the person making the statement is irrelevant. That approach can be taken to absurd extremes.
However, the nature of the landscapes are different. Scholars, almost by definition, are pushing boundaries, trying to find new ideas, new relationships, new concepts, new theories of explanation. Wikipedia, in contrast, deliberately eschews the cutting edge, not ashamedly, but deliberately. Almost every day, someone wants to use the high profile of Wikipedia to announce some new discovery. Such attempts are universally removed. Our goal is to be a repository of the body of knowledge that is known, not to push the boundaries. While no serious researcher would ever contemplate using Wikipedia to announce a new finding, this isn't something we miss, it is something we want to avoid. We believe new ideas should be posted in established journals, where experts can review the claims, and accept the paper only if it meets their rigorous standards.
Wikipedia relies heavily on the existence of scholarly journals. If someone wants to add a relatively new concept to an article, we want to see that the concept has been through the fire of peer-review. While many of our editors would not be qualified to sit on a peer-review panel, that expertise isn't needed. We need the ability to read a scholarly paper, and determine whether a statement in an article is supported by the paper, but that level of expertise doesn't require a doctorate in the subject matter. (Of course, for some subjects, familiarity with the subject matter is helpful. I do know which editor to contact when there is a medical question, for example.)
Sorry, that was more of a ramble than I intended, but it provides a backdrop for what otherwise might be a puzzling position of Wikipedia.
That strong guiding principle means we do not want editors working on an article when they are "too close" to the subject, because we believe they will, even if not deliberately, unconsciously write in a way that is more positive about a subject than we feel is appropriate for an encyclopedia. This creates a challenge in a number of areas, and scholarly journals is one such area.
Obviously, the managing editor of a journal is highly knowledgeable about the journal, almost certainly more knowledgeable than anyone else. However, because of our Conflict of interest guideline:
http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Coi
We would prefer that the managing editor of a journal not directly edit the article. We believe the publisher is in a similar position. When it comes to an article about Apple Computers, we don't want the CEO to edit the article, but there is no shortage of editors interested in the company. With a scholarly journal, there are fewer editors who are independent of the journal, yet have an interest in writing about the journal. Second, we want independent references to support claims in the article. Peer-reviewed Journals don't often write about their competition, and the New York Times doesn't often find a professional journal to be a likely subject for an article (except when there are problems), so we have the dual problems of not enough editors independent of the journal, and not enough references for editors to use.
I'll also make a specific point about the content you added. When you use a phrase such as "revolutionary advances being made in the application of the computer to..." it raises a red flag to a reviewer. We would never permit such a phrase by an editor, and can only use such phrasing if it can be found in independent references. Even then, if there is a simple reference with such a characterization, it would probably be reverted. While you are no doubt proud of the journal, and certain that the phrasing is accurate, it isn't the type of phrasing we like to use. I haven't spoken to the editor who cut back the article to a bare stub, but I feel fairly certain that this and some other phrases triggered the decision.
Finally, I will reach out to an editor who does a lot of work related to medical articles to see is she would be willing to help. I can't promise anything, as she is overworked, but I can ask.
List of most needed (or more desired to be expanded) neuroscience articles?
