Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physiology/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Redirect to WikiProject Medicine?

Hello. Historically all WikiProjects in all fields have had trouble getting people to hang out in the discussion forums. There are perhaps 25 wikiprojects relating to health, and only about 5 of these have active forums. If it happens that this project needs a forum to back it up while it gets established, feel free to direct this talk page to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine, which is super active itself and which has people on hand who would likely help anyone interested in physiology with anything. If it comes to happen that enough people come to this WikiProject to make it stable, then the talk page could definitely be redirected back.

Physiology is an especially popular topic with students and it would be really helpful if a community could come together and support people interested in physiology, and I wish for the best with this effort, but in the past these things have been slow to become established. Thanks to those who are putting this together. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:53, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry: I feel the concern justified. To me, it seems wise to redirect it to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine. I would request you to take the initiative. DiptanshuTalk 13:15, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
There is plenty to discuss here. Physiology is a separate science that spans multiple species and is more concerned with health than with disease, so I think it might be better to have a quiet page here than having the relevant discussions drowed out on WT:MED. JFW | T@lk 14:21, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
If people are watching this page then there is no need for a redirect. Let's wait a year and see how things work. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:22, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Thank you and thanks for not closing this discussion early. Anatomy, Physiology and Medicine are all interrelated but separate disciplines and I think it is good to have them have their own space. This, in my opinion, is very useful, serving as a central point of discussion for interested editors. There is a tendency for non clinical-medicine related topics to either be ignored or fall by the wayside under WPMED, and I think it is healthy for there to be a degree of branching. --LT910001 (talk) 00:58, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Requested articles

These red-linked articles are listed at Wikipedia:Requested articles/Applied arts and sciences/Medicine#Anatomy; physiology (version of 22:55, 26 April 2014).

Editors might wish to watchlist Wikipedia:Requested articles/Applied arts and sciences/Medicine.
—Wavelength (talk) 02:09, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Resources mentioned in The Infography

From my search for physiology at The Infography, I found 38 results.

Some of those topics are beyond human physiology, but I included everything that I found, as I found it.
—Wavelength (talk) 04:12, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Subcategories

See WP:ANATOMY for this. In WP:ANATOMY, we are categorising all articles under the template as relating to gross, neuro, micro anatomy, the field of anatomy, embryology, or animal anatomy (I may have missed out one or two). This doesn't relate to the category system but is similar to task forces. The benefit is, and we have already used this several times, that these are quite independent sub-disciplines and we can easily provide lists of articles to new editors interested in a particular sub-discipline. I would like to do a similar thing here, and propose that physiology subdisciplines ought to be:

  • Basic physiology (muscle, nerve, etc.)
  • Hormones
  • Renal physiology
  • Reproductive physiology
  • The field of physiology (definitions,physiologists, etc.)

To reiterate, this system requires almost no overhead and is very useful when editing. Please feel free to add any subdisciplines to the above list, it is not comprehensive. When we've got that working, I'll implement it in the system. Cheers, --LT910001 (talk) 01:06, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Update: To avoid duplication, see the thread below. --LT910001 (talk) 04:25, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Field section of Physiology template

The Template:WikiProject Physiology has been derived from Template:WikiProject Anatomy. I think that the |field portion is redundant and should be removed. Inviting comments and appropriate action. DiptanshuTalk 04:52, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

This is a pretty useful field that's easy to maintain. The benefit is that it can quickly group together sub-disciplines, so if a new editor comes and is interested in, for example, reproductive medicine, we can easily give them a list. This is a boon for professional collaborations, image collections, and new editors. We could create a list of physiology-specific categories (see the above thread) instead. I don't think there's any harm to having the field structure, the worst outcome would be that it won't be used, but in WP:ANATOMY we've used it a couple of times already. I've opened the thread above for suggestions about physiology subdisciplines just before, above.--LT910001 (talk) 05:07, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
My only suggestion is to keep Neurophysiology, as I've used that category quite a bit. CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 05:51, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
I have re-added neurophysiology and renal physiology.--LT910001 (talk) 04:25, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Pageview stats

After a recent request, I added WikiProject Physiology to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Physiology/Popular pages.

The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. You can view more results, request a new project be added to the list, or request a configuration change for this project using the Tool Labs tool. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr.Z-man 03:08, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you again, Mr. Z-man! --LT910001 (talk) 04:40, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Project physiology coverage

I notice per this edit we now recommend physiology articles fall under here and now WPMED [3], obviously there are some exceptions. In my mind this is an important step and milestone for this project. I fully support that change and I think this is excellent. The three components of medical education and practice (WP:ANATOMY, Physiology, and WP:MED) are now represented by relatively active Wikiprojects, and I think that having them in three separate but related projects is an excellent idea. I hope that in so-doing the quality of these articles will continue to improve in the future. --LT910001 (talk) 06:59, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Scope

According to the Project page this is the scope of this project:This particular project supports all articles on Human physiology. However the link takes me to human body, which is parented by Category:Human physiology, which as soon as I start drilling down in contains, for example, Category:Fermentation, which to me at least is not related to human physiology. In short, it seems like a mess.

