Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 02:19, 31 March 2014

WT:MED

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 7 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

Recent changes in WP:Medicine

Articles and their talkpages:

Not mainspace:

Top	High	Mid	Low	NA	???	Total
99	1,110	11,509	38,516	18,942	975	71,151

List overview · Lists updated: 2015-07-15 · This box:

Replace "cite pmid" with "cite journal"

I know we have discussed this many times before. I am wondering if there is consensus to replace the "cite pmid" with the "cite journal" template by bot for our top 1500 most viewed articles? I am offering a $200 dollar reward for a bot that does this. Before I can get this bot made I need a clear consensus.

Support

Support not using "cite pmid" as it not support in most other languages while cite journal is. For example here, here and others. Its use thus hinders those of us who are working on getting medical content into other languages. To emphasis the importance of getting content into other languages, only 35 languages of Wikipedia have more than 1000 medical articles per here. I am working to create simplified versions of 1,000 key medical articles for translation per here Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:00, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support-- I tried these and didn't like them at all. Difficult to see what source is being referred to when editing the page... you need to visit another page to alter the reference. Seems a less editor friendly method than cite journal. Lesion (talk) 23:19, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes agree horrible for new editors. Templates are one of the most difficult things for non coders to figure out. I still cannot figure out how to get complicated ones to work. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:28, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

support if it means that translation can happen I'm in favour, however, as a new editor I found "cite pmid" (and "cite isbn") much easier/intuitive compared to cite journal. Proveit helped, but imo you're taking away something that makes referencing easier for newbie's. Ian Furst (talk) 23:50, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The hope is to eventually have a bot that comes and covert these automatically. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:30, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

support--Worth doing irrespective of translation. These templates are a disaster for reasons of error tolerance, which directly degrades wp:V.LeadSongDog come howl! 01:56, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support--It is something that I feel is strongly needed, and a bot to do it is just ideal for the task. It would add consistency to the citation style. A further suggestion would be to replace the vertical style with a horizontal style for the parameters within the template. Diptanshu^Talk 11:09, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree completely :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:16, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support --WS (talk) 13:40, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support obvious benefit. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 14:00, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support for consistency, not having to wait forever for the template to be filled in automatically, and not having to see those annoying little "edit" things at the end of each journal reference. Jinkinson talk to me 14:08, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support – {{cite pmid}} is often at odds with consistent formatting. Boghog (talk) 14:20, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. {{cite pmid}} makes it hard to edit because you need to open a new window/tab to even see the name of the authors and the title! JFW | T@lk 22:32, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support as above hard to see what the ref is when editing, consistency. - - MrBill3 (talk) 04:00, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Peter.C • talk • contribs 16:20, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support for streamlining and uniformity. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:31, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose My oppose changes to support if there is no other opposition by Monday 24 March. See below. I just want to make time for other people to comment and I support the intent behind this proposal, but this is a complicated issue. Blue Rasberry (talk) 00:27, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This long discussion confused some people.

Oppose My oppose changes to support if there is no opposition Monday 24 March. I can work with any technical tool for citation but I do appreciate the benefits of the templates being discussed for deprecation even though I also acknowledge the many problems they cause. I propose to check in with WMF development staff to see if anyone else is looking at this issue and get opinions from anyone who is already thinking about this, if anyone is. It is my expectation that in the future, Wikipedia will have no citations whatsoever as they all will be stored on Wikidata. While there are serious problems with the DOI and PMID templates in the editing pages, when those templates are used Citation Bot also copies those citations to a template for reuse. I expect Wikidata to use this model of locally stored citations except the citations would be stored be in Wikidata and not on Wikipedia.

The advantage of putting citations in Wikidata is that the translation of citations can happen automatically interwiki, such as on Commons and Wikipedia or between languages. Interwiki connectivity can never happen automatically with the method proposed in this discussion, so this model could only develop with special bots to do this on each of the 200 Wikipedias and even still that is not true interconnectivity or a route to keeping citations up to date if they are updated. The stored citation model also allows broken citations to be fixed, whereas no other citation tool does so when citations are broken and reused, then the broken citation gets propagated everywhere. I fix about 1 in 20 citations and in general, it seems like journals are just not careful with metadata. Cochrane publications, for example, often tag the titles of their papers as "chapter" which is unorthodox so the titles do not render. Daniel Mietchen also is proposing a major project at Wikipedia:WikiProject Open Access/Signalling OA-ness in which citations on Wikipedia are better connected with metadata about them, and perhaps automatically updated to indicate when a paper moves beyond a paywall to become free to access.

Before this proceeds I propose that this discussion to linked to a Wikidata board and shown to the Wikimedia Foundation's Wikidata developers. It might be the case that they have no intentions to sort interwiki citations for Wikimedia projects anytime soon, in which case this project could proceed. But if something is in the works or perhaps if they have put thought into this in a big way, then they should comment. I just emailed Wikidata-l and asked for comment. If anyone can think of others to email I think it would be worthwhile to check for thoughts of others, so note any other people contacted in this discussion. Blue Rasberry (talk) 00:27, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If and when Wikidata begins to store citation data, I think the best solution is to keep a local copy of the citation data stored directly in Wikipedia articles (as originally proposed above) and add an extra Wikidata parameter to each of the local citation templates. A bot similar to CheMoBot could then periodically check for consistency between the local citation data and the central Wikidata and flag any inconsistencies. There is no need to have an extra layer of data stored in template space. Boghog (talk) 08:31, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Boghog I think we are in agreement, except that when you say "There is no need to have an extra layer of data stored in template space" I think you mean on Wikipedia but that you would like that extra layer in a centralized place on Wikidata, which is what I want. I want the local copies but the other side to this proposal is removing the ability to centrally manage citations, which is something I would not like to lose. Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:26, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bluerasberry Yes, I think we are in full agreement. What I meant by "template space" is the space in English Wikipedia where the {{cite pmid}} citation data is currently stored. Hence long term, the data would need only be stored in two places: (1) directly in the individual Wikipedia article(s) and (2) a centralized depository in Wikidata. In other words, the data currently stored in Wikipedia template space (that is part of Wikipedia mainspace) would be replaced by Wikidata. Both local and centralized copies would be maintained and bot checks could be made between the two to ensure that the data is consistent. Boghog (talk) 12:22, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly what I want and the sooner the better. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:06, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure one could put a full copy of the ref on Wikidata. But that does not have anything to do with this propose. There also needs to be a copy within the Wikipedia article itself. Jmh649 14:37, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I do not think you intended this when you made this proposal, but this proposal also deprecates the automated creation of citation templates hosted on Wikipedia. That is a direct effect of this proposal. I do not want to lose the benefits of having those. A counter proposal could be that the cite PMID and cite doi templates are substituted into articles rather than removed and replaced, which would have the same effect to readers and editors but also retain the centralized citation. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:50, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The current proposal definitely does not deprecate the {{cite pmid}} automatic citation creation mechanism. First of all, the proposal only applies to the "1500 most viewed articles" that are within the scope of WP:MED, not all of Wikipedia. Second, editors would still be allowed although perhaps discouraged from adding new {{cite pmid}} templates to these 1500 articles. The bot could be run on a regular basis to substitute newly added {{cite pmid}} with {{cite journal}} templates. This will make life easier for newbie editors while minimizing frustration for experienced editors. Boghog (talk) 21:43, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bluerasberry I have tried replace cite PMID with subst:cite PMID. It did not work. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:49, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

user:Boghog If this is naive, please excuse, I'm new to the discussion but is the data normalized in the central repository (e.g. each field name corresponds to a field in a relational db)? If so, is the long-term goal to have one-instance of the data (centrally) and the issue becomes how to input/show the data so it's most useful to the editors. Or is it stored in some non-relational way? Ian Furst (talk) 15:16, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Furst This is not naive. Yes, that is exactly what Boghog and I are discussing. You seem to understand, except the issue behind this proposal is that it is difficult for editors to read a citation when in the code it only says {{cite doi|10.1016.2Fj.jacc.2010.11.002}}. Within WikiProject Medicine there is agreement that citations in the code should be expanded because we all have difficulty when they are not. The problem I have with this is that the proposed method of expansion deprecates the existing system for storing an instance of the data in a central place on English Wikipedia. I actually use these templates and think this model could be expanded for inter-wiki and interlanguage use, but I also agree that using just the template to call citations rather than having the entire citation in an article is problematic. Look at the history of Template:Cite doi/10.1016.2Fj.jacc.2010.11.002 for an example of how users work together to fix broken citations. This can only happen with centrally stored citations. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:50, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bluerasberry Since the current system is ineffective, anything to normalize the data will help, so the proposed change is net good imo (although the name issue may become bigger). Personally, I like the idea of a central repository of data (e.g. it could be sync'd with the library of congress db) In theory, an editor should be able to enter anything. If, say, the last name and uniqueID (ISBN/PMID/DOI) match, a bot can synchronize the central against the "local" (article info). Two (among many) issues would be how/who decides a "ref name=" (if it's to be the same in all articles) and how conflict resolution works (e.g. if local has better info the central db). Interesting db problem that needs immediate, medium and long-term goals. If there a working group for this? Ian Furst (talk) 16:14, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Furst Yes exactly what you are saying. This is how I feel. The ref name could be automatically generated, but even if it is changed, the citation would be identified by a field which it contains (perhaps just the existing doi field when there is one), so varying ref names may not matter. Very few people will fix citation references and anyone who would think to do this is likely to be a person capable of resolving disputes with others, so I do not think conflict resolution will be an issue. No, there is no working group for this, but yes, there should be. I think we could ask the WMF for funding to do this if we made a proposal and wanted a coder. In return they would likely just want a statement of need and good community input and I think already we have that. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:22, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BluerasberryI'd be interested in helping assuming it's not stepping on any toes (and I have no idea if it is). Is it possible to set-up a page to define the existing problems with citation management? The glaring ones seem to be citation variation, appearance in wikicode, non-normalized data, ease of entry, variation between articles of the same ref and repetition of data between articles. Ian Furst (talk) 16:59, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Furst Yeah, you get the idea. Because part of this problem takes coding because we probably need help with that, a public presentation and summary of this talk should be made at meta:Grants:IdeaLab so that we can start the process to get comments from a coder and be ready to ask for funding or WMF staff time for such a person if we want their help. It so happens that they are reviewing project proposals posted there at the end of this month. Backing up the project proposal there is this discussion on this board and as you say, a project page, for example at Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/citation reform. Once we have a proposal for reform and get comments from WikiProject Medicine then we show it off elsewhere on Wikipedia. After getting those comments we ask the WMF for a coder. It is my intuition that most people are likely to want this. The citation infrastructure needs to be updated and I think we can reach good agreement about how this should be done in stages now and with time as you propose. Either you can start these pages or I will later. I think you are spot on. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:09, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think this discussion is fascinating but since its scope is far wider than the WP:MED, it should probably be moved somewhere else. I will just make one additional brief note here. In addition to the Library of Congress was mentioned above, synchronization with PubMed data would be essential. Klortho may be able to help with this (see also WP:NIH). Boghog (talk) 17:14, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you start the page Lane (so it's in the correct place), I'll start to populate with some definitions and a statement of the problem. Ian Furst (talk) 17:37, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I still see what you are proposing Blue as separate from what we are discussing here. Also I am not entirely clear on what you are suggesting / how your proposed suggesting would work. If you make a mock-up of the proposal would be happy to look at it further.