It seems that Neuroscience professors like assigning students to write entries from scratch (or from stubs). I'm not convinced this is the assignment design that is optimal (see WP:ENB), but if this pattern continues, does the project want to maintain a list at the project page, even if it is only 5 to 10 articles (but maybe up to 50 or 100)? Biosthmors (talk) 19:41, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
It's actually much better if these students work on obscure articles, as they are generally clueless and generally looking to do the minimum possible amount of work. The articles that need work the most, in my opinion, are insomnia, human brain, cerebral cortex, and basal ganglia; but those are not appropriate topics for beginners to work on. Looie496 (talk) 22:53, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
New editor User:Maweiss created a subsection called Side effects on the brain. Now, apart from using a lot of primary sources, the section only reports detrimental effects, and I would like to ask you: do you know if that is a neutral description of our knowledge about ADHD medication? Lova Falktalk16:15, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Given that ADHD medications consist of psychostimulants resembling amphetamine or cocaine, which have very well known negative effects when taken by people without ADHD, it wouldn't be surprising if there were some negative side effects even in people with ADHD -- but it's not an area I have any expertise in, unfortunately. Looie496 (talk) 21:50, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm closer to that literature, and after a quick look there, I think the problem has less to do with the emphasis on adverse effects (after all, the page section is about side effects, which typically are adverse, and Looie is right that this is a class of drugs with a ton of them), than with an extended narrative about the findings in a small number of primary sources. I generally don't like to see multi-sentence summaries of single primary scientific studies, unless the study is a true classic. I think the thing to do is to prune it down to one summary sentence per source, rather than an undue blow-by-blow of every result in the paper. Do that, and the tone will quickly get better. I don't have time now, but leave a note here if you want me to go back to that page later. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:36, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Brain training in sports
Seem to be increasing references to Brain fitness in sports, eg Gail Fay Sports: The Ultimate Teen Guide 2012 "Answering yes to one or more means you—like thousands of other high school and college athletes—could benefit from a little brain training. Sports psychologists like Dr. Goldberg agree that mental toughness is just as important as physical ..." Anyway, whatever the answer to that question, not sure whether Michel Bruyninckx requires a tag from this project? In ictu oculi (talk) 06:07, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
This article could use another eye or two -- an IP editor has replaced material that I reverted because I don't believe it meets Wikipedia's sourcing standards. (It has other issues as well.) Since I have already reverted once, I am reluctant to revert the same material again without input from other editors. Looie496 (talk) 23:48, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
I've noticed that the Neurogenesis wiki page needs some love. Considering how long it looks like it has been abandoned, and that parts of it look like they may have been part of a project for a class, my guess is that it is going to take a serious review of more current literature in order to get it up and running. In fact, there are sections that may be better off being deleted entirely until they are improved. I'm willing to try and spruce up where I can, but I wanted to consult the neuroscience project wiki before I did anything drastic.Serotonick (talk) 02:00, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
It certainly does need some love. The biggest issue is that the article currently is almost entirely about adult neurogenesis, and hardly at all about neurogenesis during development. Even for adult neurogenesis the content is by no means encyclopedic. Anyway, expertise on that topic is in short supply around here, and you should feel free to make any improvements that seem appropriate to you. Looie496 (talk) 02:58, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
It looks to me like the AfD is on its way to "delete", which is the right outcome given the lack of reputable sources cited. The LaBerge article looks pretty decent to me. His ideas about the value of lucid dreaming are not widely accepted, but his evidence that the phenomenon exists is academically respectable, I think. (I've had a number of lucid dreams myself, so my level of skepticism is probably not as high as some people's.) Looie496 (talk) 16:52, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Nucleus raphe versus nucleus raphes
Dear readers,
A few Latin expressions can be found in neuroanatomical articles, such as nucleus raphe obscurus, nucleus raphe pallidus and nucleus raphe magnus. I changed that in Wikipedia to nucleus raphes obscurus, nucleus raphes pallidus and nucleus raphes magnus. The official list of anatomic names , the Terminologia Anatomica dictates the spelling with raphes and not with raphe when written within a Latin expression. And the reason is quite clear. Raphe means seam. Raphes means 'of the seam' (=genitive). Such an expression like nucleus raphe would mean nucleus seam (=non-sense) and nucleus raphes would mean nucleus of the seam (=meaningful). Another user however questioned these revisions. as the grammatical incorrect form is more common than the official grammmatical correct form. Considering that raphe is incorrect and verboten to use in a Latin expression, as those aforementioned Latin expressions, by the Terminologia Anatomica, it would be better, to change raphe to raphes in these cases. Raphe in raphe nucleus is however not necessarily incorrect, as you could translate that expression as seam nucleus, what is actually fine, but when used within a Latin expression, then you have to use the genitive raphes. I would like to hear your opinion about this matter. Thanks in advance, with kind regards, Wimpus (talk) 15:44, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Let me note that I opened this issue on Wimpus's talk page after Wimpus changed the titles of several articles. My view is that in cases where the bulk of usage in the literature conflicts with authorities or even with logic or grammar, we should follow the literature. In this particular case, a search of Google Scholar shows that since the year 2000, instances of "nucleus raphe" outnumber instances of "nucleus raphes" by more than 20 to 1. Looie496 (talk) 16:21, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