How can we find articles that belong to this Project when we don't even have proper human physiology article? Any ideas? Thanks in advance, XOttawahitech (talk) 15:10, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

There are a couple of ways that these could be identified (searching for names, finding relevant templates and seeing where the link, moving through systems, using parent articles), but soon I hope a mass identification by bot will take place. That request is here: Wikipedia:Bot_requests#Resurrecting_bot_request_-_bot_to_tag_Category:Physiology_articles --LT910001 (talk) 23:19, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
@LT910001: If you use Category:Physiologists and Category:Physiology as the base you will get things like Category:Plant physiologists added to the project. Is that the intention? If so the scope statement needs to change. If not, the Project name needs to change to WikiProject Human physiology. Just my $.02 XOttawahitech (talk) 15:38, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Or, perhaps, WikiProject Mammalian physiology would be better? Are (aren't) veterinarians welcome here? --Hordaland (talk) 16:23, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing this out. I'd support a widening to mammalian physiology, and would also support whatever has consensus, as this ought to be a project-wide decision. I encourage more people to contribute regarding what this project's scope should be. --LT910001 (talk) 10:25, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I think the project name should stay at WikiProject Physiology and the focus should be human anatomy physiology. Similar to WPMED and WPANAT, "human" is implied and there is no reason for a name change here. Looking through Category:Physiology, there does not seem to be many articles specifically related to non-human physiology (with the exception of Category:Plant physiology, which is covered by Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants). Even in Category:Animal physiology, most of these articles are related/applicable to humans. I can't imagine the there are so many editors separate from Wikipedia:WikiProject Veterinary medicine that are interested in non-human physiology. That's not to say they should be excluded, but the focus should be on humans. Like WPANAT, we could have a project "field" for animal physiology, but it would only be used when an article has a section on non-human physiology but there is also content on human anatomy in the article. Regarding mammalian physiology, are there any specific articles that do not mention human physiology? I just doubt there are many articles that would not be included if the scope were truly limited to humans. And as an FYI, the categorization within Category:Physiology is currently a mess and a better hierarchy/categorization schema should be thought out. --Scott Alter (talk) 12:47, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
@Scottalter: Did you really mean to write: "the focus should be human anatomy" , or was this a typo and you meant to say human physiology? XOttawahitech (talk) 13:16, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I meant physiology. Fixed above. --Scott Alter (talk) 02:54, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
I like the idea of keeping it simply as WikiProject Physiology. Unlike some editors who may see this as related to WikiProject Medicine, I come at it as someone who, in real life, is a PhD. In my own subfield of interest, neurophysiology, there is important physiology source material all the way down the evolutionary ladder to Aplysia, Loligo, and so forth, and yet most of it is based on an intention to apply knowledge gained from non-human (even non-mammalian) species to better understanding human physiology and health. That's a long way of me saying that physiology, as a Wikipedia subject, should include all of those things within its scope. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:38, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Physiologists added to scope

Just to let everyone know I have added physiologists to the scope. I hope there are no objections? XOttawahitech (talk) 05:14, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Automatic archiving

I have added automatic archiving to this page. Threads with no responses in more than 28 days will be archived. --LT910001 (talk) 03:37, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

@LT910001:Thanks for posting -- I assume it is open to question? I personally do not like working under pressure, and may not be able to visit talk pages for over a month. Is there anyway we can extend the archiving of "inactive" threads? How do others feel about this? XOttawahitech (talk) 14:28, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Of course. There's no need to feel any pressure. As you know it's very standard for talk pages to have auto-archiving and it helps reduce the clutter if a talk page is active and full of several topics. Would you prefer 45 days? We could then decrease the archiving time if this page becomes too busy. --LT910001 (talk) 06:25, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

A small story to share

I was browsing thru the Physiology categories looking for talk pages to tag with this project's banner and happened to see a comment posted in 2007 at Category talk:Physiologists by nationality complaining that Hodgkin and Huxley were not on the list, and sure enough Andrew Huxley and Alan Lloyd Hodgkin were still not members of Category:British physiologists seven years later, and without being members of this category would not have made it as part of this project. Looks like this project has a lot of work to catch up with :-) XOttawahitech (talk) 15:07, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Ambiguous shortcut WP:Phy

While WP:Phy leads to the physiology wikiproject, WP:PHY leads to the physics wikiproject. I think that there is ample scope of confusion if this shortcut is used. I think that WP:PHYSIO is lot better. I would propose to redirect WP:Phy to the physics wikiproject. DiptanshuTalk 09:30, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I have redirected it to WikiProject Physics to avoid confusion. It is good to do at such an early stage. DiptanshuTalk 13:52, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I have created the shortcut WP:PHYSIOLOGY all in caps so that it is similar to WP:ANATOMY and WP:MED. --LT910001 (talk) 23:49, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to join

I just received an invitation to join this WikiProject on my talk page. First I would like tothank you for inviting me, but may I also provide some feedback? -- I hope no one takes it negatively.

