Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine: Difference between revisions
Preacherdoc (talk | contribs) m →Epidural Article: name change suggested: new section |
|||
Line 297: | Line 297: | ||
:::When he first appeared it was obvious that only one person on earth attributed Da Costa syndrome and related conditions to postural abnormalities. When I pointed out that he was promoting his own theories, he did not distance himself from this observation. [[WP:TRUTH|The Truth]] matters much more than editorial policies, obviously. [[User:Jfdwolff|JFW]] | [[User_talk:Jfdwolff|<small>T@lk</small>]] 16:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC) |
:::When he first appeared it was obvious that only one person on earth attributed Da Costa syndrome and related conditions to postural abnormalities. When I pointed out that he was promoting his own theories, he did not distance himself from this observation. [[WP:TRUTH|The Truth]] matters much more than editorial policies, obviously. [[User:Jfdwolff|JFW]] | [[User_talk:Jfdwolff|<small>T@lk</small>]] 16:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC) |
||
== [[Epidural]] Article: name change suggested == |
|||
Dear Doctors' Mess inhabitants, |
|||
Please take a look at the article entitled [[Epidural]]. This article is currently up for a name change. I've taken a fair bit of ownership of this article. I estimate that >75% of the text as it stands was written by me. |
|||
The points of the argument to change seem to be: |
|||
:(1) The word "Epidural" is an adjective and therefore should not be a title in and of itself. Instead "Epidural" should be a disambig page which links on to other topics, such as [[Epidural space]], [[Epidural blood patch]], and so on. |
|||
:(2) The main body of the text, such as it is, is concerned with epidural anaesthesia and analgesia. Some suggest we should have an article entitled "Epidural anaesthesia" which should contain much of the text as it currently stands. (Some even seem to suggest we tease apart epidural anaesthesia and analgesia for separate articles). |
|||
:(3) We should only have "correct" medical terms as titles of articles, and "epidural" isn't a correct medical term. |
|||
I oppose the name change because: |
|||
:(1) "Epidural" is a convenient shorthand term, used widely inside and outside the medical community. WP is not a medical textbook, and exists to provide accessibility and clarity. |
|||
:(2) I believe that almost everybody who wants to know more about epidural anaesthesia and analgesia will look for it using the term "Epidural". If they do, they will find every other reasonable associated term included within the article in an appropriate context, and can read further if they choose. Those who have more knowledge can search for articles by title, e.g. [[Epidural haematoma]]. To make "Epidural" a disambig page (IMHO) makes the article less helpful than it currently is. |
|||
:(3) I believe it is unhelpful and arbitrary to attempt to separate epidural anaesthesia and analgesia into two articles. There is considerable overlap between these two techniques. |
|||
Anyway, please take a look. I would be grateful for any suggestions for changes or improvements to the article. [[User:Preacherdoc|Preacherdoc]] ([[User talk:Preacherdoc|talk]]) 16:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC) |
Revision as of 16:43, 12 May 2008
Medicine articles by quality and importance | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Quality | Importance | ||||||
Top | High | Mid | Low | NA | ??? | Total | |
FA | 7 | 14 | 19 | 23 | 63 | ||
FL | 2 | 3 | 9 | 14 | |||
FM | 74 | 74 | |||||
GA | 30 | 47 | 112 | 183 | 1 | 373 | |
B | 57 | 426 | 1,316 | 1,737 | 30 | 3,566 | |
C | 5 | 415 | 3,172 | 7,664 | 169 | 11,425 | |
Start | 136 | 4,599 | 17,852 | 1 | 377 | 22,965 | |
Stub | 1,603 | 9,994 | 498 | 12,095 | |||
List | 22 | 267 | 566 | 15 | 870 | ||
Category | 10,668 | 10,668 | |||||
Disambig | 172 | 172 | |||||
File | 479 | 479 | |||||
Portal | 540 | 540 | |||||
Project | 168 | 168 | |||||
Redirect | 454 | 827 | 5,898 | 7,179 | |||
Template | 1,727 | 1,727 | |||||
NA | 9 | 9 | |||||
Draft | 6 | 293 | 299 | ||||
Assessed | 99 | 1,062 | 11,545 | 38,861 | 20,029 | 1,090 | 72,686 |
Unassessed | 1 | 1 | 77 | 79 | |||
Total | 99 | 1,062 | 11,546 | 38,862 | 20,029 | 1,167 | 72,765 |
WikiWork factors (?) | ω = 244,545 | Ω = 4.84 |
Template:WPCM navigation
This page is to discuss anything related to WikiProject Medicine.