In principle I am supportive of using Wikidata for refs. This could even mesh with holding CC-BY and CC-BY-SA published papers locally so that the 750 million people who will soon have free access to Wikipedia without data charges via Wikipedia Zero could read these papers and thus become involved with Wikipedia as editors. (this is also a method which may convince publishers to release there content under a CC BY SA license) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:58, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The original proposal has two parts.

Expand citation templates to full references. I support this, and it seems there is consensus to do this.
Deprecate the local storage of citations in a template independent of a given Wikipedia article. I oppose this, and it seems that others do not even recognize that this is an inherent part of the original proposal.

I want for part 1 to proceed but also to see if there is a way to keep local storage of citation templates.

Boghog, I disagree that I have talked about anything other than the original proposal, but for clarity, I hid all the discussion about preserving localized citation templates and just left the note above that I oppose this. Jmh649 and Ian Furst, I made a proposal at meta:Grants:IdeaLab/Reform of citation structure for all Wikimedia projects which mentions this Wikidata problem and also a lot of the other citation structure problems which are currently in discussion. That proposal is not about this proposal specifically, but I am sharing it to show that there are other stakeholders in the outcome of this. I intend to write more about this at Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/citation reform in a while. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:02, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support I originally opposed and now I support. I think the proposal is better than doing nothing or any available alternative, but I also feel that it just relieves some symptoms without addressing other real problems. I documented two problems in this proposal which are left unaddressed by it, but not made worse.

I also solicited comment about this in a message board and I proposed to organize a panel about this at Wikimania.

query and responses in two threads.
wm2014:Submissions/Reform of citation structure for all Wikimedia projects

I support citations being expanded, but I also wish that they could be transcluded from a database to which readers had access so that citations with flawed metadata could be fixed by users. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:13, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

As long as the predominate style was {{cite journal}} before the first transcluded {{cite pmid}} or {{cite doi}} template was added, no consensus is necessary to substitute the transcluded templates. WP:CITEVAR is sufficient justification. It is difficult for a bot to determine what the first established style was, but certainly it should be possible for a bot to determine the current predominate style, and if {{cite pmid}} or {{cite doi}} are in the minority, go ahead and substitute these with {{cite journal}}. Boghog (talk) 23:14, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Will make the programming more complicated but ok. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:23, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is really not that much more complicated. It is very straight forward for a bot to scan an article and count the number of {{cite pmid}}, {{cite doi}}, and {{cite journal}} templates, and determine which is the predominant style. Boghog (talk) 23:33, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately (or fortunately), WP:CITEVAR does not give "predominant style" as a means of deciding which style to regularise to. It's far too easy to game to ever gain consensus. We're left with "defer to the style used by the first major contributor" to guide us on what style to use. Nevertheless, both {{cite pmid}} and {{cite doi}} render eventually as {{cite journal}}, so we could easily justify updating them to the full reference as merely a stage in the process. If that were generally accepted, we could encourage the use of these templates for simplicity without worrying about later improving them to {{cite journal}}. --RexxS (talk) 00:11, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Given that {{cite journal}} (February 2005‎) predates {{cite pmid}} (January 2009) and {{cite doi}} (May 2008)‎ and given that most of the "top 1500 most viewed articles" are also likely to predate the transcluded templates, it is very likely that {{cite journal}} was established as the predominate style in the "top 1500 most viewed articles" before the {{cite pmid}} and {{cite doi}} templates were even created. Hence it is very likely (although I must admit not guaranteed) that the "current predominant style" matches the style used by "first major contributor". Boghog (talk) 00:54, 15 March 2014 (UTC) Not as hard as I originally thought (see below). Boghog (talk) 14:05, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The pertinent part of Citevar is that this is "Improving existing citations by adding missing information". LeadSongDog come howl! 02:18, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What about cite doi templates? Would those get replaced too? Jinkinson talk to me 03:16, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

add "cite isbn", I used to use it and it causes the same problem. Ian Furst (talk) 03:50, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the hope would be all three. The bot would simply need to copy the template into the article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:32, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It turns out that wikipedia.py has a function "fullVersionHistory" that "returns all past versions including wikitext". Hence it should be possible to search the article history and determine if any {{cite journal}} or {{cite book}} templates were in use before the first {{cite pmid}}, {{cite doi}}, or {{cite isbn}} template was inserted and if so, substitute the transcluded templates with {{cite journal}} or {{cite book}} respectively. Of course, the bot should transfer all of the data contained in the transcluded template to the new in-line template. This behavior should be completely compatible with WP:CITEVAR.

One issue that may be controversial is what author parameter to use. The transcluded templates use "first1, last1, first2, last2, ..." parameters. In my opinion, if the predominate author format is a single "author" parameter to store the author data, this style should be preserved. The advantage of a single author parameter is that is much more compact. The disadvantage is that proper metadata is not generated (although Module:Citation/CS1 could in principle be modified to parse the author data field to generate correct metadata). Thoughts? Boghog (talk) 10:10, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have no preference on how the author parameter is formatted. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:17, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have a strong preference for |first1=, etc. because of the microformats and the consistency in formatting it brings to the author field(s) (last1, first1; last2, first2; etc.) which otherwise gets left to editors to sort out manually. I see no value in compactness in the wikitext when the resulting output is the same size, particularly now that references can be defined in full outside of the main article text. --RexxS (talk) 19:19, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The value of compactness in the raw wikitext is for editors. It makes the templates smaller and less distracting so editors can focus on the content and not the templates. With large number of authors, the number of parameters becomes ridiculous. Also editors need not concern themselves with author formatting. In the present case, the bot will handle this. They can also use template filling tools that insure consistency. Furthermore, how many consumers of microformat/metadata are there? I suspect that the number of editors far exceeds the consumers of metadata. Finally list-defined references suffer from the same drawback as {{cite pmid}} templates (separating the text from the references). Boghog (talk) 20:28, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I personally hate Help:LDR#List-defined_references as they do not work in other languages. We do not need to address this now though. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:23, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming the consensus is to avoid cite PMID and ISBN is it worthwhile agreeing to a single format for WP Medicine? I never realized I could put all of the references at the end (and just use the ref name throughout). I agree with the sentiment that compactness in the text matters. Does everyone use Proveit or just me? Ian Furst (talk) 20:33, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have also been thinking about a recommended format for WP Medicine. Many of the references in these articles was generated using Diberri's template filling tool which generates both compact templates and also more compact output in the rendered citations by adopting Vancouver system author formatting. One possibility is to use something like {{Vcite2 journal}} template which enforces Vancouver system output no matter how the authors are input. (Note this template uses the same Module:Citation/CS1 that {{cite journal}} uses.) This template could also be modified to parse the single author parameter to produce proper author metadata. This would allow both compact templates and full metadata making everyone happy. Boghog (talk) 20:57, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to describe something that happens to me all the time, and I want to know if it ever happens to anyone else:

1. You add a citation to a study using the cite doi template.
2. You get tired of waiting for the bot to complete it, especially since it says it will be completed in "a few minutes" (which never actually happens).
3. You decide to fill it out manually, but realize you can't use the template filler because the journal isn't indexed in PubMed, and the filler only uses PMIDs.
4. You therefore have to expand the template by hand (i.e. create it yourself and fill in all the parameters), but some of the characters in the doi get changed in the title of the template (especially slashes, which get turned into ".2f"), so you have to go back into the article and change the real doi to that in the template's title.

When this happens to me, I can't help but wonder if there's not an easier way to do this--ideally, whoever manages the template filler could reconfigure it to allow dois. Jinkinson talk to me 21:10, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The RefToolbar will fill in a citation based on dois. User:Diberri was the creator of the template filler tool. Unfortunately David Iberri no longer has time to maintain the tool. I have stepped as the caretaker keeping it running on the tool server. I might be able to add this functionality to the template filler, but as my perl programming skills are rusty and I am busy in real life, this will take awhile. Boghog (talk) 21:30, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I never use "cite doi" and this would be replaced with "cite journal". Do not like refs all in the ref section at the end as it is not compatible in other languages. I know that some people do though. This proposal has nothing to do with changing this type of formatting though.

vcite is also does not work in most other languages thus I wish to stick with cite journal and cite book. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:14, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jmh649, I think you misunderstood Jinkinson's request. The request is not to produced cite doi templates, rather to add doi as an input option in addition to pmid, pmc, etc. The output would be the same filled in {{cite journal}} template. Also {{vcite2 journal}} ≠ {{vcite journal}}. They are completely different beasts. Vcite2 is a alternate front end for Module:Citation/CS1, the same module that is used by {{cite journal}}. Victe2 is considerably simpler than vcite and it should be easy to port this to other languages. Boghog (talk) 05:19, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If it works in all languages would be happy to consider. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:37, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TBH, what I was requesting doesn't really matter now that I know about this REFTOOLS thing, which I will use for dois pretty much every time I need to do so from now on. Jinkinson talk to me 05:21, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Summary

Okay it appears we may have consensus. So to summarize what we plan to do is:

Replace "cite PMID" and "cite DOI" with "cite journal"
Replace "cite ISBN" with "cite book"
Placing all refs that occur over many lines over one line
Probably not a good idea to address the author issue as this will require more discussion and is a separate issue (we will just use whatever author format is already present)