I found the invitation to be extremely large, and had I had no interest the topic I would have dismissed it as another wp:tag bomb / wp:wall of text. I still have not had the time to read it all as it is. I believe a much better approach would be to provide a short and sweet invitation which provides a link to the "promotional" info somewhere on this wikiproject pages.

Again, thanks for the invite. XOttawahitech (talk) 15:35, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Hi-tech Ottowa. That's based off a tag that I designed for new users in Anatomy and Medicine articles (there is a separate one for each) - that's why it's large and verbose. This project is just getting started, so maybe we can adapt a shorted template for existing users from Med or Anatomy. --LT910001 (talk) 00:59, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
User Diptanshu.D has created the {{subst:WP Physiology–invite}} to address this. Thanks DD! --LT910001 (talk) 03:35, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Though I created the template that was used for inviting the people to join the Physiology workgroup, anyone can create a shorter and simpler version. I welcome anyone who might like to do it. Due to my professional engagements, I do not often remain free to do such things. Inconvenience regretted. DiptanshuTalk 10:37, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

A sort of typo?

In your invitation you've written: "Based on the long felt gap for categorization and improvization of WP:MED articles..."

Improvisation? Really?

--Hordaland (talk) 15:48, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

@Hordaland: I would welcome you to modify the template suitably. DiptanshuTalk 10:38, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't know how. I suspect it should say improvement instead of improvization. Regards, --Hordaland (talk) 12:30, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Support. This seems like the intended wording. I hereby formally invite an uninvolved fourth Wikipedian to make this change. As this is becoming quite a large discussion we may also need to discuss the possibility of an RfC to determine what the correct wording should be. --LT910001 (talk) 23:27, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Assessment table

The Assessment table has not changed in quite a while even though a lot of pages have been added to this project. Does anyone know why? XOttawahitech (talk) 13:33, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

The WP:1.0 project on the toolserver has been down. This is what creates the assessment tables. Seems like the bot owners have been notified. See WT:1.0/I, which contains (very little) discussion on the matter. --Scott Alter (talk) 00:43, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for responding. I never know what "server is down" means at Wikipedia. Does it mean it is permanently broken, someone is trying to fix it, or the third possibility is no one is doing anything about it (maybe they don't know it is broken?). Anyway, just to let you all know I posted a question about this at the Helpdesk. XOttawahitech (talk) 12:35, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Article assessment

A little to-do list regarding getting article assessment going properly: --LT910001 (talk) 01:06, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

  1.  Doing... Get all articles and subarticles in Category:Physiology and Category:Physiologists automatically tagged (bot request underway)
    Updates at Wikipedia:Bot_requests#Resurrecting_bot_request_-_bot_to_tag_Category:Physiology_articles XOttawahitech (talk) 14:11, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
  2.  Done Get assessment table organised
  3.  Done Add Physiology to 'Rater' and devise unique subdiscplines for this project (see below)
    Sorry for asking dumb questions, but what does Rater mean? XOttawahitech (talk) 14:21, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
    Ottawahitech, it's a tool to help rate articles more efficiently. Quoted from WP:ANATOMY: --LT910001 (talk) 23:30, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
    The rater tool may be enabled to more easily set and view the ratings of articles. For information about enabling this tool, see User:Kephir/gadgets/rater. This is best used in conjunction with the 'display assessment' tool enabled on preferences/gadgets.
  4.  Done Get popular pages

Tagging of 'neurophysiology' articles

There are currently four projects under which neuro articles are tagged: WP:ANATOMY#Neuroanatomy, WP:PHYSIOLOGY#Neurophysiology, WP:NEUROSCIENCE and WP:MED#Neurology. I think this is:

  • quite effort-intensive, and editors may waste colossal amounts of time co-tagging these articles with WP:PHYSIOLOGY,
  • unnecessary, with many active venues already
  • dilutes the ability to have a central group of interested editors in one place.

I think it may be productive to consider which neurophysiology articles fall under our scope.

I think we can do one of (in order of inclusivity):

  1. Remove neuro articles completely from our scope, as they are covered in entirety under WP:NEUROSCIENCE
  2. Remove the majority of neuro articles from our scope, preserving only basic physiology articles (action potential, nerve fibres in general form, etc.)
  3. Retain all neuro articles and exclude only those about anatomical structures, both peripheral and central
  4. Retain all neuro articles and exclude only those about diseases, tests, and symptoms
  5. Co-tag all neuro articles already under any of these three projects with WP:PHYSIOLOGY#Neurology