When people without any knowledge of Latin write a scientific article and use Latin expression as part of their anatomic vocabulary, they do not pay attention to things like gender, declensions et cetera. As most neuroscientists have difficulties with declining these words properly, it woild be better to defviate from their standard usage. If you would do a search on Google books, there are still plenty of authors, using the correct grammatical form. So this officlal gammatically correct form is not that uncommon. With kind regards, Wimpus (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:42, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Looie496. Not being a Latinist myself, I have to admit that not only was I unaware of the grammatical problem with "nucleus raphe", I never even have seen "nucleus raphes"... I sympathize with Wimpus, but WP has to reflect current common usage, even if that is incorrect. Perhaps a brief remark or footnote could be placed in concerned articles commenting on the grammatically correct form. In any case, WP is not here to change/correct the world. If you want scientists to adhere to correct Latin grammar, you'll have to educate them (perhaps by contacting scientific journals and convincing them to impose correct usage - but I fear that will be a fight against windmills). --Randykitty (talk) 16:47, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments. As you would have noticed, English is not my mother tongue. That means that besides English articles I read about neuroanatomy in other languages like Dutch and German, where it is far more common to use Latin expressions (although knowledge of Latin is declining with a new generation of neuroscientists only familiar with English nomenclature). Besides that, I realy fancy reading older publications/books from famous scientists like Sherrington (English), Brodmann (German and recently received the English translation of Vergleichende Lokalisationslehre...), Wernicke (German), Kraepelin (German and English). For me, reading 'nucleus raphe' seems rather odd. And checking important atlasses/works such as the Termiologia Anatomica, or Nieuwenhuys' Human central nervous system disconfirm this usage of using raphe in its nominative instead of in the gentive case. In Paxinos' The Human Nervous System (my latest edition is unfortunaly the 2nd from 2004), the names are formulated differently like raphe magnus nucleus and raphe obscurus nucleus, thereby creating hybrids that are neither Latin nor English, although the Terminologia Anatomica uses the same approach for the English list in the second column (although these terms are actually not offfial, as has been stated in a few articles). Pluralization of these hybrids becomes complicated. With kind regard, Wimpus (talk) 17:20, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
I understand your point of view. In case there would be straight forward nomenclature, that although it has a minor grammatical mistake, everyone would use it the same way, than it is much harder to correct this common usage. But when I look at the wording of the brain regions in the title of the three references in the lemma nucleus raphes pallidus, then I can discover mulitple ways of putting words in a certainn specific seque ce, that shoud efer however in each case to the same brain structure.
1. Nucles raphe pallidus. So with the nominative case instead of the correct genitive case of raphe, i.e. raphes. By the way, the title of the article includes alpha after pars, omitted in the wikipedia reference.
2. Rostral raphe pallidus nucleus. This seems like an English construction, and not a Latin one. But why use pallidus (masculine adjective in Latin) in stead of English pallid. Rostral is however anglicized (instead of rostralis) And raphe is a noun in front of another noun, comparable to a construction as sports car.
3. Raphe pallidus. This seems like a Latin comstruction as it starts with a Latin noun followed by an Latin adjective. But the problem here is that raphe is a feminine noun and pallidus a masculine adjective. That is frankly impossible in Latin. Moreover, the midline of the brainstem is called the raphe, according to the Terminologia Anatomica,raphe medullae oblongatae in Latin and in the second column with the equivalent English expression raphe of medulla oblongata. The adjective pallidus does not refer to the raphe but to a nucleus of the raphe. In case you would mention that you have a red sports, then it is difficult to find out that you are not a shot putter for example (popular in the former Sovjet Union, hence: red), but that you are the owner of a RED sports CAR. Leaving out nucleus is therefore very complicated.
Considering these three references, with each their own way of putting the elements of the expression in a specific order and leaving or not leaving out certain elements, gives the impression that standard nomenclatorial rules are not well established. So sticking to the Terminologia Anatomica in this case would solve this issue (of chaos and non-sensical grammatical constructions). There are multiple redirects to these pages, so people accustomed to raphe pallidus will still find this page. With kind regards, Wimpus (talk) 14:24, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Dear members, Moderator KafzielComplaint Department: Please take a number reverted the moves back, but not all changes I have made in the articles itself are reverted back properly. Moreover the articles are not always consistent on nomenclature (see those three examples I mentioned in my previous post). I like to hear what kind of nomenclatorial approach you have in mind. With kind regards, Wimpus (talk) 16:59, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
So using the only international official list for anatomic nomenclature as well as numerous other sources, see Google books, as well as Dorland's medical dictionary (see Dorland's) is original research? With kind regards, Wimpus (talk) 21:27, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
As I have already made clear, I agree with Tryptofish. May I request you to please stop fighting about this? You don't have to accept that you are wrong, but please accept that your position has no support from other editors and cannot win. (Basically the same thing is happening at WT:MED.) Looie496 (talk) 21:52, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Ok, I wish all members good luck. With kind regards, Wimpus (talk) 21
59, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
I think that User:Wimpus has made some points about the problems with terminology, and I appreciate his/her general will-to-argument. On the other hand, pulling WP:VNT or WP:OR is rather generic – the claim that most literature shows one usage and not another would be OR in any case, as the literature in question does not make any explicit claims about their own use of terminology.
