Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine

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.

• Unsure about something? Make sure to look at our style and source guidelines.
• Please don't shout, remain civil, be respectful to all, and assume good faith.
• Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
• Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~).
• Threads older than 5 days are automatically archived.
• Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Newsletter/Mailing_list

List of archives

Merged Archive WikiProject Preclinical medicine: 1 Merged Archive WikiProject Clinical medicine: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 WikiProject Medicine Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171

Merges - seeking opinions

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

Ongoing

Please comment on the talk pages rather than here

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

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

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

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

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

Resolved

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is this theory too fresh?

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

The term medical emergency

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

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

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

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

OK, medical emergency = a medical condition which is a threat to life, which hopefully would exclude driving a car since this is not a medical condition (although the DSM-5 would probably manage to disagree somehow...). I personally have no objection to using the term medical emergency for DVT, not sure how others feel. The article already states "Untreated lower extremity DVT has a 3% mortality". You are right that many textbook-type sources come up in google books search "DVT medical emergency" [2] Lesion (talk) 12:11, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

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

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

Point well taken. Currently on medical emergency, we have: "A medical emergency is an injury or illness that is acute and poses an immediate risk to a person's life or long term health." The "acute" qualifier would rule out your example above. Perhaps that condition might be better termed a minor risk factor for a medical emergency to occur, say if serious life-threatening injury resulted from the fall. But, since our definition was unreferenced I had a quick search on google books and found this which I feel is good: "A situation which [the] patient requires urgent medical attention to prevent loss of life and limb" ... although I think most would call an eyesight-threatening condition a medical emergency too. Here is another source which supports a "life and limb" definition.[3]. Or, possibly a medicolegal POV [4]. Lesion (talk) 18:46, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

MEDRS acceptable source?

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

Submissions at WP:AfC

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Pediatric Trials Network

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

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

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

Coley

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

Brassiere

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

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

template:User WPMED

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

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

This user is a participant in WikiProject Medicine.

This user is a member of WikiProject Medicine.

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

Eyes on plastic surgery articles

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

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

This is an obvious case of paid editing. He is working for the plastic surgeons in question. See the practice's page on LinkedIn[6] or this screen shot of the same page [7]. On his user page, he even states that he specializes in brand management. He should not be making any edits related to this surgical practice or any other topic where he is abusing a conflict of interest.--Taylornate (talk) 18:05, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

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

Ref style

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

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

One is User:564dude who is shortening the refs to just the DOI in many edits [8]. I do not care one way or another about the changes by User:Anrnusna.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and here's another one:

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

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

Yes here's another:

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

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

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

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

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

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

New MD

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

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

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

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

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

Cochrane editorial about WPMED

This was recently published in the Cochrane library. Not sure if people have seen it.[9]. I am hoping that a mailing list is set up were people can sign up to receive every weeks new Cochrane reviews. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:20, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Motor Neglect

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

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

Opinion needed

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

Datamining clinical imagery

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

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

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

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

Merge Infection to Infectious disease?

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

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

PubMed Commons

PubMed has began allowing people to comment on the articles hosted there. This may be useful method for us to engage with authors of papers. [10] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:20, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

WP:Flow

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Need a third party to provide some feedback

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

Resolved

Medical literature as top importance?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sourcing at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Acupuncture

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

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

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

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

Visual editor reference dialog

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jack Andraka

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

Scrolly box for TOC

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

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

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

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

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

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

Scope - Companies & Organisations

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

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

The reasons for this are:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

COTM - November 2013

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

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

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

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

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

Infobox appearance makes me unhappy

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

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

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

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

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

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

Large number of new medical BLPs need eyes

This is too much for one editor to handle.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Perfluorooctanoic acid

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

Diarrhea in Developing Regions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Publishing articles

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

Calling a bluff

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

• Template:Did you know nominations/Eastern Maine Medical Center
• Template:Did you know nominations/Sahara Hospital
• Template:Did you know nominations/Epsom General Hospital
• Template:Did you know nominations/Homologous Chromosome
• Template:Did you know nominations/The Sacred Twenty
• Template:Did you know nominations/Canada Fitness Award Program
• Template:Did you know nominations/Violence against doctors in China
• Template:Did you know nominations/Sex-selective abortion

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