I would like to ask other editors here what they feel about this. I've proposed something similar at WP:MED, ie removing articles relating to anatomy and physiology (Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Reducing_taskforce_neurology.27s_scope). --LT910001 (talk) 22:52, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Reiterating what I just wrote on the WPMED page, this discussion should not be limited to neuro articles. Replace the word "neuro" with any other system, and you have the same dilemma (renal, cardiac, respiratory/pulmonology, etc). This project should cover all articles on physiology, and exclude articles on anatomy (#3) and disease/tests/symptoms (#4). WP:ANATOMY should cover all articles on anatomy, and exclude physiology and disease/tests/symptoms. WP:MED should cover all articles on disease/tests/symptoms, and exclude articles on anatomy and physiology. There has been some discussion between these 3 projects and it seems agreed upon not to co-tag.
Regarding neuro specifically, I'm not sure what WP:NEUROSCIENCE covers, but that's up to them to establish. If they want to co-tag {{WikiProject Neuroscience}} with one of {{WikiProject Anatomy}}, {{WikiProject Physiology}}, or {{WikiProject Medicine}}, then that's up to them. All of their articles might be co-tagged with one of the other 3, as their way to group all of the neuro articles together. That's their prerogative. Anyone from that project is more than welcome to engage in dialog with any/all of these 3 projects to better define a potential delineation in scopes. --Scott Alter (talk) 05:54, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm active at the neuroscience project, with an interest in neurophysiology. I see nothing wrong with having pages that deal with neurophysiology fall under both WikiProjects. Wikipedia has lots of pages where more than one WikiProject deals with the page. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:55, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Classification of articles

With this bot request resolved, a massive co-tagging has taken place and we now have a more reasonable stack of articles with which to edit. All articles are listed here: Category:Physiology_articles_by_topic. With a more complete scope I hope this and other measures (such as our popular pages list) can drive editing. --LT910001 (talk) 21:18, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

More physiological fields

I've added the following fields: blood, respiratory, renal, and cell. I would like to ask what users think about adding a 'sleep' field, as we have quite a lot of sleep physiology articles. --LT910001 (talk) 02:31, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Great, those are excellent addition.s Concerning sleep I think that would be something for WP:NEURO to divide up. There are also a large number of articles on memory, learning and perception and if we include a sleep category here, then we should include those as well, and I don't see any real benefit for us except more work. CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 12:18, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Location of field list?

What is the link to this list of physiological fields? Lentower (talk) 16:28, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for not documenting this, the field options are 'blood, cardiac, cell, neuro, meta, NA, respiratory, renal'. I'll get around to documenting this shortly (the reason I haven't already is this request: Wikipedia:Bot_requests#Specific_requests --LT910001 (talk) 21:06, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Update. Lentower, the list of fields, with an explanation, is here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Physiology#Topic. --LT910001 (talk) 22:22, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Scope - medical tests

Do medical tests relating to physiology fall under our scope? --LT910001 (talk) 02:32, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm inclined to suggest they do as long as there is a physiological base for doing them. A test which only tends to focus on pathology shouldn't be included. CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 12:15, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
@CFCF: @LT910001: Assuming that tests with a physiological basis can be identified and tagged, would you please specify what purpose would they serve? DiptanshuTalk 16:10, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Well the best example would be tests in exercise physiology, such as Åstrand test and other ergometric tests, that are only used on healthy individuals. Apart from that I would classify under our scope any test that would be used to test physiological function and not only pathology. For example: spirometry - yes ; bronchial challenge test - no. Thoughts? CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 17:31, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Also something like a caloric reflex test would fall under our scope because there is a clear physiological response, as opposed to the bronchial challenge test which has a quite uninteresting physiological response. CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 17:34, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Tests are a measure of physiological function, eg if we are including coagulation in our scope, do we include tests which measure coagulation? I ask because many wiki-categories relating to physiology have the tests as members. Diptanshu.D, I take it you don't think they should? I'd support a much more tighter approach as suggested by CFCF above, too. --LT910001 (talk) 22:06, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
I am neither for nor against including this category. The way the field of medicine works is 1. Physiology gives an understanding of the normal functioning of the body. 2. When that is interrupted, it is pathology, which delineates the way of malfunctioning of the body 3. Medicine gives the science and art of diagnosing and treating the ailment.
If things are working fine, in a physiological manner, there is no requirement of tests. Tests are done when something is wrong. Pathological tests may have biochemical, physiological, immunological, immunohistochemical, microbiological or any other basis. So long as they are rightly grouped under the heading of medical tests, Wikipedian editors can work on improving them. Other than that, I do not think that we are dealing with people who are so specialist that they cannot step out to improve articles of another subsection of medical tests. DiptanshuTalk 02:45, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
I understand what you mean but I have to say that testing is most definitely not only for when something is wrong. Exercise physiology is a perfect example of when it isn't. CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 11:35, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
I agree; tests are also used to measure physiological function. So they are at the threshhold between physiology & medicine. So, reading the above comments, the option with the broadest support may be "Medical tests - use discretion"? --LT910001 (talk) 22:34, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Reference ranges