The editors of an encyclopedia necessarily have some autonomy, and thus obligation to justify their decisions: as an editor I think that I should either make some kind of ad hoc-argument (the terms are not quotations from another language, and a terminology is always established pragmatically), or to point out a specifically relevant guideline or policy (WP:CK and WP:MEDMOS#Naming_conventions). If there is a lack of a specific guideline or policy, an existing consensus could be taken to establish one that is more precise, sensible or useful.
Since I was the one who linked VNT and OR, I figure I should reply to that. You make a valid point, and I'll try to remember it, thanks. But I said what I said in the context of the replies by Looie and Randykitty that had come before mine; they had already explained the specifics and I didn't need to repeat what they had said, so I provided some policy and essay links that, in fact, I think are applicable and helpful. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:25, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
I replied there, and it would be good if some more editors would too, because it really does need help (to put it mildly). --Tryptofish (talk) 21:12, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
I just reverted an IP edit to this article on the grounds that it was unsourced and probably unsourceable -- i. e., pure OR. The editor has reverted back, saying dont need a reference, it is self explanatory. I think this is a pretty clear case, but since it is my policy never to get into one-vs-one edit wars, I am bringing the matter up here in hopes that somebody else might take a look at it. Looie496 (talk) 17:31, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Of course you're right about this. I reverted the IP, but didn't keep the page on my watchlist (which is way too long anyway :-). Ping me if this becomes a problem and you need help. --Randykitty (talk) 19:06, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
I believe this is most commonly referred to as the "default mode network" or "default mode." Would anyone object if I made Default mode network the main article and redirected Default network to it? (Currently Default mode network redirects to Default network.) Thanks. TimidGuy (talk) 10:48, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
A Google Scholar search indicates that you're right that "default mode network" is more common than "default network", but only by about 3 to 2 -- the difference is larger if you only look at articles published in the last year. So it would be reasonable to make that change, but I don't think the validity of our article depends on it. Looie496 (talk) 15:33, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
I think this is a reasonable idea, in that the longer name is actually more descriptive of what the page ends up being about. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:24, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
There is currently an open RfC at Foreign Accent Syndrome, looking for comments about what to do about the growing list of cases that has been included in the article. If there are any interested editors, we would like to invite your comments and suggestions on this matter. 0x0077BE (talk) 20:25, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.
If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.
Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.
I noticed that Substantia gelatinosa is a DAB page, that lists two pages within it. However, the two pages actually seem to be about two parts (central and dorsal) of what is pretty much the same thing, that could reasonably be covered on a single page. What do other editors think? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:27, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm planning to do it. Unfortunately, I've been falling behind in getting things done lately, because I've become very involved in some complicated stuff at some non-neuro pages. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:56, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Neural coding
Hello all. I'm a member of WikiProject:Medicine and I'm in the process of cleaning up old articles to be merged. I have come across this article: neural coding, which has been suggested to be merged for over 3 years. The contents are way over my head, and I'd value some input (or better, action!) as to what should be done: merging these articles or removing the tag. LT90001 (talk) 11:12, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
With embarrassment (see just above), I have to say that it was I who proposed the merge, and I still intend to do it. Please don't remove the tag. I'm pretty clear on the contents and source material, so I'm capable of doing it (although I certainly would be happy for anyone else to help), and I still believe that it ought to get done. I think about it from time to time, and feel a bit guilty about leaving it for so long (oh, well, WP:There is no deadline). I'm just stretched too thin, but I intend to do it when I have enough time. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:00, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure what to suggest, other than starting the merges yourself. For at least another week, I'm likely to be so neck-deep in a dispute about some non-neuro pages that I won't be inclined to do much myself, but I do appreciate your offer. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:45, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
My name is Jenna Fair. I have two questions. The first being a logistical question. When I first created the title for my wiki page in my sandbox, I didn't know that the convention was to only capitalize the first word. Now that I know what to correct, I can't figure out how to correctly change it to lowercase letters while still being able to access my page. If anyone could help me with that, that'd be great. Additionally, I noticed that someone thought that "Lower limb neuromechanics" didn't warrant its own page, but would rather be part of another page. Would it be more appropriate to address the topic of neuromechanics as an entity (i.e., wiki page title "Neuromechanics")? There are currently pages devoted to neuromechanics of XXX which is why I thought it was appropriate, but the information I have gathered so far could be applied to neuromechanics in a general sense, and there is no page devoted to the newly-growing topic. I appreciate any feedback you have!
