Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
new topic (CD)
Line 107: Line 107:
:Primary source in dodgy journal, about as unreliable as it gets - especially for the claim made. [[User:Alexbrn|Alexbrn]] ([[User talk:Alexbrn|talk]]) 19:08, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
:Primary source in dodgy journal, about as unreliable as it gets - especially for the claim made. [[User:Alexbrn|Alexbrn]] ([[User talk:Alexbrn|talk]]) 19:08, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
::That would explain why almost no-one has cited it. If it's a dodgy source too... and the editor is probably not experienced at evaluating MEDRS. I've commented it out. [[User:HLHJ|HLHJ]] ([[User talk:HLHJ|talk]]) 19:19, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
::That would explain why almost no-one has cited it. If it's a dodgy source too... and the editor is probably not experienced at evaluating MEDRS. I've commented it out. [[User:HLHJ|HLHJ]] ([[User talk:HLHJ|talk]]) 19:19, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

== Relevant discussion: How should we include allegations of China undercounting COVID-19 cases and deaths ==

[[File:Symbol watching blue lashes high contrast.svg|25px|link=|alt=]]&nbsp;You are invited to join in at [[Talk:Chinese government response to COVID-19#RFC: How should we include allegations of undercounting?|Talk:Chinese government response to COVID-19 §&nbsp;RFC: How should we include allegations of undercounting?]]. —&nbsp;[[User:Shibbolethink|<span style="color: black">Shibboleth</span><span style="color: maroon">ink</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Shibbolethink|♔]]</sup> <sup>[[Special:Contributions/Shibbolethink|♕]])</sup> 13:06, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Revision as of 13:06, 20 March 2022

Skip to top
Skip to bottom

    Edit with VisualEditor

    Welcome to the WikiProject Medicine talk page. If you have comments or believe something can be improved, feel free to post. Also feel free to introduce yourself if you plan on becoming an active editor!

    We do not provide medical advice; please see a health professional.

    List of archives

    Hello friends! Long time no see. I bring to you today this small orphan: Connatal cyst. Can it be upmerged somewhere? If left standalone, where can I link it from? ♠PMC(talk) 05:13, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    There's an impenetrable article for you. Radiopedia says there are two other names: "coarctation of the lateral ventricles" and "frontal horn cysts".
    It's possible that it belongs in the list at Central nervous system cyst#Originating from the central nervous system tissue (but I'm not sure that's the right section). WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:19, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It could be linked from Lateral ventricles#Anterior horns of lateral ventricle as a normal variant, but more importantly I think that Connatal cyst should be moved to Frontal horn cyst, the more common name used on pubmed.[1] Klbrain (talk) 11:06, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry for the long delay in responding! I've moved it and linked it now, thank you both. ♠PMC(talk) 05:21, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ Chang, CL; Chiu, NC; Ho, CS; Li, ST (August 2006). "Frontal horn cysts in normal neonates". Brain & development. 28 (7): 426–30. doi:10.1016/j.braindev.2006.01.002. PMID 16503391.

    Vaccines at Wikidata

    Vaccine

    I don't know if anyone's interested in Wikidata, but there seems to be a page at d:Wikidata:WikiProject Medicine/Data models/Vaccines about how to add information correctly about vaccines. It'd be handy to have that expanded and to make other helpful pages for similar subjects. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:10, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    [1] ...vaccine information is very important--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:46, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Rockefeller University edits

    WikiProject Medicine members are invited to review my request at Talk:Rockefeller University. I'm proposing to turn a list of discoveries into a narrative (in order to adhere to Wikipedia's guidelines recommending the use of prose over bullet points) and add sources to items that currently do not have any. I welcome any suggestions to improve the proposed language. I'm an employee of Rockefeller University so I have a conflict of interest. I am happy to answer questions on the article's talk page. Thanks! KFenzRockefeller (talk) 19:44, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    you may want to add COI template on your user page, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:16, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Families USA COI edit requests

    Hi! I've posted some COI edit requests at Talk:Families USA. Sharing in case anyone here is interested in taking a look. Thank you for any help or feedback! Mary Gaulke (talk) 21:29, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    you may want to post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Organizations which is on that articles talk,--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:31, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    See also sections

    What are the current thoughts on See also sections? Comments welcome at Minoxidil "See also" section deletion.

    A quick search finds previous discussions here including Discouraging see also sections and See also section.

    --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 21:56, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Four of the five items you removed are named in the navboxes (which are invisible to about half of readers). If they're kept, it might be better to include an explanation of why they're relevant. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:15, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @WhatamIdoing: Why are they invisible to about half of readers? --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 01:49, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Because navboxes are never displayed to people using the mobile site (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minoxidil vs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minoxidil). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:46, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Sourcing discussion in village pump: "In general, are animal and in vitro studies acceptable sources to support toxicology statements?"