Hello to all! I hope that everyone is well. I have been wondering this for some time. Many articles provide reference ranges. I don't really object or support this, however I was wondering if anyone on this project knows of any international bodies which produce general reference ranges? I would prefer if we could standardise the ranges, rather than relying on arbitrary secondary sources, which are more likely to reflect the characteristics of local populations. --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:20, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Human physiology

The scope of this project is defined on its project page as supporting "all articles on human physiology". This suggests the project excludes from its scope articles that are not primarily about human physiology, but are specifically about the physiology of animals or plants. If that is true, then would not the project be better renamed as "Project Human Physiology"? A discussion of a similar issue with WikiProject Anatomy can be found here. --Epipelagic (talk) 22:54, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Reproductive physiology

Reproductive physiology is missing from the rater tool. I think there is a sufficient body of articles that we should add this. What do you think LT910001. -- CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 23:14, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I feel it justified. DiptanshuTalk 16:34, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
I will get to this before Christmas =P. --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:21, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 Done. I have also added 'digestive' for good measure. --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:30, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Top-importance articles

I was wondering what the editors here think make up the most important physiology articles here on Wiki? I ask because we currently only have 8 'top importance' articles [4]. Setting the importance of our 'top importance' articles can help direct any interested editors and also can have ramifications for engagement with educational facilities. It would be great to hear what other editors have to say about this, and hopefully we can nominate articles for top/high importance as we go. Kind regards, --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:43, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Expert attention

This is a notice about Category:Physiology articles needing expert attention, which might be of interest to your WikiProject. It will take a while before the category is populated. Iceblock (talk) 03:02, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

FYI Category:Digestive system

I have just tagged Category:Digestive system with this project's banner. I cannot find any subcategories or articles in it that have been tagged by this project. Anyone? Ottawahitech (talk) 15:23, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Template cleanup -- help needed

I've had a look at almost all physiology-related templates now as part of a general biology-related template cleanup effort. I've identified a list of 5 physiology templates that I feel are especially in need of cleanup. Most of these need cleanup in terms of making them easier or more logical to read, or easier for lay readers to understand and use. I'd be very grateful if other editors could help out by selecting one or two and helping out. The relevant templates are:

  1. {{Hormones}} needs a general cleanup. --Tom (LT) (talk) 21:33, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  2. {{Renal physiology}} in need of some serious work on titles + wikification of contents. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:54, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  3. {{Eye and ear physiology}} unnatural to group both physiologies together, templates could be significantly expanded by themseves. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:37, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
  4. Content from {{Taste}} (physiology) duplicated in {{Gustatory system}} (anatomy), both have infobox. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:53, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

If any users could have a look (or disagree with my assessment) I'd be very grateful... I've reached a loggerheads in terms of my editing of templates. Cheers, --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:24, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:Physiology types - image comments

My first thought was also about comparative physiology...

My bold removal of an image from Template:Physiology types was reverted, and so I am seeking more opinions. My view is that the file File:Laelaps-Charles Knight-1897.jpg is arbitrarily decorative, extraneous, and does not clearly represent "physiology", rather it tangentially relates to one element in the template, Physiology of dinosaurs. I doubt most readers would intuitively associate leaping dinosaurs with comparative physiology (which is the scope of the template), and one could just as arbitrarily choose an image of fish swimming, flowers blooming, cells dividing, etc. Most physiology templates have no embedded images, and I think this is perfectly acceptable and ideal in this case, but should consensus be in support of having an image, I think one that is more representative of physiological diversity should be substituted. Examples of more representative images include comparative anatomical diagrams, or images of historic significance to the overall field of physiology, rather than dino-centric imagery, but I am still more in favor of no image. Then again, I realize that this image has been unquestioned for over 2 years, so if no one else objects, I'll let it be. Cheers. --Animalparty-- (talk) 22:02, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Why was it reverted, and by whom? I cannot help but laugh when seeing that image. As you state an image of leaping dinosaurs only relates tangentially relates to comparative physiology... I totally support removal. I've also included the image in full for demonstrative purposes. Cheers, --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:27, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
You know perfectly well who reverted it Tom, so there is no need to be so cute. It's not easy to find images with an immediate impact suggestive of physiology. Yes it is somewhat humorous. Can't have that can we? Yes of course, remove it. You might want to remove the tedious and irrelevant articles on animal physiology from the template as well, so you can claim the template for this project which is about human physiology only. --Epipelagic (talk) 09:06, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Chronobiotic -- categorization

Will someone here please take a look at the Talk page for Chronobiotic? I've just left a comment there, arguing against the current categorization. (And I don't know much about the system of categories, so don't dare touch it.) Thank you. --Hordaland (talk) 22:13, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Rat genome database listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Rat genome database to be moved to Rat Genome Database. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 16:31, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Other red cell antigens listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Other red cell antigens to be moved. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 03:15, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

How are project ratings arrived at?