Threads older than 14 days are automatically archived (see list on the right).
This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Merged WikiProject Clinical medicine |
This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Showcase
Featured articles
Featured articles are considered to be Wikipedia's very best work; they must pass through a review process as featured article candidates before being selected. Articles in bold indicate that the article has been featured on the Main Page on the date noted.
Featured lists
Featured lists are considered to be the best lists in Wikipedia; they must pass through a review process as featured list candidates before being selected.
|
Other featured content
Types of content other than articles—such as images, portals, sounds, and topics—can also achieve featured content status.
Articles pertaining to the project
Good articles
Good articles have been evaluated for their quality, but they have not been through the featured article process. For good articles in the biology and medicine category, see Wikipedia:Good_articles/Natural_sciences#Biology_and_medicine.
Intelligibility
I just wanted to drop in and ask if the members of this project can please make their articles more intelligible. I find (and I'm sure I'm not alone in this) that a lot of the medical-related articles are almost unreadable to the average person and tend to use far too much medical jargon to make sense of the subject. Are there any guidelines in this wikiproject regarding this? Thanks for letting me put in my 2 cents. Kristamaranatha (talk) 07:48, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
- Our guidelines at WP:MEDMOS remind editors to aim for the "general reader". I think this is possible for most of a medical article, but there are some sections/topics that really are head-hurtingly difficult. If you let us know which articles you found unintelligible, then perhaps someone here can improve them. Thanks for the comment. Colin°Talk 09:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
- Well ... ummmm ... this handy dandy new tool appeared at FAC, and although I haven't quite figured it out, I think I'm pretty depressed about it. Readability tool SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:30, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
- I ran a couple of articles (higher readability score is better):
- Action potential, readability score 38, ages 19–22
- Acute myeloid leukemia, readability score 27, ages 20–23
- Asperger syndrome, readability score 22, ages 21–24
- Autism, readability score 27, ages 20–23
- Baby Gender Mentor, readability score 40, ages 17–19
- Coeliac disease, readability score 40, ages 18–20
- DNA, readability score 40, ages 18–20
- Menstrual cycle, readability score 44, 17–20
- Rotavirus, readability score 36, ages 18–20
- Timeline of tuberous sclerosis, readability score 31, ages 19–22
- Tourette syndrome, readibility score 32, ages 20–23
- Not happy. Our featured articles are at a college level; is that where we want to be? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:44, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
- Ima Hogg, readability score 52, ages 16–18 SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
- I ran a couple of articles (higher readability score is better):
- You must really be more specific about the articles you are concerned about. Some of our better articles have very little jargon indeed, or do a great job at clarifying it. Would you expect any less jargon from other technical fields like engineering or mathematics? JFW | T@lk 21:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
- I think these scores are great. Wikipedia is supposed to be written for adults, right? That means that anything around age 18-20 is right on target.
- Also, the whole article doesn't have to be accessible to children or young teens -- or even to nonexperts. I fully expect a young teen to skip some parts of an article. My eyes glaze over on some paragraphs. That doesn't mean that I want them removed. We just need to have a simple paragraph at the beginning of a technical section that summarizes it, or a simple sentence at the beginning of a complicated paragraph.
- I wonder whether it's possible to perform the same search on the less technical sections. I'd also like to know whether the algorithm fusses about vocabulary. Rhabdomyolysis is probably a "college-age or beyond" vocabulary word according to most lists, but you can hardly write the article without mentioning its name. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
- One problem I see is that it needs to be readable to the editors themselves. Sure, we can go through an article and change a bunch of complex sentences into simple sentences by removing conjunctions. The result would be less words/sentence which would increase the Flesch Reading Ease score. Unfortunately, by doing so we would decrease access to the article because people don't want to sit around reading a bunch of 5 word sentences that could be combined into a single sentence.