Jenna Fair (talk) 03:13, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
You can use the "Move" tab at the top of the page to do that -- it will allow you to change the title without altering the contents. Hopefully it is self-explanatory, but if you need help please ask. Regarding appropriateness, other people might have different opinions, but as far as I'm concerned if the article is well-written and supported by good sources, you can go ahead and create it -- after your class is over it can be merged into a different article if there is a consensus that that would be a good thing to do. Looie496 (talk) 03:48, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Incoming students
Students—there is a section below where you can ask questions.
This is a great idea for a class and I wish all the students the best in their studies and thank them and their instructor for interest in Wikipedia; their contributions have the capacity to provide accessible knowledge for many people. However some articles may contain content already found in some other articles. I've copied the list so any other Wikipedians can feel free to make a change or notes as they see fit. LT90001 (talk) 10:57, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Let me just note that this professor has done Wikipedia projects a couple of times before, and they haven't worked out too badly. I won't say that the resulting articles were wonderful, but most of them weren't disasters. Looie496 (talk) 15:04, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. There were only ~4 abject failures from the class that I can remember in 2012. See User:Biosthmors/Intro Neuro if you're curious. In one case a student requested deletion months later because I presume it was found out they did a poor job and it was connected to their real name. In another case we wasted a lot of volunteer time from User:SandyGeorgia who had to clean up plagiarism (if I remember correctly) and WP:MEDRS violations. Cerebral malaria was a failure and was redirected to malaria. One student wrote an article on a book as if it were factual, which resulted in an unnecessary and preventable AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brain-disabling psychiatric medical treatment. I had high hopes for the cerebral malaria article as I was working on malaria at the time, but it was a disaster. And the student never engaged. So that's maybe 4 out of over 80. But is it too much to ask for 0 failures this year? And maybe time will tell that more turn up that way from 2012. But an abject failure (which are a net negative for Wikipedia readers) for a student still probably translates into partial credit for a student. And I've also directed the course page to link to this thread, so students (please don't be intimidated! Welcome to Wikipedia, please take your assignment seriously and don't screw it up!) can ask questions below as well. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 15:25, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping, Bios ... Ah, yes, the never-ending fascination with obscure tic-related topics like palilalia, coprolalia, echopraxia, echolalia, Latah, and so many more that hit my watchlist. Ok, this term, it would be helpful for me to know in advance which TS, OCD, autism-related articles a class is going to target, so that I can guide them to optimal sources from the outset, and not have to just clean up after the fact. But, I see this class is set up somewhere (Education Program) that does not allow me to watchlist it, so in order to know what articles are included, must I remember to continue to check back there to see what they are going to target this term? Or is there a date by which all of their topics will be set, and I can suggest proper sourcing to individual students? Has the professor done anything in terms of MEDRS education? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:19, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, watchlisted (don't know why the main page can't be watched ... weird new developments in here :) :) Placing banners on talk would be most helpful! I would love to have the opportunity to guide students to correct sourcing before they put in a lot of work (although I still don't know why the profs don't do that). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:47, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
About the watchlisting, that puzzled me too, but I found that there is a button near the upper left of the main class page called "Watch this course" (just under "Enroll") that is equivalent to the normal watchlisting process. (I'll ask Sage about that at the ed noticeboard.) I've now got both pages watchlisted. Most of the edits on the main page are students enrolling, so the timeline page may be more useful for non-student editors. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:32, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
The students can expand stubs. If you know know of a topic that falls under the rubric of neuroscience and is short pick it out and place it below. That way we can get better topic selection. We did get olfactory ensheathing glia written last semester when olfactory ensheathing cells existed. Supreme facepalm of destinyBiosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 15:30, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
All articles to be created
These titles are all the proper case (lowercase except for the first word) for article titles
Agreed. Or why not the whole parent, interneuron? It's a good topic that could be used as assigned reading if the student does a good job. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 18:13, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Cholinergic neuron there is certainly be an article that already covers this topic.