I see Barbara McClintock received a ranking of top-importance at WikiProject genetics and only mid-importance here. This is an article about a woman who had received the Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine (1983). Just curious. Ottawahitech (talk) 21:10, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I believe all pages are marked as 'mid-importance' by default, some articles have been given ratings but there hasn't been a project-wide assessment. You'll find articles as trivial as 1q21.1 copy number variations and others as important as Blood volume marked as mid-importance. Feel free to change the ratings, I remember going through some articles some time ago but it's quite a time-consuming task to do. --Tilifa Ocaufa (talk) 12:20, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Human brain development timeline listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Human brain development timeline to be moved to Development of the human brain. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 07:30, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Naive T cell listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Naive T cell to be moved to Naïve T cell. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 17:00, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Give more information on what effects low concentration of t cells can have in the bodyDrowe002 (talk) 02:44, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment on Draft:Discovery and Development of Selective progesterone receptor modulators

Your comments on Draft:Discovery and Development of Selective progesterone receptor modulators are welcomed. Please use Preferences → Gadgets → Yet Another AFC Helper Script, or use {{afc comment|your comment here}} directly in the draft. Sam Sailor Talk! 11:47, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Pheromones material at the Sexual orientation article

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Sexual orientation#PNAS/pheromones material. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:34, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Error in P:O ratio definition

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/P/O_ratio 

"The Phosphate/Oxygen Ratio, or P/O Ratio, refers to the amount of ATP produced from the movement of two electrons through a defined electron transport chain, donated by reduction of an oxygen atom"

Please correct me if I am wrong, but aren't the electrons finally ACCEPTED by oxygen as it becomes reduced, not donated by oxygen? (aka oxygen is the electron acceptor, not donor)


anasus497Anasus497 (talk) 11:51, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura to be moved to Immune thrombocytopenic purpura. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 16:29, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Physical literacy

Is physical literacy within the scope of WikiProject Physiology? The article, which was created four years ago by two SPAs, has undergone more reversions than improvements [5] since, and is still an orphan. Please see the discussion at Talk:Physical literacy#Fringe theory. — Sebastian 22:49, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Proposal for adrenoreceptor sidebar

I am thinking of creating a simplified navbox/sidebar for the adrenal receptors, ie alpha receptor (1, 2) beta receptor (1, 2), as opposed to the byzantine huge navbox we have at the moment. I hope this will help the numerous readers of these articles who presumably want to know about several receptors in an easier to navigate manner. Thoughts? --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:13, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Article assessment

This project was added to Frederick Banting and not yet assessed. Could someone please take the time to make an assessment? Otr500 (talk) 15:02, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

BioRxiv support in citations

Main page: Help_talk:Citation_Style_1 § BioRxiv_support

This project's feedback would be appreciated in this discussion, as this could greatly (and positively) affect biological citations! Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:54, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Greetings WikiProject Physiology/Archive 1 Members!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about a technical proposal to revive your Popular Pages list in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

If the above proposal gets in the Top 10 based on the votes, there is a high likelihood of this bot being restored so your project will again see monthly updates of popular pages.

Further, there are over 260 proposals in all to review and vote for, across many aspects of wikis.

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 18:06, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Voice risk analysis

Voice risk analysis should not fall under this project. It is pseudoscience that has little to do physiology. For voice risk analysis, I deleted all claims that were without proper reference. It is highly similar to voice stress analysis - that is categorised as pseudoscience -, that and should best simply refer to that entry. Stringfellows (talk) 13:56, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Auto-assessment of article classes

Following a recent discussion at WP:VPR, there is consensus for an opt-in bot task that automatically assesses the class of articles based on classes listed for other project templates on the same page. In other words, if WikiProject A has evaluated an article to be C-class and WikiProject B hasn't evaluated the article at all, such a bot task would automatically evaluate the article as C-class for WikiProject B.

If you think auto-assessment might benefit this project, consider discussing it with other members here. For more information or to request an auto-assessment run, please visit User:BU RoBOT/autoassess. This is a one-time message to alert projects with over 1,000 unassessed articles to this possibility. ~ RobTalk 01:20, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Active?

Hi all, How active is this project? Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 12:10, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Assigning my undergrad class to improve Physiology wikipedia pages; Need help

Hi!,

I teach Human Physiology to juniors and seniors. The students are mostly pre-meds. I am starting an assignment where I would have groups of students working together to improve WikiProject Physiology articles. I looked at the article list and have chosen Start level articles of mid to high level importance. I will have the students go over good examples of wikipedia pages and then the articles I would like them to work on. Are there any things I need to know at the outset? This is the first time I am doing this project and I have to learn as I go but I am excited to learn something new. I was told that the students do not need any knowledge of coding. Thanks for all your help. --Ushasankar (talk) 04:29, 16 January 2017 (UTC) Ushasankar (talk) 04:29, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

@Ushasankar: Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you very much for being conscientious and asking these questions. I recommend that you read WP:Student assignments, and you may want to have your students read the section addressed to students. Also, if you have not so already, please post at WP:Education noticeboard, and ask for a staff person from the WMF to set you up with a class page and related matters, and to serve as an advisor to you and your class. Also, feel free to ask me at User talk:Tryptofish, if you have any questions for me. Happy editing! --Tryptofish (talk) 23:46, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

WikiJournal of Medicine promotion

The WikiJournal of Medicine is a free, peer reviewed academic journal which aims to provide a new mechanism for ensuring the accuracy of Wikipedia's biomedical content. We started it as a way of bridging the Wikipedia-academia gap.[3] It is also part of a WikiJournal User Group with other WikiJournals under development.[4] The journal is still starting out and not yet well known, so we are advertising ourselves to WikiProjects that might be interested.