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:19, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"use whatever author format is already present" – I assume this means the predominate citation style used in the article (or more properly the first established citation style) and not necessarily the style used by the {{cite pmid}} template. Correct? Boghog (talk) 05:34, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:24, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your #3 is going to cause dirty diffs (diffs in which nothing really changes, but the diff takes up many screenfuls anyway). I suggest skipping that one. You're on thin enough ice with WP:CITEVAR without making pointless changes to internal formatting. In fact, to deal with CITEVAR, you should probably have a list made of the pages that you'd like to change, and post messages on the articles' talk pages, to give people a chance to object. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:34, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WhatamIdoing I do not see how this proposal has anything to do with WP:CITEVAR. CITEVAR only talks about reader experience and this proposal is entirely about editor experience. Can you say how CITEVAR applies? Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:30, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CITEVAR does distinguish between templated and non-templated citations and the output of these two can be made to look very similar. Hence I think CITEVAR can reasonably interpreted to also apply to the format of the wikitext citations. At the same time, if the first established citation template style was horizontal (citations on one line), then CITEVAR can be used to justify the conversion of vertical (citations on many lines) to horizontal format. The objection concerning dirty diffs can easily be overcome by a having the bot make two sets of edits, one to substitute {{cite pmid}} templates, and a second to convert vertical to horizontal style. Boghog (talk) 13:19, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Background: I wrote CITEVAR. I've followed WT:CITE for years. So, with that in mind, I'm going to tell you two different facts about CITEVAR:

When I wrote it, I did not intend for it to apply to trivial aspects of internal formatting, like whether or not there is a space or a break in between parameters. I intended it to cover templates vs manual formatting, but not really trivial things.
Since then, there have been multiple discussions on whether it applies to these trivial aspects of internal formatting, and the discussions always end with a rough consensus that it does apply to basically anything and everything. One reason for this (NB: not "the only" reason), is that the realistic alternative is that we allow people set up AWB to make trivial changes that affect every single templated ref in an article, so long as they are also making some "real" change while they're present. And that means that you get 158 lines changed in Schizophrenia, along with one spelling correction, and nobody can find the spelling correction to review it because it's lost in a sea of trivial changes.

Also, you might notice that only you (Doc James) and one other person have supported this particular change, which the BOTREQ folks are not going to consider an impressive consensus. It would be unfortunate if your entire proposal were derailed because you overreached. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:18, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think vertical vs. horizontal formatting is more than a trivial change since it has a major impact on the readability of the wikitext. I agree that the dirty diff issue is important since it makes it more difficult to see exactly what the bot has done. Hence I think these two types of edits should be done separately. In fact, it would probably be best to make two separate requests to the bot committee, the first to substitute the templates, and a second to reformat vertical citations horizontally. That way if objection are raised to the second proposal, it will not derail the first. Finally, just to be clear, {{cite pmid}} currently uses a vertical format (which makes sense for isolated citation data), but the intention is that substituted {{cite journal}} template will use a horizontal format. Boghog (talk) 16:20, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vertical vs. horizontal formatting is only an issue if you insist on placing full reference definitions in the middle of article text. It's a self-inflicted problem. For several years now, we have had the ability to define our citations in full in the references section which is the natural place for them - after all that is where they are rendered. I simply don't buy the argument about separating the ref from the text, as we've been doing that for even longer with named references (and a sensible ref name like "Smith2012" would make clear which reference supports the text). You can easily look at list-defined references as named references where the full definition is in a predictable place: how many times have you gone to copy from the first occurrence of a reference used in multiple places and not found the definition there? I know I have, lots of times. James is right about the problem of other languages not implementing list-defined references; but as with any useful feature, the solution is to implement them on the other language wikis, not to stop using them on English Wikipedia. --RexxS (talk) 17:05, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vertical vs. horizontal formatting is also an issue if placed in list-defined references. I occasionally use these myself in exactly the same way you suggest (see for example nuclear receptor references). For an article with large number of citations, I cannot imagine using vertical formatting even if using list-defined references. It would take forever to scroll through this list. It makes sense to use the vertical format if the citations are isolated in a transcluded {{cite pmid}} template. It does not make sense to place these in an article, even if they are placed in list defined references. Finally, how often are references edited? The citations are frequently created by template filling tools and the most errors can be detected and corrected by bots. Boghog (talk) 19:51, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, when the article has a large number of references, I also use horizontal format even in list-defined refs. Nevertheless I know of other editors who prefer the clarity of vertical format in LDRs, which has few drawbacks for articles with fewer references (especially for editors who are fast-scrollers), and I'm always cautious about trying to impose what may be seen as a personal preference on other editors. I find myself editing references far more often that I ought as the various tools do seem to exhibit many problems, including failing to discriminate between authors and editors, adding access dates to {{cite book}}, mistaking publishers for works, and so on. I also update access dates whenever I check online references, as I hope everyone does. --RexxS (talk) 22:30, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can't help thinking that the ver vs horizontal wiki text layout ought to be a personal pref/gadget, not a fixed feature of the wiki text. For that matter, the problem with using LDRs, separation from the supported text while editing, ought similarly to be remedied by a fix to the editing environment. If I could work on both a citation and the LDRS supporting it in a single section edit, I would have no problem with LDRs. Ultimately, we need a better editor that understands foot noting. For the present however, switching between LDRs and inline citations is going to be seen as disruptive, so please, baby steps . . . LeadSongDog come howl! 00:29, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@LeadSongDog: The problem you describe is not due to LDRs, but with Named references which separate the full reference from the text except in one place. We couldn't manage without named refs so never hear "... the problem with using named refs, separation from the supported text while editing ...". At least with LDRs we know where to find the full ref when we need to. --RexxS (talk) 15:40, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, named refs suffer from the same problem.LeadSongDog come howl! 17:00, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:VisualEditor solves that problem by letting you edit the ref from any place on the page (unless the citation is in a gallery or infobox in which case things get complicated at the moment). However, it can't autofill citations yet. A redesign is in the works, and once the new manual citation dialog is working, they're supposed to start work on autofill, but it may be several months.

Perhaps VE will get there someday, but som of us will still edit with the existing editor.LeadSongDog come howl! 17:00, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to know the current four-click "cheat code" for pasting in Diberri's output into VisualEditor's refs, then let me know. I can't promise that it will work forever, though. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:31, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There are multiple issues discussed in this thread, which makes it difficult to determine what appropriate solutions might look like. The proposed bot action would help remedy some symptoms (and relatively quickly) but do nothing to address the underlying problems of a more general nature, for which Lane's IdeaLab page looks more promising in the long run, albeit more complicated.

But even in terms of doing away with the symptoms, I am not convinced the proposed replacement of {{Cite doi}} with {{Cite journal}} is helpful, as it would have the unpleasant side effect of decentralizing the curation of bibliographic metadata even more. A string like {{Cite doi|10.1016.2Fj.jacc.2010.11.002}} in wiki text is clearly not friendly to human readers, but what about something like <ref name=Douglas2010>{{Cite doi|10.1016.2Fj.jacc.2010.11.002}}</ref> ? That would give human readers the orientation they need, and we could keep the advantages of curating references in one place. The same goes for {{Cite pmid}}. While the latter is rather specific to WP:MED, the other two templates are not, so broadening the discussion (as Lane has done) seems appropriate.

Yes, Cite doi and Cite pmid are missing in most Wikipedia languages, but Cite journal does not work entirely the same way across languages either, so if harmonization across languages is the goal, then some Wikidata-based approach seems to be the way forward. As for hosting local copies (if that is indeed necessary), I agree that the template namespace is not ideal, and would rather be in favour of a dedicated namespace, even though the French model may need some tweaks.

-- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 03:46, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: From what I read, most agree that a single source for multiple uses of a common reference is a good idea. The practical solution to that seems to be a Document-oriented database hosted on Wikidata (as proposed by Lane) which can be used interwiki. My thought is that our focus should be on finding compromise to a consistent citation structure for a (short?) period of time so we can progress to the long-term desires of citation management. Moving a single form of citations to a db should be easier than 4 or 5 structures? Ian Furst (talk) 20:15, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm all in favour of an open, centralized, multilingual bibliographic resource that can be verifiable. Something hidden in template space on the English language Wikipedia is not it. Wikidata, or perhaps wikisource? Citations belong with the supported text for the obvious reason, but the amount of bibliographic data to be packed in each citation is not an absolute. An identifier linked to one published article, together with a page number would be enough if it was not for vandalism issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeadSongDog (talk • contribs) 17:00, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm concerned about making automated changes to en:wp references simply because "other languages lack XXXX". I've seen this before where Doc James proposed a change and it was trivial to fix the template for the other language (can't remember which now). Surely effort should be made to ensure other languages support a core set of templates, which will benefit many topics not just medicine. Or for there to be tools that translate existing en templates into wikimarkup to be placed on any language regardless of template availability. I'm confused about the whole business of trying to find out which citation style was in-use first in order to make changes. The "pick the first rule" is just an arbitrary argument-solver where editors can't come to agreement, rather than some way of picking what is best. The main thing is to not fiddle with articles in ways that risk pissing off contributors for the sake of change of no benefit to the reader. And this is one. No readers at en:wp will benefit. The readers on other wps would benefit if templates were translated or the translation tools avoided the need for en templates. I've no experience with references in other languages but wonder whether the translators of medical articles will face the same issues of reference mixup/change when they move translated text over. In short, this seems like the wrong solution to the problem. -- Colin°^Talk 13:08, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly all the editors here dislike the "cite PMID". If we get rid of it and we are able to edit content more this will be good for readers. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:17, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Should we change the ref layout during the above bot work?

Should we change refs that are over many lines and put them over one line in the 1500 medical articles we run this on?