- Would you rather read that, or this:
- translation of above: I see a problem. Editors need to be able to read their work too. Sure, we can edit an article. We can remove complex sentences. The result would be less words/sentence. This would increase the Flesch Reading Ease score. Unfortunately, less people would be able to read it. No one wants to read sentences like this. These sentences can be combined into fewer sentences.
- The first paragraph has a score of 62.4 while the second one, which has the exact same information, has a score of 81. Personally, if I had a choice, I'd rather read the first paragraph. -JPINFV (talk) 17:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
- There is of course the WP:Simple English Wikipedia (see Main Page and Simple English Wikipedia expanded description) for a younger reading-age audience, although relatively few articles have been stripped down for this project. Finally we generally write articles to the level of secondary-education/undergraduate level (i.e. the finer nuances of views and opinions in post-doctorial circles generally are not included in our articles, but neither do we litter articles with warnings to younger children "don't do this at home" or "ask an adult to supervise you") :-) David Ruben Talk 20:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
- Hmm, a thorny issue. To become featured, an article must be comprehensive. With medical articles, this invariably requires a significant amount of technical and specialist information. I'm inclined to agree with JPINFV. I'm not convinced that the automated assessment is a fair representation of readability.
- Another criterion for FA is "brilliant prose". The FAC reviewers assess this at candidacy. Sandy, if you think that too many featured medical articles lack this quality, perhaps the problem lies with the FAC procedure? Do you think that the reviewers are not assessing prose quality stringently enough? Axl (talk) 10:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- "Our featured articles are at a college level; is that where we want to be?" — Sandy
- In my opinion: yes. Otherwise the articles would not be comprehensive. Axl (talk) 11:02, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- Just to clarify (for this side of the pond) - I'd agree if by "college" you mean undergraduate, with the prose sufficiently well written that it can also be followed by those in senior (aka high) school. David Ruben Talk 23:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
A few suggestions and opinions
- Readability scores depend mainly upon the number of characters per word, the number of words per sentence, and the use of passive voice. The greater these numbers, more difficult the passage becomes, and lower the scores. Now, the medical parlance is such that "by default" the words are lengthy (sample echocardiography or electroencephalography)--how does one shorten them? Moreover, if a certain concept is difficult to explain, automatically the sentences tend to become lengthy. I faced the same problem in writing the article on polyclonal response. No doubt, to understand such concepts one on an average does require higher intelligence. May be what can be attempted is that the important core facts expressed in simpler language can be highlighted (my attempt, whereas the elaboration that follows can take its own linguistic course. Of course, I firmly believe that the explanation that could be provided by such a platform as Wikipedia should not be limited to only keep the readability scores favorable.
- I have one more idea, but that might require sweeping changes in the goals and policies of Wikipedia--same topics could be covered in (two) separate articles, one for the laypersons (amateur), and the other for advanced concepts (professional).
- Would love to know what you all feel.
- Regards.
- PS: Most of the ideas I'd formed on readability scores are based on the concepts given in the "Help" section of Microsoft Word.