This article already exists (why does the professor not educate the students on WP:MSH and uppercase?). Is there any reason for a sub-article? The current article is short. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:24, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Perisynaptic, or terminal, Schwann cells are already mentioned at Schwann cell#Schwann cell lineage, but a big development of the topic there may unbalance the article. There exist papers on these cells, eg, [4]] and [5]. I guess where to place the content depends on how far the student wants to develop the topic. --Mark viking (talk) 13:36, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
My name is Monet Roberts. Thank you so much for your comment. I am aware that this topic might be similar, but what differentiates my topic from the existing article is that I have decided to alter my title a little bit to focus on writing about the neuroanatomy of intimacy. What I have seen on the existing pages regarding this topic is a brief summation of a few anatomical structures, but there are more components of the brain that contribute to intimacy. If there is any more feedback that you can offer,I would love talk at length about this on my talk page.Ladeidramonetroberts (talk) 18:42, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Please let me make two suggestions to all of the students in the class:
The article titles must be written with words after the first word not capitalized (except for words that are always capitalized, like a person's name). Thus, for example, "Neural Control of Limb Stiffness" is wrong, and "Neural control of limb stiffness" would be the correct capitalization.
It's very important that you look around for existing Wikipedia articles that already cover topics similar to the one that you are working on. That's because, if you start an article that duplicates an article we already have, but under a slightly different title, you are going to find that someone will come along partway through your class and delete much of your work, transferring the rest into the existing page. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:56, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Need a topic? Unsure about one? Think you're sure, but you want to double check? Ask below
For general Wikipedia questions, ask a question at the WP:Teahouse (click on "Do you have a Question about editing" and ask, otherwise, shoot below)
From an email by Biosthmors:
That's our sourcing guideline for biomedical topics. Unfortunately, I don't think your topic is going to be suitable for a new article in the 'pedia. But maybe there's enough secondary sources for a stand-alone article. If you'd like help, please see the course page, where there are details on how to ask for help with topic selection. You should also be receiving an email from Imran about some useful links/info. But I need to write it first!
My current topic is stem cell and gene therapies for treating epilepsy. You mentioned this this would most likely not be suitable for a new article in 'pedia, but there might be enough secondary sources for a stand-alone article. Can you explain what a stand-alone article is in relation to a wikipedia article and if this would be sufficient for the wikipedia assignment? AlexLee90 (talk) 21:27, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
The short answer is I don't think it's a good topic for an individual/stand-alone Wikipedia article. I wouldn't want anyone to try to write that article. Details about why I don't think that's a good idea are below. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 22:25, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Hello Alex Lee, thanks for asking here, so everyone can see it. What I'm saying is this: for biomedical information (like which therapies are used, which ones are under investigation, etc.) we use the guideline with the Wikipedia shortcut of WP:MEDRS. Read what's inside the nutshell there. The topic of stem cell and gene therapies for treating epilepsy is interesting and cutting edge, but if you'll notice at medical articles, such as DVT, malaria, or dengue fever we have research sections, such as Malaria#Research, Dengue_fever#Research, or DVT#Research_directions (per Wikipedia:MEDMOS#Diseases_or_disorders_or_syndromes). But none of those three sections are long enough to WP:SPLIT off into a separate article. (The exception here is malaria vaccine, which is a big deal.) So if you read those three sections, you'll get a feel for what an encyclopedic medical article here should be like. It's very top level. We're an encyclopedia, which is a teritary source. We summarize bodies of knowledge. What you're proposing is more of a paper that might be published in a neuroscience journal, but would quickly go out-of-date. That's not what an encyclopedia is for. User:Colin has done work on epilepsy topics before. He might know of some protein or some something that relates to epilepsy that you might be able to write an article about. Futhermore, I don't know if the treatments you're describing are really in clincial use. If they are, then they would go at Epilepsy#Management before one would start a new article. Or, if they were investigational, then they would go in a (now non-existent) Epilepsy#Research section (if you have secondary sources for them, like review articles). Does Professor Potter allow you to work on 2 different articles to meet the 15,000 byte expansion limit? I hope that helps explain things a bit when it comes to how we write disease articles here on Wikipedia. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 22:06, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hi Alex. I'm not sure what Biosthmors meant, and I cannot speak for him, but here is my take on your question. Please take a look at Epilepsy#Other and Stem cell therapy#Potential treatments. Those are places in existing articles where the kinds of information you are starting to write about would fit in quite well. In contrast, I think it may be difficult to make a case for a standalone page devoted specifically to "Stem cell and gene therapies for treating epilepsy". Therefore, it may make better sense for you to expand those sections of those two pages, instead of creating a new page. Also, WP:MEDMOS puts some restrictions on what Wikipedia can and cannot say to our readers about potential medical treatments, and the most important point here is that we must not mislead our readers into thinking an experimental treatment is clinically useful if it is still in the early testing stages. I hope that helps. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:14, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Where you said that there are enough sources for a standalone page, when you seemed to be arguing against having a standalone page. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:49, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps you could start a pathophysiology of epilepsy article off the the content inside Epilepsy#Pathophysiology by expanding it, and then summarizing the article you write inside the Epilepsy#Pathophysiology section per WP:SS and then linking to the main article with {{Main article}}. Maybe Dr. Potter could give you credit for working on both articles. As you can see at DVT#Pathophysiology, there are a variety of sources I was able to use, and I could make it longer. Also, if you cite things like I describe at WP:BIOSCITE, which describes the standard style we use here, with the {{cite journal}} format (see also WP:MEDHOW for another method), it will increase your byte count if you use as many different sources as you can. And if you cite each sentence (especially if you cite each sentence with a new source). Best. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 22:22, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your response and recommendations. I will attempt to expound on the pathophysiology on Epilepsy section. Would it be acceptable to rewrite the pathophysiology section for the most part while incorporating some of the information that is already in the article? I noticed there were only 3 citations and the content was more of an overview. Also, is there a way to check the size of the content I am adding to the article? 24.197.149.234 (talk) 00:41, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
I would rewrite the section and re-source the section, start a new article (you should be able to get credit for all of this) and then also tidy up the parent section of the epilepsy article to summarize your article there per WP:SS. I would think Professor Potter would give you the entire credit for the byte count of the new patho article if you write it in your own words with new sources. You can do this in your sandbox then click "View history" to get a byte count. Best. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 09:25, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Brian, I recently had an interview with my field expert and consulted with Dr. Potter as well. Would it be okay for me to write an article on gene therapy for treating epilepsy where I talk about the clinical applications of gene therapy, the vectors which would be pertinent to epilepsy. and finally talk about gene therapy research currently where it is clear the studies being described are in preclinical phases? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexLee90 (talk • contribs) 18:30, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello AlexLee90. In the future you might get replies from anyone if you don't ask just one person (me). You can treat Wikipedia talk pages this way. You ideally ask out into the "ether" with questions like this. =) To answer your question, and to do so in a general sense because I do not know the literature, Wikipedia is primarily written based upon wp:secondary sources. wp:primary sources are supposed to be used sparingly and with care. So if you have an interesting study with results you'd like to cite, but it hasn't been cited by any other papers, then there are 0 secondary sources for that material and it is probably best if Wikipedia didn't use it. If you have 5 papers that cite that paper and you can restate everything about that study in just one paragraph (by simply citing the 5 papers that cite it) then you might be left with a paragraph of material. That paragraph is considered much more "encyclopedic" than trying to pull out a paragraph yourself from a paper that has been cited 0 times. However, for the purposes of the encyclopedia, you might just summarize a secondary source down to one sentence and then cite one secondary source and the primary source, if you'd like. That's a nice strategy. Applying this new knowledge and also the fact that biomedical information should be based off of WP:MEDRS and we are not a WP:CRYSTALBALL thus Wikipedia:Medmos#Diseases_or_disorders_or_syndromes states "Research directions: Include only if addressed by significant sources. See Trivia, and avoid useless statements like 'More research is needed'. Wikipedia is not a directory of clinical trials or researchers." What do you think about your literature and proposal now that you can see the gist of how to write an encyclopedia about this sort of stuff now? Best regards. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 14:59, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
I tried to convert my Wikipedia article over this morning using the instructions located on Wikipedia, and something went wrong. Upon searching for my new article on Wikipedia, the search directs me to a user page titled "User:Jenna Fair\Neuromechanics blank page" which has already been redirected from "Neuromechanics" and redirects to "User talk:Jenna Fair\Neuromechanics" which redirects to "User:Jenna Fair" where you can click on "/Neuromechanics" which just takes you to my sandbox page. Upon trying again to move my article over to Wikipedia, it now says that their is an article already titled that, but I know that there is no article titled that as I have searched Wikipedia multiple times and the only search result is the problem that I discussed above. My project needs to be converted by 7pm tomorrow. I have already requested deletes for the "false" pages, but I'm not sure how to properly convert my article now and if I will even be able to. Any help/advice would be appreciated. Jenna Fair (talk) 17:25, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