This is a ref over one line:

Text.<ref name="Uyoga2006">{{Cite journal|author=Wambua S|title=The Effect of α +-Thalassaemia on the Incidence of Malaria and Other Diseases in Children Living on the Coast of Kenya|journal=PLoS Medicine|volume=3|issue=5|pages=e158|date=May 2006|pmid=16605300|pmc=1435778|doi=10.1371/journal.pmed.0030158}}</ref>

This is a ref over many lines:

Text.<ref name="Uyoga2006">{{Cite journal
| author = Wambua S
| title = The Effect of α +-Thalassaemia on the Incidence of Malaria and Other Diseases in Children Living on the Coast of Kenya
| journal = PLoS Medicine
| volume = 3
| issue = 5
| pages = e158
| date=May 2006
| pmid = 16605300
| pmc = 1435778
| doi = 10.1371/journal.pmed.0030158}}</ref>

Support changing layout

Support: I find refs over one line take up less space and thus make the text easier to edit.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:34, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ian Furst (talk) 15:40, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support – The vertical format fragments the wikitext making it a pain to scroll through and much more difficult to read and to edit. Boghog (talk) 15:52, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Can't see any reason not to. Jinkinson talk to me 16:01, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support with additional proposal to promote this generally There are various automated tools on Wikipedia which generate citations. Users of these tools use them because they like the tools, not because they are thoughtful about citations. I propose that there be agreement between the citation tools when they are intended to produce identical citations. The current situation is that the creators of tools intended for them to generate identical code, but in fact, every tool generates different code for no reason and without regard to anyone's preference. In cases in which people would like to use identical code, there should be a standard expected output and anyone making a citation tool should be directed to make their tool give that standard output. Anyone knowingly wishing to make different citations should, but people wanting to do it a standard way should be able to also. I do not think anyone likes vertical citations and these should not be encouraged as a default as they currently are. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:43, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree completely. Little steps. We can work on this next :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:00, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I find references that take 7 lines very disruptive for editing. JFW | T@lk 20:27, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support agree this is very disruptive. --LT910001 (talk) 20:42, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I find it is easier to read through the reference in the one line format than the several line format. It's far more conducive to editing and IMO just more pleasant to look at. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 22:50, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support on the condition that the one-line output has a space either to the left or on both sides of every pipe | separator so that word-wrap works in a sensible manner both in the code edit screen and in diffs. -- 79.67.241.76 (talk) 18:41, 28 March 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]
Further comment: When converting from vertical to horizontal format, please take out spaces found directly either side of all "=" signs. -- 79.67.241.76 (talk) 22:16, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To maximize the likelihood that "url=https://something-extremely-long" will screw up the word-wrap, as well as increasing the difficulty of reading the template text? I don't think that this is a good idea. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:33, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I also think it that removing spaces is a bad idea. To facilitate word-wraping and increase template readability, I was planning to pad both pipe symbols and equal signs with a single spaces. This partially mitigates the loss of readability in converting from a vertical to horizontal format and hence I think it is a reasonable thing to do. Boghog (talk) 17:19, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support, I agree with the last poster: please put spaces on both sides of every pipe symbol. Klortho (talk) 01:50, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose changing layout

Don't put the reference definitions in the text and then all the problems of taking up space and making the text hard to edit simply disappear. I like vertical citations because they are easier to read than all-on-one-line, but I'd never place them in article text. --RexxS (talk) 17:10, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Many of us like refs within the text. Last time I looked putting them all at the end was not supported in many languages.

This above proposal however is not about putting refs within the text or in the last section. This is only about one line versus many lines for those within the text. If they are over many lines at the end the proposal is not to change them. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:47, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe that's true. You just need to stop using the {{reflist}} template (which exists pretty much only at en.wp) and set it up in the standard <references> (LDRs go here) </references> wikitext. All Wikipedias have the same MediaWiki code. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:56, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks will try. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:20, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you should go creating a mess of dirty diffs on up to 1500 articles. I also know that multiple discussions at WT:CITE have defined this kind of change as being a violation of WP:CITEVAR, so doing this would require a discussion in advance at each and every affected page. Finally, I disagree that a mushed-together string of gobbledegook is necessarily "more readable" than the vertical format—and if it really is, then why don't we (ever) use that style for infoboxes? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:56, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The reason we don't do that for infoboxes, Whatamidoing, is that infoboxes are supposed to be vertically oriented, so it makes sense for the template to be the same "shape". References are not, so them being "mushed together" would be consistent for the same reason. Jinkinson talk to me 15:20, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's a nice story, but it's not actually true. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:20, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh really? And why not? Jinkinson talk to me 17:24, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are three problems with the infobox/citation analogy. Problem #1: The number of infoboxes is generally far fewer than the number of citations. Problem #2: Inboxes generally are inserted at the beginning of articles, not in the middle of wikitext. Hence the disruptions of vertically formatted infoboxes are generally far less than vertically formatted citations. Problem #3: info boxes generally need to be edited far more frequently than citations. Hence readability of infoboxes take precedent (vertical formatting) while compactness of citations (horizontal formatting) make the most sense. Boghog (talk) 22:00, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how to answer your question, Jinkinson. Why is your made-up history of wikitext formatting conventions not true? Well, your made-up history isn't true because it isn't true, just like most folk etymologies. Infobox conventions predate your first edit by about a decade, so I don't know why you would even assume that you know anything about it. They started as plain old tables (using HTML originally, and eventually using wikitext table formatting [i.e., after the markup for wikitext tables was created]). Those tables are normally (not just at Wikipedia) arranged with one row per line so that humans reading the source code have a chance of finding the information they're trying to edit. When templates for infoboxes were later created, people retained the readable vertical organization. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:24, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I never said that what I said was the way it was "designed" when infoboxes were first implemented or anything like that, nor do I think I would know anything about it. I was just giving my opinion. I guess the way I phrased it in this section made it seem like I was 100% positive of it, but I really wasn't (and am still not), sorry if that was unclear. In any case, the fact that infoboxes use vertical formatting and are vertically oriented, regardless of the original reason why this was implemented, still serves a purpose. That purpose is to make it much easier to read the information in the infobox, both when you're editing it and when you're just reading the page.Jinkinson talk to me 16:50, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I like having the ref within the text, but it does make it difficult to find one's place in the edit box. I've often thought that the only change needed would be showing the refs in another color or font or font size. Refs in a very small font size would allow for easy reading. --Hordaland (talk) 08:09, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All you have to do is turn on WikEd under preferences and gadgets. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:19, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
1.Thanks, James. I'll try that if I ever get 'round to trying Firefox, Safari or Google Chrome. --Hordaland (talk) 01:03, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss

Tool Labs is down

Some of the tools there aren't working. [1] [2] Anyone know why (or how we can get this fixed)? Jinkinson talk to me 18:23, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes editor tools break on a regular basis. Usually they came back in a bit. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:32, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What happen is all the tools were transfered to a new server and each tool has to be reinstalled and restarted. I have run into technical difficulies getting the template filler working again. I am still working on it. Boghog (talk) 18:23, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed (at least the citation template filler) After some required tweaks to the configuration files, the template filler is up and running again. Boghog (talk) 11:40, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you--Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 11:52, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MSM blood donor controversy

Could some editors check out MSM blood donor controversy? I think some of the statistics might be out of context, implying MSM are infected at much higher rates, but perhaps they are spot on. Sportfan5000 (talk) 01:36, 20 March 2014 (UTC) [WP:BAN 03:11, 24 March 2014 (UTC)][reply]

Yes MSM are infected at a higher rate in much of the world. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:39, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~I'm aware the rates can be higher, I'm wondering if the statistics Wikipedia is reporting are both accurate, and presented with due weight. Sportfan5000 (talk) 02:08, 20 March 2014 (UTC)~~ [WP:BAN 03:11, 24 March 2014 (UTC)][reply]

Sportfan5000 Could you post any specific concern on the talk page of that article? What gave you pause? Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:17, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Scope

Are (deadly) poisonous mushrooms within the scope of WP:MED? The tag was recently added to the talk of Amanita phalloides with the rationale "WikiProj med has a toxicology taskforce". If this project agrees, I could add this tag to all species on List of deadly fungi. Sasata (talk) 14:55, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since that'd make them biotoxins by def., I think it merits low importance med article ratings. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 16:46, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ottawa has already spread this discussion over many message boards. The last discussion occured at [[3]] and the relevent guidelines is at [[4]]. Since the actual toxin is identified within the article and covered by the tox task force I think we should let the fungi task force take ownership of the actual deadly fungi. Mrfrobinson (talk) 20:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC) 12:31, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Project page for conducting good article reviews on medical articles

Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Good article review

Started the above page to try and standardize the GA review process more for medical articles, and perhaps encourage participation. Feel free to comment on, or change the page. Kind regards, Lesion (talk) 14:24, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Specialized criteria for medical GA's?

WhatamIdoing thanks for having a look. I was thinking that a biomedical type article should be assessed more closely against MEDMOS and MEDRS rather than the existing GA criteria. Also, some aspects of the general guidelines are not relevent (at least that I can see, e.g. "writing about fiction").

If this is the kind of thing people would find useful, then OK keep it, otherwise I don't see a great deal of use in another page which duplicates info available elsewhere. Thoughts? Lesion (talk) 17:31, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA is community-wide, so we can't make a medicine-only version.

We could try to get the community-wide criteria changed; however, I don't think that's necessary, because a good deal of what's in MEDMOS actually falls under the first GA criteria ("A good article is well-written") and third ("It addresses the main aspects of the topic"). I think a page to describe special issues or the best way to understand the existing criteria would be just fine. The important point is not to look like we are setting up "new" or "different" criteria. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:08, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oddly enough, GA#2b specifically mentions Wikipedia:Scientific citation guidelines for science-based articles, so there's a precedent for encouraging GA nominators to follow MEDMOS and MEDRS for medical articles. I wouldn't encourage reviewers to take a tough line, but GA#2b requires the article to use reliable sources, which is linked to Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. That has a section Medical claims stating "It is vital that the biomedical information in all types of articles be based on reliable, third-party, published sources and accurately reflect current medical knowledge" so I guess we could justify a desire to meet MEDRS if pushed on the point.

This is an interesting idea. How exactly, at least according to Lesion, are the MEDRS and MEDMOS criteria different from the GA criteria as they currently exist? Also, is it more of a problem that medical articles listed as GAs actually shouldn't be, or the other way around? Jinkinson talk to me 23:57, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We hold all medical articles to a very high standard of sourcing, principally because medicine tends to have a lot of very high quality sources and there's no reason not to insist on the best sources, and partially because there's a moral imperative to get it right for the reader who may decide to take what's written here as authoritative medical advice (no matter how many disclaimers we make). From that point-of-view it seems silly not to ask medical GANs to meet the same standards we ask of medical articles that are not GAs. Conventionally, GAs are not required to be perfect, so there's a reluctance to set the bar too high; personally I don't think we do any favours to GANs that fall short of MEDRS, although I'm not so worried about MEDMOS. --RexxS (talk) 00:24, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They would not be hugely different, as pointed out by WAID and RexxS above. Most changes would be little, e.g.:

1b mention MEDMOS. Remove the link to writing about fiction,

2b making this about MEDRS specifically instead of RS

...And that's about all the changes I would suggest. Mostly it is making a general guideline more useful for people working on a particular type of article, not changing the spirit of the main criteria. There was a discussion here a few months ago about potentially making WPMED-specific criteria. Let me search the archives to link to that discussion. Lesion (talk) 00:35, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here is that conversation: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Archive_44#Monetary_awards. The stuff I said about turning on the article feedback is now impossible because feedback is no more. Looie496, Jmh649. Lesion (talk) 00:42, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A good idea, but it does seem to duplicate most of what is on the GA page. I certainly think that two user groups could deal with some more detailed information about biomedical articles: (1) reviewers, detailing what is/is not a reliable source and how to deal with issues of readability, technical prose and comprehensiveness; (2) users who are not associated with this project and nominate medical articles without proper preparation, a short page outlining MEDMOS and MEDRS; or a template that can be used when quick-failing a review could be very useful. --LT910001 (talk) 02:34, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can't remove fiction. GA is community-wide. You cannot make a medicine-specific/all-other-subjects-excluding version and still pretend that it's the same thing as the community-wide GA. If you make a version that excludes fiction or other non-medical content, then it stops being Good articles. You would need a new name and a separate process, and you would need to remember that the existence of this new "Medical Special Good articles" would not prevent someone from applying for and receiving normal old Good article status.