- The medical jargon issue is one that is difficult to get around. In practice we have the good old Three-Letter-Acronyms (TLA's) and will often make use of these (even though they may have more than three letters) as well as other shortened notations. Can we do this with the wikipedia MOS (I shall have to go look it up)? I'm suggesting things like echocardiography (ECHO) being referred to as ECHO thereafter, or electroencephalography (EEG) being referred to as EEG. Orinoco-w (talk) 23:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- You are free to propose that at WT:MEDMOS if you want. However, it might be better to leave that up to editor discretion instead of setting a sweeping rule. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Board certification
Board certification claims to be a US-specific thing, until the last section, which mentions other countries. Do non-US specialists get board certified, or is there another term? Is there a way to internationalize this article? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- Last section is not about other countries, but (I think) the American orgianisations recognising doctors in foreign countries. In UK specialisation is via training time as a Registrar and relevant Royal College examinations - pass the examinations and one is a specialist and able to have that recorded in the General Medical Council register (list of doctors). However the threshold for passing the revelant college exams is, as far as I know, fixed each year to allow a set number through supposedly to maintain standards, but the cynic in me thinks just to get resit examination fee income for the colleges - my year of sitting the MCQ paper (many years ago) of some 200 questions, just 13 questions discriminated between distinction and a "poor fail"... not that I'm bitter... not :-) - anyway thats my perspective as a GP - but would need hospital doctor to give actual current details. David Ruben Talk 04:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- In the UK entry to the specialist register by the GMC is by certification of the completion of training (CCT), which is awarded after registrar work for a set duration and meeting a set curriculum. Contrary to David, the exams are typically required prior to entry into a specialist training programme (apart from MRCPath, which is an exit exam). Some specialties are now introducing a knowledge-based exam prior to CCT. JFW | T@lk 07:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- (I stand corrected) So Part 1 Membership of the Royal College of Physicians (assuming that is what it is still called) is nowdays done when? and what about completing MRCP - previously done around SHO to Registrar step up, but now that SHO/Registrar post are merged, how has this changed ? Indeed can one now gain CCT without seeking to join the relevant Royal College (in same way a GP can complete General Practice Vocational Training without opting to try and join the RCGP) ?David Ruben Talk 18:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- Part 1 is done from 18 months after qualifying, and Part 2 (Written) and PACES soon afterwards. In the past PACES could only be done after 18 months of unselected acute medical take (some people tell me this has changed). But PACES is not a prerequisite (more a desiderata) for entry into the ST3 (formerly specialist registrar) grade. In practice, one is still expected to hold PACES (i.e. full membership) by the end of ST3 as it is a marker of career progression too. JFW | T@lk 10:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Hemostatic agent article and Antihemorrhagics
Hemostatic agent was originally created to focus on topical antihemorrhagic products like QuikClot. It is now starting to focus on other antihemorrhagics as well. Since there is no article on antihemorrhagics, I am currently proposing that this article focus on the ATC code B02 drugs in addition to the topical products. Any input you have would be welcomed at Talk:Hemostatic agent#Focus of article. --Scott Alter 22:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Calling all WikiDocs... :) The above article, which has been around since November 2007 and appears quite clearly a hoax to me, is up for deletion. Any comments are welcome, as are additions or corrections over at Fuzzform's detailed critique of the article at my Talk page. Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
S3 and S4 split/merge
I have proposed a split (or perhaps a merge) of the information for heart sounds S3 and S4. Discussion is at Talk:Heart sounds; please opine there. - Draeco (talk) 05:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Help, fast
I'm going to be out all afternoon, but I put a placeholder for Coeliac disease at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests when an opening came up. Somebody please go over there fast and finish it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Celiac ganglia
Hello Residents of the Mess:
I just stumbled on the article Celiac ganglia, while using the "Random Article" "button".
I realize this is a technical matter but could there be a sentence or two or three in the article devoted to an indication in laymen's terms of what this Celiac ganglia thing is.
Perhaps, to be more specific, could there be a small section entitled: "To put that more simply" or "If you did not follow that" or "In other words" or "In plain English" or some such thing.
This section might have a sentence on the function of this body part, one on how big it is, where it is (just below the lungs and at the front), what it looks like, what would happen if a person did not have these (but only if that can be expressed simply).
Just an idea. Wanderer57 (talk) 01:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- I made some small improvements to the lead. It would be great if someone else could add to that effort. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Hitlist
These have been on my list for a while, and I'm just not getting to them. If anyone knows something about these subjects, please feel free:
- Rare_disease#External_links needs a pruning job.
- Done, but who knows how long it will stay that way. Please consider putting it on your watchlist, and seeing my new proposal at MEDMOS about external links. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- Myelofibrosis may have a cut-and-past copyright infringement
- Done - don't really care about a copyvio, but editors should not expect others to wikify their contributions. JFW | T@lk 09:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Polycythemia needs the sections rearranged
- P4 medicine wants a notability review; it might be worth reading Talk:E-Patient first.