    There is a medical sourcing discussion related to toxicology at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#In_general,_are_animal_and_in_vitro_studies_acceptable_sources_to_support_toxicology_statements?. MarshallKe (talk) 18:47, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    UK Biobank study on meat

    Please see the section I started on the meat talk-page [2]. The Wikipedia article cites a Biobank study [3] used 475,000 men and women which is an impressive figure but the data came from questionnaires. As I understand it we usually remove primary sources from Wikipedia. The content has been added in the "health" section. In the same section is also a large cohort study. Should we be citing primary sources like this? I think they should be removed but guidance needed. Psychologist Guy (talk) 21:53, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    thanks for posting--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 03:20, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Two orphans

    Hello, like a magpie bringing shiny things, I have a pair of orphans to be evaluated: Nucleus ventralis posterior lateralis pars oralis and Subscapular aponeurosis. The usual question of merge vs. link from a parent article applies. Thank you guys in advance! ♠PMC(talk) 04:30, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    as they are anatomical articles, should probably post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Anatomy as well, --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:29, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    "Wikipedia:PCM" listed at Redirects for discussion

    An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Wikipedia:PCM and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 11#Wikipedia:PCM until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Mdewman6 (talk) 20:43, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:52, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Need a particular E-book on infectious disease surveillance

    Does anyone, by chance, have access to a DRM-free copy of Concepts and Methods in Infectious Disease Surveillance? Seppi333 (Insert ) 00:36, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I have access to it through my hospital. I just checked, and I can read the whole book on my screen but it doesn't let me download it. If you need to look up anything specific I can have a look for you. Dr. Vogel (talk) 00:41, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, no, there's nothing in particular I need to look up. My company is about to begin co-developing (with BugSeq Bioinformatics) a real-time automated, IVD device-integrated infectious disease reporting system that transmits pertinent results from our IVD tests to any local, national, or international surveillance system that operates on the HL7 standards and tracks pathogens (ID'd via both whole metagenome alignment and assembly methods), their subtypes (ID'd by MLST), and/or their antimicrobial resistances (ID'd by multiple sequence alignment of all AMR genes to all aligned/assembled genomes). We intend to file a provisional patent on our reporting system within a month of filing our full/nonprovisional patent on our IVD device instrumentation and IVD test protocols (i.e., between 15-45 days from now), so I figured I'd just read that book from cover to cover to fill in any knowledge gaps I might have before we iron out the high-level design.
    I don't actually have a problem with paying for the textbook; I just find it really annoying when I can't freely share media that I've paid for with my team when it's subject to DRM restrictions. Seppi333 (Insert ) 02:28, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I just read all this and then realised you were asking for your own business, not Wikipedia article sourcing. This would seem to more an appropriate question for one's social media followers and friends, than WP:MED. -- Colin°Talk 15:38, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Since when has my personal life not been conflated with Wikipedia? I don't know how you decide what topics to write about on Wikipedia, but virtually all my past editing has stemmed from reading whatever literature topics I was interested in at the time, then writing Wikipedia as a way to integrate my knowledge/understanding within a relevant context. I can't even count the number of times I've requested a paywalled article/book from here or WP:RX merely due to my curiosity about the subject matter, in the absence of a specific intent/purpose to write something on Wikipedia. The fact that I am on Wikibreak and requesting a comprehensive source for the purpose of educating myself on a new subject area is not at all out of character for me and does not mean I won't come back and edit relevant articles. In fact, there's a fairly narrow range of other biomedical topics about which I've read a mountain of pertinent scientific research over the past 1.5 years and, unless those topics somehow lose salience to me in the interim, you can be damn sure I'm going to overhaul a number of Wikipedia articles when I finally have a work-life balance again. Perhaps your motivations are different than mine, but this is exactly the kind of request that would otherwise guide my editing behavior were it not for the fact that I don't have time for editing Wikipedia right now.
    In any event, I ended up buying https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00N4RUQVY and https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01BM7XVWS, so it's a moot point to discuss. Seppi333 (Insert ) 08:11, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no interest in your company or whether you are on wikibreak or how you fill your brain, but I can be sure that next time you ask for access to a resource at WP:MED, you've just ensured the first reaction will be to ignore it. Well done. You explained that the real reason you want a DRM free copy is so that you can break the law and save your company some money instead of buying a copy for each team member in your company. This is illegal, Seppi, and very much not anything that Wikipedia can support editors asking for. Please don't do that again. -- Colin°Talk 12:04, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Was alerted to the article and had to clean up a lot of WP:SYNTH. Written like it was a student essay or something. It could use someone interested in the topic to flesh it out or see if it has enough for a standalone article. KoA (talk) 14:05, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    There are almost certainly enough reliable sources to discuss suicide and suicide prevention efforts in every country. The main problem will be finding the sources.
    BTW, there is some relatively new advice at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles#Suicide and self-harm, and if anyone wants to take it out for a "test drive" on this (or any other) article, please feel free, and let us know what needs to be improved or what additional content might be helpful. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:16, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Clearly a notable topic, given that there have been whole newspaper articles dedicated to it [4] seems to be enough academic sources to write a MEDRS compliant article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:10, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, it doesn't surprise me that it's notable, just that it wasn't a very solid article after cleanup to the point to the point I'd consider looking for a potential merge somewhere if it wasn't fleshed out some day. No rush obviously. KoA (talk) 22:24, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Tumeric and black pepper for COVID-related anosmia?

    In Ageusia#COVID-19, a case study is linked (n=2). It's from Sep 8 2021, so I assume it was just chance. Can we chuck this, unless there are better sources to replace it with? I'd just do it, but this is a high-interest area at the moment, so expertise welcome. HLHJ (talk) 19:03, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Primary source in dodgy journal, about as unreliable as it gets - especially for the claim made. Alexbrn (talk) 19:08, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That would explain why almost no-one has cited it. If it's a dodgy source too... and the editor is probably not experienced at evaluating MEDRS. I've commented it out. HLHJ (talk) 19:19, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Relevant discussion: How should we include allegations of China undercounting COVID-19 cases and deaths

     You are invited to join in at Talk:Chinese government response to COVID-19 § RFC: How should we include allegations of undercounting?. — Shibbolethink ( ) 13:06, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]