You could, if you thought it was important (I don't), try to convince the community that the community-wide GA criteria need to explicitly mention MEDMOS. Unless and until that is actually mentioned, though, reviewers are actually forbidden (read footnote #2) from requiring compliance with it (or any of dozens of other Manual of Style pages).

You don't need to mention MEDRS directly, or to go through SCG (which IMO is a mess). GA requires all material to be verifiable (even if not sourced) and for five specific types of material to have inline citations supported by a reliable source. MEDRS is the community-wide definition of what constitutes a reliable source for biomedical (NB: note social, cultural, historical, biographical, financial, commercial, etc.) material. You can therefore consider it to be already included, even though not named. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:05, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed removing the link to "writing about fiction" since it would not be relevant to medical articles (that I can foresee anyway). I understand what you are saying, that GA cannot be changed to make "special medical GA status", but I believe that medical articles are already assessed against specialized GA criteria, i.e. against MEDRS and MEDMOS ... especially if a WPMED regular editor carries out the review. This would be just making it slightly more "official".

Will wait for more discussion on this, I was expecting some controversy ... happy to see what the community wants and I will follow it.

P.S. I don't know what SCG is? Lesion (talk) 16:32, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SCG = Wikipedia:Scientific citation guidelines mentioned in the Good Article Criteria. HTH, --RexxS (talk) 17:59, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. There is also the concern that if one Wikiproject fragments their concerns, what is to stop other Wikiprojects from doing the same thing? One alternative may be to have a "GA preparation checklist" page (on this wikiproject) specific for medical articles. This would address your concerns whilst maintaining the centralised GA process. --LT910001 (talk) 05:38, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a GA reviewer will follow it as they are unlikely to have the time/inclincation to look thru project specific guidelines. In my limited experience (n=3 attempts) I've found the GA good for structure but it does little to encourage discussions on content. Both are needed to make the articles readable imo but, personally, I enjoy the challenges & discussions from other medproject people about content. Ian Furst (talk) 10:59, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This seems related to the discussion: WP:Advice pages. I don't know if anyone else has seen this, but it appears that we really can't tell GA reviewers to check for compliance with this Wikiproject's standards. At least that is how I interpret that page. Zell Faze (talk) 16:03, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand and agree with the sentiment that any medical article claiming to be a good article should adhere to MEDRS for biomedical content. But I'll ask, it this currently a problem? Have there been medical articles that have progressed to good article nomination, that have passed good article criteria, but that have failed badly in meeting MEDRS sourcing and citation requirements? I'd hate for a lot of effort to go into solving a problem that doesn't exist in practice. --Mark viking (talk) 16:50, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

LT910001, user Blue Rasberry found that WikiProject Military history already have their own class A criteria. It would not be a precedent therefore if simple WPMED criteria for class A were concocted, as has been suggested before. Articles would pass both class A and GA, probably at the same time. This would not necessitate messing with the wording of the encyclopedia-wide GA criteria. Lesion (talk) 11:44, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Furst, there is a short statement in which the nominator states why they have nominated this article for GA. In this section, a link to that page could be placed, then a non-WPMED reviewer would be more likely to see it. Lesion (talk) 11:44, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zellfaze, yes, that is what several people have been saying. Probably can't change the GA criteria since they are standardized across the encyclopedia. Lesion (talk) 11:44, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mark viking, I have only made 3 GA nominations, and even in that small number the thoroughness of the review was very variable. There are some reviewers who (rightly imo) will want to check every single source, run the text through a program which checks for plagiarism, and carefully considers the wording of every single sentence. These are definitely good articles. Other reviewers are not familiar with MEDRS and the MEDMOS and do not appear to check references against them. Here is one recent example that me and Ian nominated: [5], and I am certain that many others who have nominated GA may corroborate this variation in the standard of the review. Lesion (talk) 11:45, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ping to Jmh649 who has much experience with GA. Lesion (talk) 11:44, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So yes agree that the quality / thoroughness of reviews at GA are variable. I have nominated articles that have just passed GA review for re-review when they miss the mark by a long way. We simply need to make sure that those from this community pick up medical GANs when they appear. While I think most of us here agree that following WP:MEDRS and WP:MEDMOS are requirements. Other reviewers may not be aware of these guidelines. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:34, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Would support an A-class listing for WP-MED. We seem to have quite a large active mass, so articles should not have to wait more than a couple of months to be reviewed. --LT910001 (talk) 03:05, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Editor review requested for Wikipedia Education Program

user:Salubrious Toxin

The WP:Wikipedia Education Program has an oversight system in which the only people who can make course pages for classes are those who have done a tutorial and have had their Wikipedia editing experience checked by two other Wikipedians. There is a user who has done the tutorial but has so little editing experience that it is difficult for others to judge. Because what he has done is related to medicine, I thought that it would be better for me to ask here at the medicine board than on the education board for someone to give a second review of him. I met him in person as a first review, and in my opinion he knows enough about Wikipedia to be responsive to any concerns which arise. He wants to start a Wikipedia club at his medical school and I would like to support him in this. If he had the userright then he would start a course page and begin advertising for an in-person meetup for an editathon at his school, and have his classmates register for the editathon through this course page.

His contributions so far are at Special:Contributions/Salubrious_Toxin
His request to get instructor rights and some more explanation of this is at Wikipedia:Education_noticeboard#Campus_Ambassador_application:_Salubrious_Toxin

If anyone has comments, please share them at his request on the education noticeboard. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:47, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes a Wikipedia club at a medical school would be excellent. There was one in Quebec but it fizzled out shortly after being started. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:43, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at these edits [6] why was he added a bunch of 1980s primary sources as references to Wikipedia? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:36, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Salubrious Toxin Your work is being evaluated. Can you comment? Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:54, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jmh649 When I first made these edits, I thought I was supposed to use primary sources instead of secondary sources. Sorry! User talk:Bluerasberry explained this to me at our meeting. Thank you for posting the editing guides on my talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Salubrious Toxin (talk • contribs) 11:40, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

I granted this user "course instructor" rights as noted on the education noticeboard. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:03, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

user:Celesteroyce

Hello everyone. I have spent more than an hour talking with an instructor at a nearby medical school about her wish to have her OBGYN class contribute to Wikipedia. I plan to organize an in-person workshop with them and support them otherwise in their engagement with Wikipedia.

This instructor has no prior Wikipedia experience nor do the students, and for that reason, it would be difficult for the people coordinating the Education program to evaluate their stated plans and say whether they should have the userright to set up a course page. Could I ask for someone here to review what she has proposed to do as written in OBGYN bootcamp project on the noticeboard and give a comment there about the circumstances under which the instructor for this class can have a userright to have a course page? Thanks to anyone who can review this. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:32, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Thanks for comments. Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:28, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Medical FA dates

Except for a select few that had an unusual, but consistent standard, I just fixed/established a consistent dating standard in every medical FA above low importance (either MDY or DMY, depending on which was more prevalent). There were maybe about 5 out of 50 that actually had a consistent format. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 05:45, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The switching back and forth between date formats is a pain. Can we just not go with one date format from all the ref making tools? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:51, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The tool I used consistently applies DMY or MDY date formats using any date type, even malformed ones (e.g., it removed non-breaking spaces between a day and month, then corrected the date format). So basically, if there's consensus for establishing a consistent medical FA date format, it can be done very easily. The tool seems to be coded very well. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 08:51, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Link to script: "date formats per WP:MOSNUM by WP:MOSNUMscript"

Question for WP:MED editors

If you didnt miss this ugly blob of red text, then I want your 2¢. $200 works too. Does anyone have any legitimate concerns with me following through on Doc James' idea with making all the MED FA's use consistent date formats? It would be DMY if so, since most of our FAs have all their dates in that format as of last night. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 15:58, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You weren't around for the WP:MOSDATE war a few years ago, right? This may be a perfectly good idea, but my impulse would be to avoid it, and, if I couldn't avoid it, to make sure that all the ArbCom restrictions had lapsed before doing anything. Cas was on ArbCom then and might remember where the pages are. Also, I'd maintain a strict WP:0RR stance. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:14, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond a desire to cause a pointless conflict or article ownership, I have no clue why anyone would oppose this change. Since last night, I received 2 messages from 2 editors, both of whom mentioned the policy and nothing else.

Besides being obvious, that's not a reason not to do it.