- I have nominated it for deletion. Axl (talk) 09:50, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- E-Patient could use a ref review: the author of two papers cites himself.
- AV reentrant tachycardia doesn't mention the title in the article
- This should be merged into Tachycardia. --Una Smith (talk) 13:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Myelofibrosis and polycythemia are on my to-do list. I know something about them. Once things in real life quiet down, I will prioritize them. MastCell Talk 16:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks, MastCell.
- I don't suppose that we have a cardiologist in the house? AV reentrant tachycardia means nothing to me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- Well, I've done some cardiology. Ksheka (talk · contribs) (previously a prolific contributor) and MoodyGroove (talk · contribs) are cardiologists, but they are not around often. In this case, AVRT is a synonym of AV nodal reentrant tachycardia, to which I have redirected it. It is a form of supraventricular tachycardia that is sustained by "feedback-like" activity surrounding the atrioventricular node. JFW | T@lk 15:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Argh, obviously I mixed up AVNRT with WPW. Fixed, anyway. And I've expanded (though not sourced) the AVNRT article. JFW | T@lk 15:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Bot adding DOIs
Please see User talk:Smith609 for discussion of some issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Sigh. I reverted the misguided bot's edit to "Lung cancer". Axl (talk) 09:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
DOI bot discussion at WP:AN: [1] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Merge suggested of Pannus and Cutis pleonasmus
So I'm looking through some stuff for one of my classes and I came across a month old proposed merge with zero discussion. The proposed merge is to move Cutis pleonasmus into Pannus. I figured I might as well let everyone else know that that had been proposed. -JPINFV (talk) 20:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Citation style in medical journals?
What is the most widely used citation style in medical journals? Many thanks! --Phenylalanine (talk) 13:18, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- The Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals are widely followed. They require the use of the Vancouver style for citation formatting. See this summary. PubMed follows this style, though they drop any restriction on the length of author lists (et al), which is understandable since they are a database, not paper. Colin°Talk 21:27, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- Many thanks! --Phenylalanine (talk) 02:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Peer review request for Pulmonary contusion
If someone with medical expertise could participate in Wikipedia:Peer review/Pulmonary contusion/archive1, I would be much obliged. Thanks! delldot talk 16:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- I will lend a hand. NCurse work 18:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks a ton! More reviewers are of course very welcome as well. delldot on a public computer talk 00:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Osteotomy
There's a question at Talk:Osteotomy about whether the images are really from an osteotomy. If you know something about this, please have a look. Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:18, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Article title: "Rhythm" or "Calendar"?
There's currently discussion on the article title for the rhythm/calendar methods. "Rhythm" appears to be both used for a specific method and the most common lay term for these types of systems. The World Health Organization uses "Rhythm" for a specific method but uses the term "Calendar-based methods" when referring to them as a group, and there's a question over whether WP:MEDMOS#Naming conventions would support the WHO term. Talk:Calendar-based methods#Name change, scroll to near bottom of section. Any outside input would be appreciated. LyrlTalk C 11:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Content of cervical cap article
Ongoing debate over the multiple issues regarding content of cervical cap article. A previous request generated helpful opinions, but unfortunately failed to take the discussion to consensus. Current topic is content of the infobox: discussion. LyrlTalk C 11:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Try mediation. --Una Smith (talk) 13:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Request for review of articles
I have created the articles--polyclonal response and clone (cell biology), of which the former has been extensively expanded and modified. Would some one review it and make suggestions as to what more would be required to upgrade it on quality assessment scale?
Regards.
Ketan Panchal, MBBS (talk) 15:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
A doubt
Why the contraction of pronator quadratus produces pronation, and not supination? Think of it, unlike pronator teres, it is not attached to a more proximal fixed point like the medial border of the humerus. This muscle runs absolutely perpendicular to the radius and the ulna.
I have thought about it, and feel that when the forearm is supine, there's no further margin for supination, so the muscle acts to bring the radius closer to the ulna, and not vice versa. And, when the forearm is pronated fully, the muscle must be getting so much relaxed (consequently, also shortened) that its contraction cannot further shorten the fibers, hence no movement occurs in this position.