I think I am having a similar problem. Last night I attempted to move my article "Aqueductal stenosis" into Wikipedia. Today when I search for it, it says "redirected from User:Anna Tadsen/Aqueductal Stenosis" and I feel like this isn't how it should be. What should I do to fix this?Anna Tadsen (talk) 19:14, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
You actually aren't having any problem -- you created aqueductal stenosis correctly by moving the contents of your personal version there. The old name still exists as a "redirect" to the article, but there is nothing wrong with that. You could ask for the old name to be deleted, but that wouldn't accomplish anything useful. In short, as far as I can tell there is nothing that needs fixing (other than that the article could use some editing). Looie496 (talk) 01:05, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Dear WikiProject: I think the evaluative diversity article is related to cognitive science. Some parts of it are relevant to philosophy, but some really don't fit outside neuroscience. Could someone from this WikiProject please help with peer review (at least of parts)? Langchri (talk) 02:25, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Border cell
Boundary Vector/Boundary/Border cells are spatial cells found in the hippocampal formation which are taking on increased significance as they are linked to properties of the better known Place and grid cells. The current page is a stub which could readily be extended. I feel inhibited about doing so as I had some involvement in the predictions which led to their discovery. Instead I've added a long comment to the talk page. I think the topic should be upgraded from low importance. HartleyTom (talk) 16:38, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Expert help needed!
The section Antisocial_personality_disorder#Hormones_and_neurotransmitters feels very shakey. It was basically only about serotonines, so I added some text about serotonine and cortisol. However, I feel I'm out of my depth with this section. An article is used as a source that in its summary says: Trait aggression was significantly higher in the combinations “high T + high cortisol responses” (indicating decreased 5-HT availability), and “low T + low cortisol responses” (indicating increased 5-HT availability), after S-citalopram. Now I can copyedit these words but it doesn't make any sense to me - especially as I thought cortisol counteracts testosterone, so I would expect most trait aggression in the high T and low cortisol responses, and the least trait aggression in the low T and high cortisol responses. Now obviously this is not the case - showing that I don't get it. Could any of you with more insight into this copyedit the text so it becomes clear not for all of us who are not neuroscientists? Lova Falktalk16:06, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
I've archived some inactive threads to subsections which were notifications about discussions that have since been closed. — Cirt (talk) 18:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm taking a look at it. And just noting for the record that I became aware of it from a see-also on a page I watch, before I saw the note here. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:34, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Almost forgot why I was here; I'm currently working on a major restructuring and rewrite of the article, and wish to get it to at least B-class, but hopefully even higher. That way we can apply for DYK. If anyone is interested in helping out there is a draft version over here: User:CFCF/sandbox/Cranial nerve. Feel free to contribute to the sandbox article. CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 12:03, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Popular pages tool update
As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).
Web tools, to replace the ones at tools:~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at toollabs:popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.
If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot (talk) (for Mr.Z-man) 05:18, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Total free access to Royal Society History of Science journals for 2 days on March 4th and 5th !!!
As Wikipedian in Residence at the Royal Society, the National Academy for the sciences of the UK, I am pleased to say that the two Royal Society History of Science journals will be fully accessible for free for 2 days on March 4th and 5th. This is in conjunction with the Women in Science Edit-a-thon on 4 March, slightly in advance of International Women's Day, on Saturday March 8th. The event is held by the Royal Society and the Royal Academy of Engineering, and is fully booked, but online participation is very welcome, and suggestions for articles relevant to the theme of "Women in Science" that need work, and topics that need coverage.
The journals will have full and free online access to all from 1am (GMT/UTC) on 4th March 2014 until 11pm (GMT/UTC) on 5th March 2014. Normally they are only free online for issues between 1 and 10 years old. They are:
The RS position is a "pilot" excercise, running between January and early July 2014. Please let me know on my talk page or the project page if you want to get involved or have suggestions. There will be further public events, as well as many for the RS's diverse audiences in the scientific community; these will be advertised first to the RS's emailing lists and Twitter feeds.
Lova Falk talk 10:58, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Supreme facepalm of destiny Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 15:30, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
But seriously, I'll work on this at Talk:Antisocial personality disorder#Hormones and neurotransmitters - expert help needed!, where you've already opened a discussion. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:13, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