Our policies make positive statements, whereas I'm asking for everyone to provide normative statements. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 16:23, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, what you are doing is reasonable and has my support. However, since you are making an argument based on a tool, I would like to share with you my comments on citation tools. Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Unwarranted variation in citation output from tools. I wish that tools were more mindfully designed and presented so that variations like this could only be intentional and not accidental. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:40, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy to adopt a consistent format and agree with D/M/Y. I recall the debate - it was more about what happened afterwards. If you can show that all efforts have been made to get consensus we should be ok. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:58, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good.
Bluerasberry, I think you raised a good point, so I went and checked around 500-600 citations on the pages which had a lot of date changes (I only applied a change if there were a nontrivial number of inconsistencies). Specifically, out of the refs on Alzheimer's disease, Major depressive disorder, Management of multiple sclerosis, this invalid date was the only thing that didn't convert. It performs fairly well because it's not a citation script (i.e., it doesn't pull data); it just finds/replaces strings. I've been checking to see that it doesn't convert dates outside of references before committing the edit because of that. In any event, it seems to work with very high accuracy based upon the sample I checked. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 20:05, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Start a RfC, you will have my support. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:01, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RFC - Standardizing the medical FA date formats

Does anyone have any legitimate concerns with me following through on Doc James' idea with making all the MED FA's use consistent date formats? Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 15:58, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Does "your plan would (very probably) violate WP:DATERET" count as "any legitimate concern"? Seriously, there have been wars over making all articles use The Right Style™ (so that FA #1 matches FA #2, etc.) in the past, so I think it's a good idea to tread lightly and with discussions at each affected article, exactly the way the guidelines tell you to do. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:24, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just to make sure I understand your assertion, you're suggesting that I start the same thread on ~50 article talk pages, then monitor them all for responses? Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 01:46, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Project-wide consensus seems to exist for WP:STRONGNAT:

Articles on topics with strong ties to a particular English-speaking country should generally use the more common date format for that nation. For the United States, this is month before day; for most others, it is day before month.

That means, for example that if you wanted to make the dates in Abortion in the United States consistent, I'm pretty certain you'd have to use MDY. However, if it became a Featured Article, your proposal would suggest we change all of them to DMY. I think that counts as a legitimate concern. I don't care, personally, but I know that a lot of editors will care and I think you ought to be aware of some of the obvious pitfalls. --RexxS (talk) 01:35, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a valid point RexxS. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 01:41, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seppi, basically, yes. It would reduce drama, and this is a drama-prone area.

It sounds like a lot of work, but it's not too bad, and it's faster than spending a day over at ANI with someone who's upset about it. Write a generic message, make a list, paste the same message on each page, then go back in about a week (that's why you made the list ;-) and see if anyone objected during the intervening time. If not, post a generic message that "since nobody objected" or "since editors here seem to agree with this plan" you're moving ahead (or "since someone objected" that you're not). WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:05, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I'll cancel the RFC and do that when I have the time/energy. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 03:31, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose standardised format. I do not see a convincing reason why editors should have to confirm to one or other date style if they so choose. This is a solution looking for a problem. I would support unifying the format used by automated tools however, as it would be very frustrating if some templates and tools gave one format, and others didn't.--LT910001 (talk) 02:11, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a reasonable alternative to my proposal and also support it. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 02:27, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the most important first step is to get all the citation generating tools to give one format for references. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:40, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:DATEFORMAT lists several acceptable date format styles. I see no reason why medical featured articles should use a different guideline. If you want to push your guideline through, you should involve the wider community, not just WikiProject Medicine. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:57, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reform of citation structure for all Wikimedia projects

If you're thinking about attending Wikimania and this discussion would interest you, please consider adding your name to the proposal as a possible attendee. That list helps the organisers decide which proposals to include in the program. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 08:07, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

People adding primary sources of which they are the author

These two users

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:49, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The people are [7] and [8]. Jinkinson talk to me 20:31, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So Sportfan5000 is a sock of Benjiboi

I'm pretty surprised. Is anyone else, or did you see this coming? It seems like he was (at least by banned-user standards) such a constructive contributor. Jinkinson talk to me 17:50, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Posting here was very strange. So no not surprised. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:56, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You mean it was strange for me to post here, or strange for him to? Jinkinson talk to me 18:08, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I mean his posting here was strange. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:00, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Local Skin Memory

Dear editors: Here's another of those abandoned Afc submissions. Is this a notable topic, or should it be deleted as a stale draft? —Anne Delong (talk) 11:58, 25 March 2014 (UTC) :I think this one may be worthwhile turning into start class. The last reference is from Nature Immunology and is a good reference (I think). Seems like a worthwhile topic. Unless someone else has an interest in immunology/dermatology I'll volunteer to get it to start class, assuming there is not a similiar (differently named) page and this is not just someone trying to promote a neologisms Ian Furst (talk) 12:34, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disregard previous. The topic is already covered in Allergic_contact_dermatitis#Memory_Response although the last reference would be a good addition. I'll add it in if not already listed. Ian Furst (talk) 12:36, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help. If there's no other useful content to be transferred besides the reference, I guess we can let this one go. If any text is transferred, we can always change this into a redirect. —Anne Delong (talk) 19:03, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The info is already convered in the article imo. Ian Furst (talk) 21:55, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's gone! —Anne Delong (talk) 03:20, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AfC submission - 25/03

Tactile Induced Analgesia. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 18:44, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can any of us review and discuss this article or do you need to be an admin? Ian Furst (talk) 21:57, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Any competent editor can: and I'd encourage you to do so. You never really understand a topic until you try to teach it. --RexxS (talk) 22:35, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest that you go here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Preferences and enable the gadget with the description:
"Yet Another AFC Helper Script: easily review Articles for creation submissions, Files for Upload, redirect and category requests"
Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 23:09, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thx. Will do tomorrow unless someone else hits it. Ian Furst (talk) 00:45, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Two questions to experience reviewers - I think it's a great article but all original research. Do I make a note to add non-primary and move on or do I need to dig up secondary sources before approving. Also, the headings are non-standard (e.g. not MEDMOS) but it's a physiology article. I haven't found any headings guidelines for physiology (although anatomy applies as well). What do you normally recommend to the authors? Ian Furst (talk) 12:53, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Original research = not published in any source. If it's supported by primary sources, then it's not OR. That happens a lot when research scientists and grad students write articles, because they think the rules for peer-reviewed journals apply (and journals usually prohibit citations of secondary sources).

Don't worry about the section headings. AFC is about first drafts, not about getting everything right. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:47, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thx. Ian Furst (talk) 19:36, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

this is complete Ian Furst (talk) 03:14, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Student Ob/Gyn writing project

At WP:Education noticeboard#OBGYN bootcamp project, there's a very promising student project that will edit pages in that area. I'm going to point the instructor here, so that she or her students can let editors in this project know what pages will be involved. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:33, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

thanks Tryptofish. The course will be convening next week, and I expect to have students identify what topics they are interested in at that time. I will look forward to guidance from the community! Happy Tuesday!Celesteroyce (talk) 03:08, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Medical Family Therapy

Was accepted through AFC, then nominated for deletion at AFD. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Medical Family Therapy. Looks notable, but needs more independent sources per JzG's remarks at the AFD. Here's a few I found: http://www.unl.edu/gradstudies/prospective/programs/Cert_MedicalFamilyTherapy https://www.spu.edu/depts/spfc/mdft/ http://www.ecu.edu/che/cdfr/medft/ Participation is welcome.Jinkinson talk to me 19:53, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Gabor Racz....

I want to write a bio for Dr. Gabor Racz who is an expert in the treatment of complex regional pain syndromes (CRPS), and was hoping to get some input. I checked Google Scholar and got the following results:

Citations - 2474.00
h-index - 28.00
g-index 49.00
e-index 35.00
per co-authorship
Citations - 901.00
h-index 17.00
g-index 27.00
e-index 18.00

I look forward to your responses. Atsme ☯ talk 11:07, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

H-index of 28? Sounds like a notable scientist to me. Jinkinson talk to me 11:20, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nursing and nursing journals

Hi, is nursing considered a subfield of medicine or is it a field that runs parallel to it? I am asking because of this CFD discussion, where it was decided to merge a couple of nursing journals into a medical journal category. Up till now, nursing journals are categorized in a categorization tree that basically runs parallel to the medical journals category and both Medical journals and Nursing journals are categorized as subcategories of Healthcare journals. Should we maintain this scheme (and ask for a -partial- reversal of the before-mentioned CFD) or should we merge both category trees (implying that, e.g., Oncology nursing journals will be merged into Oncology journals? The current situation (where all specialty nursing journals are kept separately from specialty medical journals, except for the gastrointestinal ones) is rather undesirable, I feel. I'd appreciate any input from knowledgeable editors here and am cross-posting to the Nursing and Academic Journals wikiprojects. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 11:20, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's a separate, parallel field. It has different educational requirements, separate licensure and a different process for entry to practice. I can understand the need to keep things simple, but I think it's more accurate to keep medical and nursing journals separate. EricEnfermero ^HOWDY! 12:08, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can't say that I find "different educational requirements, separate licensure and a different process for entry to practice" convincing arguments. The same goes for general physicians, podiatrists, and cardiac surgeons... --Randykitty (talk) 12:15, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here's where I would disagree: The groups that you mention generally undertake an undergrad four-year education followed by doctoral study and additional postgraduate residency training; two of the three are licensed by the same boards; and almost all members of those three groups undergo hospital credentialing processes. Nurses go through almost none of that and have a completely different role in health delivery most of the time. I appreciate you seeking comments though; nurses seem to be pretty underrepresented on Wikipedia and I think it means something just to be heard. I think we can agree that - whatever is decided - it's not ideal to have one specialty (gastrointestinal journals) handled differently than the rest. EricEnfermero ^HOWDY! 12:41, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nursing is considered a healthcare field. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:26, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nursing is a healthcare field, but is separate from medicine, at least academically. For instance at UCSF, a medical school, the School of Nursing is separate and parallel with the School of Medicine. While we are at it, pharmacy should be considered separate from the others, as well as the allied health professions. See, for instance, Health care provider#Practitioners and professionals. Putting dentistry journals under the medical journals is probably wrong, too. --Mark viking (talk) 13:40, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

comment The category system is not intended to delineate crisp differentiation between fields; its purpose is navigation. As an example this query which only goes 5 levels deep shows 5600 articles which are categorized in both the Category:Nursing tree and the Category:Medicine tree, so we aren't violating some rigid separation wall by doing so again. Ultimately, I think we can have both - a separate tree of nursing journals, but also categorize the nursing journals underneath the medicine tree, since the medicine tree has more generic names - e.g. Oncology journals as parent of Oncology nursing journals - why would we want to prevent readers from discovering that there is a whole tree of nursing journals devoted to the subject of Oncology? If you want to try to be *really* fair, you could have Category:Oncology journals as the parent, and then siblings of Category:Oncology medical journals and Category:Oncology nursing journals and Category:Oncology public health journals but frankly I think it's a bit exaggerated. As for that CFD, the reason it was deleted is smallcat - if you don't have enough to justify a category - and usually 2 isn't enough - the cat is deleted. So, I don't see any need to reverse that CFD either.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:07, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't propose to reverse the CfD completely, just the decision to merge to the medical journals cat. But I like your proposal of categorizing the nursing specialty journal cats under the medical specialty journal cats, and for smaller cats just include them in the medical journal cat as now happened with the gastrointestinal nursing journals. --Randykitty (talk) 16:48, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Based on this discussion I agree that Nursing journals should be kept in a separate category - although I have no problem if it is a separate category within the category of medicine. Otherwise, I think it is burdening one category too much when combining medicine and nursing journals. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 06:38, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Paper advertisments