Well, this is just a guess. It'd be nice if someone approves of it, or corrects my ideas. Regards.
PS: I have posted the same comment on the talk page of the concerned article.
Ketan Panchal, MBBS (talk) 19:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- Er... maybe someone closer to their gross anatomy days can answer. I've finally got the smell of formaldehyde out of my hair and clothing, and most of those details have gone with it. MastCell Talk 19:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Aspirin
Aspirin is a Good Article nominee, here. --Una Smith (talk) 04:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'll notify WP:PHARM. They need to know. JFW | T@lk 20:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Diagnostic test promotion?
Oddben (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has added information to several articles pertaining to diagnostic tests. The edits look promotional to me, and he has also repeatedly added the same external links. I've removed the external links, but left the other edits. Can someone with more experience in this area please look at the edits of this user and determine if any of them contain useful information, or whether they should just be reverted as merely promotional? Deli nk (talk) 13:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Promotional and non-encylopedic. You did right by removing them. MastCell Talk 19:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, I only removed the external links, not the rest of the information. Also, I received this reply from Oddben on my talk page, in which he explains his edits: I see that my edits are being monitored, and now I understand why. I am not employed by Phadia. My reasons for mentioning them are merely personal due to a recent exposure to them...and I noticed on investigation that they and their services are not really represented in Wikipedia (and believe me - they should be). So, I have taken it upon myself to provide an educational link-through of the afflictions that they can diagnose along with link-ups from the various afflictions to a diagnostic resource that hopefully clinicians can find and use to solve patients allergy issues more promptly. Before starting out, I typed (for example) Pepsi (etc) and concluded that the mention and link of the Phadia website to be a lot more beneficial to public wellbeing than a soft drink manufacturer that dominates the global market!
- Deli nk (talk) 19:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Elimination diet
Do we need an article defining "elimination diet"? The closest there is now on Wikipedia is some discussion of diagnosis on Food intolerance. --Una Smith (talk) 17:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I think we need this article. I wonder whether any Food intolerance or Food allergy editors would be able to help with getting Elimination diet off to a good start. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- I will post an invite on the respective talk pages. --Una Smith (talk) 05:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
A related issue is the respective meanings of "allergy", "sensitivity", and "intolerance". See some discussion here. --Una Smith (talk) 17:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Color code of limb leads of an Electrocardiogram
From the article Electrocardiogram I have learned that obviously the color coding of electrodes used for the limb leads is different in different countries: The coding explained in the article is different from the one used in here in Germany. Now I am wondering how widespread the color coding mentioned in the article actually is. US? UK? other English speaking countries? And how widespread are other color codings? If you know the color coding in your country or other countries, please visit Talk:Electrocardiogram#Color_code_of_limb_leads and help to fill out the table. Thanks, --Dietzel65 (talk) 07:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
We have an anon who's determined to put a badly formatted link to her(?) website in the introduction. I think I've deleted it about once a week for a month now. Unless there's an irritable admin who feels like blocking an anon or semi-protecting the page just for fun, it might be nice if several other editors could watchlist this for the next week or two. Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Semiprotected 2 weeks. Anon informed. JFW | T@lk 11:28, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Epidural analgesia or anesthesia
I'd like to ask anyone interested to express their opinion on the talk page whether the article Epidural should be renamed to Epidural analgesia or Epidural anesthesia if at all. --Eleassar my talk 12:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Onion Juice Therapy comes across to me as something that is merely promotional trying to sound scientific, but I don't know enough to really tell. Anyone want to take a look? It's currently up for deletion at AFD, too. Deli nk (talk) 19:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- The article is being considered for deletion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Onion Juice Therapy. It was speedy deleted the first time. IMO the article relies on deductive reasoning and thus WP:OR. The association of dietary phytochemicals with reduced risk of chronic diseases such as cancers is used by the creator and major contributer of article to deduce that onion juice is an effective cure for cancers. The only reliable source used is "Varietal Differences in Phenolic Content and Antioxidant and Antiproliferative Activities of Onions" The rest are Pseudoscience. I agree that quercetin may be useful but I disagree with the deductive reasoning of the article. [2] This is just my opinion in talkspace! Nk.sheridan Talk 23:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- I think there are also some religious texts that are claimed to support onion juice as a panacea.[3] WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- eeeeeeeeeeeeeeewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww {sorry, couldn't help myself, this screws up my mouth just thinking about it) ;) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