Engaging Wikipedians

  • Original articles on topics that don't yet have a Wikipedia page, or only a stub/start
  • Wikipedia articles that you are willing to see through external peer review (either solo or as in a group, process analogous to GA / FA review)
  • Image articles, based around an important medical image or summary diagram

Engaging non-Wikipedians

We hope that an academic journal format may also encourage non-Wikipedians to contribute who would otherwise not. Therefore, please consider:

  • Printing off the advertisement poster and distribute in tearooms & noticeboards at your place of work
  • Emailing around the pdf through contact networks or mailing lists (suggested wording)

If you want to know more, we recently published an editorial describing how the journal developed.[5] Alternatively, check out the journal's About or Discussion pages.

  1. ^ http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/H/Heart.html. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  2. ^ cite web|last=BSACI|url=http://www.bsaci.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=12&Itemid=27
  3. ^ Masukume, G; Kipersztok, L; Das, D; Shafee, T; Laurent, M; Heilman, J (November 2016). "Medical journals and Wikipedia: a global health matter". The Lancet Global Health. 4 (11): e791. doi:10.1016/S2214-109X(16)30254-6. PMID 27765289.
  4. ^ "Wikiversity Journal: A new user group". The Signpost. 2016-06-15.
  5. ^ Shafee, T; Das, D; Masukume, G; Häggström, M (2017). "WikiJournal of Medicine, the first Wikipedia-integrated academic journal". WikiJournal of Medicine. 4. doi:10.15347/wjm/2017.001.

Additionally, the WikiJournal of Science is just starting up under a similar model and looking for contributors. Firstly it is seeking editors to guide submissions through external academic peer review and format accepted articles. It is also encouraging submission of articles in the same format as Wiki.J.Med. If you're interested, please come and discuss the project on the journal's talk page, or the general discussion page for the WikiJournal User group.
T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 10:33, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Proposed move of Mammalian diving reflex

A rename to either Diving reflex or Diving response has been proposed. Discuss. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 12:22, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Physiology/Archive 1/Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of WikiProject Physiology.

We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:

  • The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
  • The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
  • The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).

We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of WikiProject Physiology, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.

Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

2017 best article prize (WikiJournal of Medicine)

There are 8 weeks left to submit an article to the WikiJournal of Medicine for it to be eligible for the 2017 prize. For more information, see this advertisment from January or visit this author information page.

T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 04:23, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Anybody want to help me revive WP:Physiology?

Looking for any volunteers...open to any and all ideas on how to get some good stuff completed for us biology nerds Renaissancee (talk) 21:15, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Just do it. I work on anything related to underwater diving, which includes a moderate amount of physiological material, but I am by no means an expert. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 18:11, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
I have done a little work on the article Rapid eye movement sleep and would be grateful to anyone who wants to review it and offer suggestions. Thanks, groupuscule (talk) 05:23, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm watchlisting this project page, and may be able to respond to specific requests. I agree that it's mostly a matter of just do it. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:45, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Scientific images from WSC2017

Please take a look in here about newly uploaded scientific images on commons during Wiki Science Competitions 2017.--Alexmar983 (talk) 12:17, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

RfC: The lead sentence of the Sex article

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Sex#Which lead sentence should we go with?. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:52, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Sex determination material at the Sexual differentiation in humans article

Opinions are needed on the following: Talk:Sexual differentiation in humans#"A baby’s sex is determined at the time of conception." citing 17th edition of Harrison's. The discussion concerns how to add material such as females typically having two X chromosomes (XX), and other material. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:31, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Demographic and Societal Issues of Mental Distress in the Black Community

There has been a history of disparity and exclusion in regards to the treatment of Black Americans which consists of slavery, imprisonment in the criminal justice system, the inability to vote, marry, attend school, or own property amongst other factors. These factors have attributed to the increase of mental distress in the black community and due to the lack of resources afforded/known in the community also leads to a lack of resources and treatments available for members of the community to seek and receive some for of help.[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by RyaneAshley (talk • contribs) 06:48, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Black & African American Communities and Mental Health". Mental Health America. Mental Health America. Retrieved 19 February 2019.

A new newsletter directory is out!

A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.

– Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Human body for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Human body is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Human body until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 14:47, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Nephron

Hi guys. This article, which I think is of extreme importance, had 15 instances of the "citation needed" template. I've sat down with 3 basic books and provided citations for all of them, correcting the claims when they disagreed with the sources. How else do you reckon we can improve this key article? Dr. Vogel (talk) 15:54, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello Dr. Vogel, thank you for doing that. It doesn't seem like this WikiProject is active anymore; I only have it on my watchlist because I was waiting for a reply to a question I asked which has by now been archived without ever having been answered. But since you were asking, I took a look at the article and noticed a remark in the of the caption of the illustration, about which I'm asking a question at commons:File_talk:Kidney_Nephron.png. ◀ Sebastian 04:07, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello,
Please note that Human body, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 27 April 2020 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

I thought this would be an appropriate venue to discuss some things relating to kidney function. We have:

I am proposing something like:

The new titles will make them consistent, easier to understand for lay people (renal --> kidney, and physiology --> function), and I think have some logical boundaries between the articles.

I have unfortunately muddied the waters slightly because of my own recent moves (of content from Kidney function to Glomerular filtration rate, then of the article Kidney function to Assessment of kidney function).

Are other editors happy with my above plan? If so I'll get an admin to fix up my horrible moves to fix up page history, and then do the appropriate linking/hatnoting. Additionally other editors are invited to help improve these articles :). Ping to recently involved editors: Iztwoz, Spicy, Dicklyon, King of Hearts and DrVogel


Cheers --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:50, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Support - makes more sense --Iztwoz (talk) 06:04, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Help a newer user?

Hi! I was wondering if someone could step in and help MedHelper+ with their draft at Draft:Triangle of the vertebral artery. It's very lean as far as articles go and they're in definite need of a guiding hand as far as health article creation goes. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:12, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

@ReaderofthePack thanks for letting us know. There is also an anatomy WikiProject too. --Tom (LT) (talk) 05:18, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Merge Complete glucose breakdown into Glycolysis

Hello, I'm littleb2009.

I have proposed a merge between Complete glucose breakdown and Glycolysis. However, I am aware that Complete glucose breakdown is within the scope of WikiProject Physiology, so I wanted to bring the merge to this talk page.

Please discuss at Talk:Glycolysis#Merger proposal. I will not do the merge until more people comment for it than against it.

--littleb2009 (talk page) 20:57, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Hoffmann's reflex: video needed

Can we get a video of a Hoffmann's reflex test? The description on the article is not easy to follow. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:46, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Macfarlane Burnet Featured article review

I have nominated Macfarlane Burnet 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. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:28, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sources

Main page: User:Headbomb/unreliable

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

  • John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Electrical conduction system of the heart#Requested move 15 August 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Electrical conduction system of the heart#Requested move 15 August 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – robertsky (talk) 04:58, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Hook effect#Requested move 4 September 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Hook effect#Requested move 4 September 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – robertsky (talk) 05:01, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Under-diffused category

I have discovered that the category Category:Digestive system contains a large number of articles that need to be diffused by organ; for example, topics related to the small intestine should be migrated to Category:Small intestine. I'm not sure how to handle pages that are related to both the small and the large intestines. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 10:50, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Project-independent quality assessments

Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:44, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Dispute at Theanine

This revert was justified for several reasons discussed repeatedly on the article talk page here among which are primary research, outdated sources by 11-15 years, absence of WP:MEDRS reviews, and dubious quality of journals. Reflecktor has not addressed the deficiences of the sources raised on the talk page, but persists in edit warring to reach WP:3RR today as before seen in recent editing history.

As an analog of glutamate and rare in food, beverages or supplement products, theanine as a dietary or physiological issue is WP:UNDUE. The extraordinary claims of benefit by theanine on memory, cognition, learning, and brain chemistry require extraordinary sources, WP:EXTRAORDINARY, which do not exist. Comments welcomed. Zefr (talk) 01:25, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Input requested at Talk:Scrotum

Hey folks, as a pending changes reviewer, I just narrowly disallowed a recent edit from a new user which would have introduced a time-accelerated video of the movement of a scrotum (the media in question also added by the same user), in response to either environmental conditions or arousal, it's not clear. My initial impulse was to allow the video as at least minimally illustrative of an actual physiological process, whatever the cause. But in light of a significant history of disruption on the article in question, and because of the 'own work' nature of the video, I wanted to kick the matter to a broader consensus. However, involvement on that talk page is minimal, so I thought I would post a notice here as well. Thanks to anyone who takes a moment to look in on the matter. SnowRise let's rap 05:24, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello,
Please note that Electroencephalography, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 19 June 2023 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello,
Please note that Physiology, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 21 August 2023 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team

Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory#Request_for_comment

An editor has started an RfC about whether the announcement by the FBI and the U.S. Department of Energy that they support the COVID-19 lab leak theory should be in the lede of the COVID-19 lab leak theory article. Editors are invited to contribute. TarnishedPathtalk 09:14, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

RFC at Sex

This WikiProject has tagged Sex as being within your scope. You may be interested in Talk:Sex#RFC: Definition of Sex. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:25, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Physiology/Archive_1&oldid=1238426582"