At London Wikimania 2014 the organizers are offering to make paper advertisements for people who request them. WikiProject Medicine should propose something, right? I am not sure how these could be distributed but it would be nice to have a digital proof made for anyone to print themselves. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:45, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo Wales on adequate sources for articles on medical treatments

There is a lot of blog coverage of a change.org petition calling on Wikipedia to adjust its editorial policies to allow in more article text about "holistic approaches to healing." Jimbo Wales responded, "Wikipedia's policies around this kind of thing are exactly spot-on and correct. If you can get your work published in respectable scientific journals - that is to say, if you can produce evidence through replicable scientific experiments, then Wikipedia will cover it appropriately." See the Respectful Insolence blog by a medical doctor, the Skeptical Software Tools blog, and other blogs for more details. I've seen on another WikiProject talk page that the Wikipedia Signpost will be reporting about this controversy. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 19:11, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Good to hear. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:39, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, a petition from the president of the "Association for Comprehensive Energy Psychology". There should be a way to oppose these petitions. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:41, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, which articles are being debated? Is "Energy medicine" one of them? Any others? Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:13, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the "inclusiveness" directive, but I would emphasize the caveat: "...if you can produce evidence through replicable scientific experiments" (emphasis mine). Like most physicians, I have no objection to holistic approaches that can demonstrate replicable evidence of efficacy. But those that can't need to be weeded out expeditiously. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 12:23, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Axl, according to the petition from these energy medicine people, "Energy Psychology, Energy Medicine, acupuncture, and other forms of complementary/alternative medicine (CAM)". Lesion (talk) 12:29, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Lesion. I had a look at "Energy medicine". Unsurprisingly, there are significant problems with the referencing. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:54, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo was spot on with his response. Its surprising to me how many pseudo-science types I talk to who think that we are in the pockets of big-pharma here. For the record, they definitely don't pay me to edit Wikipedia (nor any of you I assume). Fantastic read. How often do you guys run into people trying to POV push in this Wikiproject? Zell Faze (talk) 14:23, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to be the article on acupuncture. People attempting to push fringe stuff using poor quality sources is fairly common. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:58, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, apparently ClueBot is secretly a pharmaceutical industry censor and purveyor of disinformation on wikipedia [9]. Lesion 01:34, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm familiar with that blog, though I never really bother reading it anymore. It's pure misinformation directed at parents desperate for someone to blame for their kids' autism and who are more easily influenced by emotion and argumentum ad populum than science. Nice to know they're on the same "Wikipedia is run by the scientific establishment" page as AGW deniers. Jinkinson talk to me 01:51, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Assessing articles

Hi everyone,

I've got User:Kephir/gadgets/rater set up to handle task forces for us now. If you want to rate articles, and especially if you would like to tag already-rated (but possibly out of date?) articles for task forces, then please consider installing it.

When you install it and go to any article, you'll get a new tab called "Rater" (near the history tab). Click that and you'll see the existing tags. You can add WPMED (type "Medicine" into the box on the bottom left) if it's not there. Click the [+] by WPMED's entry to see the task forces. Click and task force's name to list it (e.g., click "Society" for people, schools, and orgs). Optionally, use the pop-up to set a priority for the task force (if it doesn't match the main rating—e.g., all people are "Low" for the main rating but may be anything for |society-imp=). Click 'Save' and you're done. It's that quick and easy.

Also, Category:Unassessed medicine articles is up over 100 articles again, if anyone has a case of editcountitis going. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:33, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neuropathies

I've been looking at Benjamin Oluwakayode Osuntokun, konzo, tropical ataxic neuropathy, ataxic polyneuropathy, and cassava. It seems the area is in need of some attention. Could someone with some relevant expertise please have a peek? LeadSongDog come howl! 21:39, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've been working on the neuropathies, so I'll take a look later today. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 01:53, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Ch 10 of this pp. 246-9 looks useful. LeadSongDog come howl! 06:45, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Still reading. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 01:05, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eating pulses & chronic disease

Editor 32cllou is adding similar material[10][11][12] to articles based on

Singh, Jagdish (Dec 2012). "Non-Nutritive Bioactive Compounds in Pulses and Their Impact on Human Health: An Overview". Food and Nutrition Sciences: 1664–1672. doi:10.4236/fns.2012.312218. Retrieved 24 March 2014. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)

I'm not sure this source is strong enough to support these additions - would appreciate another view. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 06:34, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes agree. This source is not pubmed indexed. There are better sources which directly contradict these claims. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:52, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can use this review instead (in addition)[[13]]32cllou (talk) 23:16, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which is not about pulses. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:24, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Maudsley Prescribing Guidelines

Dear medical experts: This article has been waiting for quite a while at Afc for a review. —Anne Delong (talk) 13:46, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Anne Delong Thanks for coming here, Anne. I checked the references, cleaned it up, and published it. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:34, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Tibial Nerve Stimulation

...and here's another Afc submission that may be of interest to this project. —Anne Delong (talk) 13:49, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like we already have a page about almost exactly the same thing. Jinkinson talk to me 13:53, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for spotting that. I have declined the article. —Anne Delong (talk) 04:13, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimania 2014 London health presentations

Hello. At London Wikimania the following presentations are proposed to discuss health topics.

Wikimania 2014 London presentation proposals

Comments are welcome at any of these proposals. I myself am sort-of volunteering for two panels that I proposed myself, the "perspectives in medicine" panel and the "reform of citation" panel. While I would present, more than wanting to present I wish other people would present. Especially for the medicine panel, if anyone where is attending Wikimania in London this summer, please feel encouraged to sign on as a presenter.

James is giving the "Wikipedia and Medicine" talk which would be great but while we have an audience, there really is room for several medical presentations at this conference. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:38, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Medical ethics and Medical ethicists

Category:Medical ethics and Category:Medical ethicists have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Meclee (talk) 18:05, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AfC submission - 28/03

On the public health side of things...but well. Draft:Inequity by disease. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 18:43, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

German acupuncture trials

He, W.; Tong, Y.; Zhao, Y.; Zhang, L.; Ben, H.; Qin, Q.; Huang, F.; Rong, P. (2013). "Review of controlled clinical trials on acupuncture versus sham acupuncture in Germany". Journal of traditional Chinese medicine. 33 (3): 403–7. PMID 24024341. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |displayauthors= ignored (|display-authors= suggested) (help)

The originally discussion was at Talk:German acupuncture trials/Archive 1#Insurance companies in Germany have stopped reimbursement for acupuncture treatment. Editors agreed the source was reliable. There was WP:CON to use it for the German acupuncture trials article. But now editors claim the 2013 review is unreliable. The current discussion is at Talk:German acupuncture trials#Proposal. I think the source is reliable for the claim. QuackGuru (talk) 18:48, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the archives to the GAT page are formatted wrong. Shouldn't the titles have /Archive # at the end instead of the number by itself? Jinkinson talk to me 23:50, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article is pubmed indexed. Would strongly recommend a RfC content to bring more opinions to the matter. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:14, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another source that may be useful to those who, unlike me, know a lot about this topic. [14] Jinkinson talk to me 02:20, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now even more text is being deleted from the article for non-medical claims. QuackGuru (talk) 20:54, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do we not have any other sources that regurgitate the same info...if its not fringe as indicated by a reversal then there should be many other publications taking about this right - its old now 2006? Journal of traditional Chinese medicine will be subject to reliability concerns here by many. Is there other sources saying/implying "Germany may not be standardized and may not be suitable for acupuncture clinical trial research." As this is what is being implied by mentioning failures in the process in the article. -- Moxy (talk) 22:22, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

no we don't have other sources, especially for the claim that because of GERAC, some insurers stopped covering acupuncture. QG really wants that statement in the article. But there is no other source for it.. which in any non-tendentious mind, would make one think it is not true, coming from a source that fails WP:FRIND. Jytdog (talk) 23:17, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The part for coverage was not offered for headache or migraine I found another source. The part for some insurers stopped covering acupuncture I can't find another source yet. QuackGuru (talk) 02:13, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

gang there is serious forum-shopping going on here. This source and a similar one were carefully discussed at Talk:Gerac and one of them on Talk:MEDRS, an length and calmly, as part of a review of sources by jps. Alexbrn, Second Quantization participated too. Careful, measured discussion during which five editors participated from across the board on this issue. QG did not participate. We decided to exclude these two sources for everything. After the dust settled, GQ re-introduced them both to the article. When I objected, he edit-warred and then put notices at the FRINGE board and here. This is the epitome of IDHT FORUMSHOPPING. Ugly stuff. Jytdog (talk) 23:10, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We decided to exclude these two sources for everything? Nope. Not all editors wanted to delete the journal.[15][16][17] Another editor restored the part about this. If you read the talk page and look at the edit history some editors wanted to use the journal. The recent edit was misleading because the claims are not fringe claims. QuackGuru (talk) 02:02, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

more IDHT. Something said once and not verified anywhere else, appearing in journal that fails WP:FRIND, is not coming into Wikipedia. I cannot believe that a quack-fighter like you is taking such a stance, so strongly, that quacks everywhere can use against the encyclopedia. your argument is way, way out of bounds. Jytdog (talk) 05:10, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So this is a medical or insurance claim were the source is disputed right? To put this simply if other reliable published sources do not include the information that you have found at only one place, then that information is—by definition—not important enough to include or is a fringe claim. -- Moxy (talk) 05:16, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen it discussed in both Journal of Chinese Medicine and Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, but it's obvious what the problem is - only the journals specifically related to acupuncture would be concerned about whether German health insurance companies paid out for acupuncture or not. It would not have even dented the consciousness of mainstream journals - why would it? So my advice to QG is to leave it be: there won't be anything that we'd want to use as sources, and without best-quality sources, it's not worth expending energy on. There is still lots for you to do without having to get into arguments. There is so much that could be improved in the Acupuncture article (like "A 2012 review said this... A 2013 review said that... that needs to be asserted as simple fact). --RexxS (talk) 22:42, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Wolfgang Michel-Zaitsu