OK, anyone who may be more familiar with this one, I think needs some work. Must be something in a peer-reviewed journal and should it be in isolation or on a larger page of treatment resistance in AIDS? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:20, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
This new article could use some help and/or educated evaluation. I came upon it tagged for deletion as "no context". I've declined the speedy, as context could be puzzled out at this point, but I do not have the background to do much more for it than that. I note there is concern expressed on the talk page that the article may be OR. Rather than just leave it there, I thought to drop a note here in the hopes of attracting somebody with more experience in this field than I. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- It's about hepatotoxicity. I don't know enough about it to be certain how to fix the formatting, but I'll try to make it at least less awful than it is. Thanks for the note, WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Menstrual cycle navbox
I've created a navbox for possible use on menstrual cycle related articles: Template:Menstrual cycle. I'm posting here to solicit comments/improvement suggestions before adding the template to any articles. Also note this template is a possible solution to the dispute currently at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Fertility awareness. LyrlTalk C 19:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Medicine Collaboration of the Fortnight: Long-term effects of alcohol
NCurse work 08:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Da Costa's syndrome(again)
A lay editor with a known conflict of interest [4] is filling this article with cruft and direct quotation to the point that it's become completely unencyclopedic. But it really needs someone with medical knowledge to clean it up. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 09:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- This guy has been doing the same stuff for almost a year. I think a WP:RFC is in order. JFW | T@lk 13:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Could well be. I'm thoroughly tired of dealing with him. The article has become so cruft-dense - despite repeated requests to keep things terse and encyclopedic - that it's hard to tell now whether it's biased or not. But the single-purpose edit history here and general wikilawyering at WP:COIN, particularly about his self-identification [5], aren't good signs. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 14:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- When he first appeared it was obvious that only one person on earth attributed Da Costa syndrome and related conditions to postural abnormalities. When I pointed out that he was promoting his own theories, he did not distance himself from this observation. The Truth matters much more than editorial policies, obviously. JFW | T@lk 16:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Epidural Article: name change suggested
Dear Doctors' Mess inhabitants,
Please take a look at the article entitled Epidural. This article is currently up for a name change. I've taken a fair bit of ownership of this article. I estimate that >75% of the text as it stands was written by me.
The points of the argument to change seem to be:
- (1) The word "Epidural" is an adjective and therefore should not be a title in and of itself. Instead "Epidural" should be a disambig page which links on to other topics, such as Epidural space, Epidural blood patch, and so on.
- (2) The main body of the text, such as it is, is concerned with epidural anaesthesia and analgesia. Some suggest we should have an article entitled "Epidural anaesthesia" which should contain much of the text as it currently stands. (Some even seem to suggest we tease apart epidural anaesthesia and analgesia for separate articles).
- (3) We should only have "correct" medical terms as titles of articles, and "epidural" isn't a correct medical term.
I oppose the name change because:
- (1) "Epidural" is a convenient shorthand term, used widely inside and outside the medical community. WP is not a medical textbook, and exists to provide accessibility and clarity.
- (2) I believe that almost everybody who wants to know more about epidural anaesthesia and analgesia will look for it using the term "Epidural". If they do, they will find every other reasonable associated term included within the article in an appropriate context, and can read further if they choose. Those who have more knowledge can search for articles by title, e.g. Epidural haematoma. To make "Epidural" a disambig page (IMHO) makes the article less helpful than it currently is.
- (3) I believe it is unhelpful and arbitrary to attempt to separate epidural anaesthesia and analgesia into two articles. There is considerable overlap between these two techniques.
Anyway, please take a look. I would be grateful for any suggestions for changes or improvements to the article. Preacherdoc (talk) 16:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)