Dear medical experts: I can't tell if this is a notable professor or not. Should the old Afc submission be saved and improved? —Anne Delong (talk) 11:21, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Google scholar does not show any highly-cited papers, so probably not. Unless of course, there's coverage of him in another language (i.e. German or Japanese), which I'm not seeing, not reading those languages. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:24, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have been reading a lot of articles about professors, and I was surprised to find that many very well known professors don't even have a Google Scholar profile. Apparently this is common among some professors who were tenured before its use became common, and those who decide to list their work in other places. I also found that the citation level varies a lot from one subject area to another, depending on if it's customary to write journal papers, publish whole books, go on lecture/conference tours, etc. His title of "Professor Emeritas" tells me that he is likely mostly retired. Anyway, thanks for taking the time to look at this. Maybe I'll ask at Wikiproject Germany, and if I don't get a positive answer there, I'll let the draft go to G13 oblivion. —Anne Delong (talk) 02:50, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Google scholar is not the only possible test. A widely held book (I use 1000 libraries on worldcat, but that's worse that google scholar for English-centricism) will also work, as will any of the normal biography tests. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:53, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is history of medicine not medicine, and MEDRES standards do not apply. Google Scholar is particularly useless for people in the humanities, and using the number of books in a library needs to be considered by subject--essentially no scholarly books reach 1000.) But the only way of judging notability we have is to hold a discussion at AfD The general practice at AfC is to accept any article likely to pass afd -- some people define likely at 50%; I use 60%, and if I've done any work on it, aim much higher. Considering the very extensive German article, and the very high notability standards of the German WP, and their much greater competence than the enWP in dealing with the academic humanities, including those studying East Asia. I've accepted the article. We can deal with further improvements (or challenges) later, as with all articles. DGG ( talk ) 20:01, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, DGG. —Anne Delong (talk) 01:12, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sending a mass message

The first quarter of 2014 has come and gone, and it's time for WP:ANATOMY's quarterly newsletter to be sent out. Would any administrators here be so kind as to help me send a mass message? A mailing list and template to be mailed exist (although I'd like to mail a transclusion rather than the full text if possible). --LT910001 (talk) 23:51, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that everything is supposed to be subst'd on talk pages. You don't need an admin; you can request the WT:Mass message senders right for yourself. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:15, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, have done. --LT910001 (talk) 19:28, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Effects of pornography‎ article

The Effects of pornography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article could use significant help from this WikiProject, and so can the Effects section of the Pornography article, which I mentioned in the edit summary before this latest edit there. I might have mentioned the Effects of pornography‎ article at this WikiProject before (will need to check the archives to be certain), but I've had it on my WP:Watchlist since 2012 (temporarily took it off my WP:Watchlist) and I've mainly seen POV editing there about pornography's effect on health and crime, with few improvements going on there. I'm not sure how active the research is on the effects of pornography‎ with regard to health or crime, but, judging by the sources used in that article, one could conclude that the research is not very active on the topic or at least that there are not many reviews coming out on it. So, per Wikipedia:MEDRS#Use up-to-date evidence, this may be an area where WP:Primary sources are the rule instead of the exception or are at least not as discouraged as they usually are with regard to health topics. Tgeorgescu and Drbogdan are the latest editors of that article and Drbogdan added some more references to the lead (though, per WP:CITELEAD, references don't necessarily need to be in the lead). I'm not sure why the "Some studies support the contention that the viewing of pornographic material may increase rates of sexual crimes" part of a sentence was left uncited, since that is supported lower in the article. Anyway, if any WP:MED editors can help with that article, it would of course be a benefit to readers and Wikipedia. Flyer22 (talk) 18:09, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The references listed at http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200274559 include links to related information, some of which may provide sources acceptable for this WikiProject.

—Wavelength (talk) 18:50, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really not convinced that the Watchtower Online Library counts as a reliable source about medical issues under Wikipedia's policies. -- The Anome (talk) 19:09, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that, but it can be a lead (sense 17) to sources which possibly do count as reliable sources.

—Wavelength (talk) 19:24, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but what are these reliable sources supposed to be? Google is, in your sense, a lead to reliable sources but we don't cite "Google" as a source, we cite the source itself. -- The Anome (talk) 19:30, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we cite the source itself. That is what I intended in my first reply. Someone who understands WP:MEDRS may wish to look for those sources in the information.

—Wavelength (talk) 19:40, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Watchtower has an ax to grind against pornography, e.g. they are not even aware that the Bible contains pornography so they do not ask themselves how could a book containing porn be against porn. The idea that is as addictive as crack cocaine is WP:FRINGE/PS. I did not see any reliable sources mentioned at [18]. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:28, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wavelength, you're very welcome to search for and add cited information that's based on peer-reviewed research (for non-medical effects), and WP:MEDRS (for medical effects). Everything else must be viewed as just an opinion, to be added either to the Pornography article itself, or something like Religious views on pornography, in a way that accords with the WP:NPOV and notability policies. -- The Anome (talk) 21:25, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW - several possible starting places to search for relevant WP:MEDRS *may* be at the following: USA Porn Report, US/DK/GE/SW Porn Report, DK Porn Studies (numerous refs), Attorney General's Commission on Pornography, Committee on Obscenity and Film Censorship and President's Commission on Obscenity and Pornography - hope the above helps in some way - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 21:44, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are 175 web pages listed at http://www.dmoz.org/search?q=pornography.

—Wavelength (talk) 02:19, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Products under development

I've started an AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prostate Rectum Spacers with the comment"I'm not sure how we should cover such projects in development, and I've posted at the Medicine Wikiproject. . My own tentative view is that we should cover them only if there is visible interest from more general interest publications". Opinions welcome. DGG ( talk ) 18:22, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the point to remember is that WP:PROMOTION covers medical devices, procedures and compounds just like it covers mundane ones. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:17, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Citation of Wikiversity articles as sources in medical articles.

See here: [19]. It appears that having instituted some sort of 'peer review' process, it is now being claimed that Wikiversity meets WP:RS and/or WP:MEDRS. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:29, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, it should probably be noted that all articles so far cited from Wikiversity have been written by the same author: User:Mikael Häggström. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:53, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the archives for this talk page, I found this thread [20] which discussed the proposed Wikiversity 'peer review' process - though I can see nothing whatsoever in it to indicate that there was any consensus to accept such material as WP:MEDRS-compliant. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:59, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As given in Wikipedia:Wikiversity#Using_a_Wikiversity_page_as_reference_in_Wikipedia, it has been established that "Wikiversity content is generally not identified as a reliable source in Wikipedia. Therefore, usage of Wikiversity as a reference in Wikipedia is generally not advisable.". Yet, I don't see it as a possibility, as can be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mikael Häggström (talk) 20:09, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could then explain why the 'Wikiversity:Peer review' page [21] which was written almost entirely by you expressly claims that "A major reason of having a work peer reviewed in Wikiversity is the possibility to summarize it in Wikipedia, or having additional quality assurance of existing Wikipedia entries, citing the Wikiversity page as the source". It is up to Wikipedia, not Wikiversity, to decide whether sources meet our standards - and it seems entirely irresponsible to suggest otherwise. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:27, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Andy, the page you cited (a category page on Wikiversity) does not appear to make any claim that Wikiversity meets RS/MEDRS. Lesion 21:10, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not directly, no. But the implication is there on [22] - and the person responsible for writing it has chosen to cite his own Wikiversity articles on Wikipedia. WP:COI seems relevant here... AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:18, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where are they cited on Wikipedia? Also I personally would not say that the second cited page (Peer review) expressly states that Wikiversity meets RS/MEDRS. It says a possibility, which to my reading implies that this could be the case in the future, or indeed a case by case basis (as pretty much any other source on Wikipedia)... as stated above. Might be an idea to tweak this wording for more clarity. Lesion 21:24, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the articles in the Wikiversity category, they each contain a template saying "This article is used as a reference in Wikipedia in the following articles:" AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:48, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK I see now. E.g. Allogeneic component to overcome rejection in interspecific pregnancy is used on Interspecific pregnancy and Immunosurgery. Perhaps we should try to reach a consensus about this, ping to posters on original thread TenOfAllTrades, Bluerasberry, WhatamIdoing. To continue the discussion, I would suggest on the positive side of these sources, that they appear to be secondary sources, with in-line citation to reputable sounding sources. On the negative side, assume this journal is not MEDLINE indexed. Lesion 22:16, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I support this project as a pilot. I would not suggest dismissing all papers in a given journal even if that journal is from a Wikimedia project, because most journals publish dubious papers which ought not be cited even if on their face they seem to have gone through process. If someone questions a source then I think the best response would be to just treat it like any other source which someone claims is dubious. There are no great plans to scale up the Wikimedia publication of academic sources, and for that reason, I see no reason for a special response to this even though comments on the proposal are welcome as for any Wikimedia proposal. I like having an original publishing proposal in place as a concept of how this can be done. For a more developed similar proposal, check out Scholarpedia. Blue Rasberry (talk) 00:06, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AfC submission - 30/03

Is there anything salvageable here? Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Delta Ratio. Thanks, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 01:01, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 550: / Line 550: @@
 FWIW - several possible ''starting'' places to search for relevant [[WP:MEDRS]] *may* be at the following: [http://www.porn-report.com/ USA Porn Report], [http://aic.gov.au/media_library/publications/proceedings/14/kutchinsky.pdf US/DK/GE/SW Porn Report], [http://books.google.com/books?id=Opv9nz2M5c0C&pg=PA997&lpg=PA997&dq=Studies+on+Pornography+and+Sex+Crimes+in+Denmark+by+Berl+Kutchinsky&source=bl&ots=c-yMvKeW5F&sig=_oTQqa8DUCp-fFN0xR89ebfDOcs&hl=en&sa=X&ei=3Js4U_uZHoWpqgHEo4C4DQ&ved=0CDkQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=Studies%20on%20Pornography%20and%20Sex%20Crimes%20in%20Denmark%20by%20Berl%20Kutchinsky&f=false DK Porn Studies (numerous refs)], [[Attorney General's Commission on Pornography]], [[Committee on Obscenity and Film Censorship]] and [[President's Commission on Obscenity and Pornography]] - hope the above helps in some way - in any case - Enjoy! :) [[User:Drbogdan|Drbogdan]] ([[User talk:Drbogdan|talk]]) 21:44, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
+:There are 175 web pages listed at http://www.dmoz.org/search?q=pornography.
+:—[[User:Wavelength|Wavelength]] ([[User talk:Wavelength|talk]]) 02:19, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 ==Products under development==