Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 323: Line 323:
Just trimmed and placed here [[Talk:Antimicrobial_resistance#Text]]. Interesting overview here [http://www.nature.com/news/spread-of-antibiotic-resistance-gene-does-not-spell-bacterial-apocalypse-yet-1.19037] that is much much less sesational. Not going to sell the tabloids but more accurate. [[User:Doc James|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Doc James|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Doc James|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Doc James|email]]) 03:59, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Just trimmed and placed here [[Talk:Antimicrobial_resistance#Text]]. Interesting overview here [http://www.nature.com/news/spread-of-antibiotic-resistance-gene-does-not-spell-bacterial-apocalypse-yet-1.19037] that is much much less sesational. Not going to sell the tabloids but more accurate. [[User:Doc James|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Doc James|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Doc James|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Doc James|email]]) 03:59, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
:great improvement--[[User:Ozzie10aaaa|Ozzie10aaaa]] ([[User talk:Ozzie10aaaa|talk]]) 18:54, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
:great improvement--[[User:Ozzie10aaaa|Ozzie10aaaa]] ([[User talk:Ozzie10aaaa|talk]]) 18:54, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

== [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cunnilingus tongue]] ==

Just alerting editors of this project to [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cunnilingus tongue]]. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn|talk]]) 19:18, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Revision as of 19:18, 22 December 2015

Shortcut

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

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

List of archives

List of synonyms in lead

What do people think of this method of removing synonyms from the lead? Matthew Ferguson (talk) 14:56, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If it said "known under several synonyms" in parenthesis or something like that after Geographic tongue I am okay with it, when an article has maybe 5+ synonyms in lead and the synonyms redirect to the article... but as it stands now the reader will not know what information is hidden in the note. Kind regards JakobSteenberg (talk) 15:45, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It should be possible to create a template that utilised the information provided by a redirect to generate a synonym in the lead. The difficulty might be when a redirect wasn't followed. Essentially; if a visitor was redirected to an article that had multiple synonyms, the template would parse "Article name, also known as searched synonym (among others), [lead continues]...", If no redirect had been followed, the template would parse "Article name, also known by several synonyms, [lead continues]..." (where any italic text is injected by the template). Thinking about it more, this wouldn't be appropriate in cases where someone was redirected to a page for something other than a synonym Little pob (talk) 16:20, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would say "Geographic tongue, also known by several other names,[note]...." Johnbod (talk) 16:44, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah that's an improvement imo. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 16:59, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I like Johnbod's suggestion. Okay to have a couple of names but not more than 3 or 4. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:23, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
agree (w/ Johnbod )--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:36, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tools for highlighting withdrawn academic papers on the talk pages of articles that cite them, etc.

There is a proposal here that WMF develops some tools for dealing with citations of withdrawn academic journal articles. This idea was discussed in this 2012 WT:MED thread. If you think this would be a good use of WMF's time, please let them know. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:57, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The kind of sources that MEDRS prefers are virtually never withdrawn, so it shouldn't make much of a difference to this project -- at least, to the extent that we follow MEDRS. Now if we had a tool that would highlight primary sources . . . Looie496 (talk) 15:19, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If we have a good list of withdrawn papers it would be easy to build a bot to tag them as retracted. Certain retracted papers may still be appropriate in certain places. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:21, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
seems like a good proposal--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:50, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Collaboration of the Month

Transverse Myelitis

First off I want to apologize. When I relaunched the MCOTM I really did want to stick with it but some personnel family matters came up right after it began. That said, for those who participated, what are your thoughts? Did you think the MCOTM was beneficial to the Transverse myelitis article as a whole? [Here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Transverse_myelitis&oldid=673477707] is the before and [here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Transverse_myelitis&oldid=688582387] is it today. Overall, I think the article was improved very much, but still needs more work before it can be considered for a good article nomination. My thought is we should discuss what went wrong and what went right to determine if MCOTM is something we should keep doing. Until then, I think we should keep transverse myelitis as the article as the article of the month. So, what are your thoughts, questions, and concerns? Peter.C • talk • contribs 17:49, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

the pathophysiology section could have used more work (text/references)...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:34, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's too rare a condition to justify more collaboration when there are articles about much more common conditions which could use attention. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 12:57, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, but very few suggestions were put forward when MCOTM asked for candidate articles in need of serious work. For MCOTM to function properly, it will require wider participation (at least for the suggestion process but hopefully in improving the article as well). TylerDurden8823 (talk) 03:55, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Might be better to have that conversation thread on this page rather than on the MCOTM page. More people read here and more likely to get opinions. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 04:14, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds reasonable to me. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 21:54, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]


A template for non-evidence based healing modalities?

Over at Wikipedia talk:Fringe theories/Noticeboard I have proposed that we make some kind of template that will allow us to indicate non-evidence-based therapeutic modalities in a more consistent way. [2]. This follows a concern that the way that we indicate lack of evidence is inconsistent and may ultimately lead to confusion. --Salimfadhley (talk) 18:10, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]


more opinions--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:57, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abundant primary sources in Regeneration in humans

I've stumbled upon yet another overlooked corner of Wikipedia – the field of gerontology and regenerative medicine. The article on regeneration in humans may include some of the most egregious examples, but the following articles could do with a good looking over:

Thanks, CFCF 💌 📧 20:22, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To those add:
Blast! another walled garden. And just when I was thinking we'd nearly finished ;-) Alexbrn (talk) 20:28, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And geroscience. CFCF 💌 📧 20:32, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh, lets make a list:

CFCF 💌 📧 21:01, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List

(See Index of topics related to life extension) Please, anyone feel free to add to this list without signing

3

Comments

User:The Transhumanist probably knows a lot about the articles related to this subject. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:42, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Determining most edits to project-included articles by user

Hello - I was informed at the WikiProject Council that WP Medicine at some point determined who made the most edits to your included articles. Can someone please direct me to how I can do that for another WikiProject? I would like to analyze who to invite to join WP Louisville. By the way, I really admire how active and well-structured WP Medicine is. Thanks for any leads! Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 22:35, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't exactly what you're looking for, but have you seen Wikipedia:WikiProject Directory/Description/WikiProject Louisville? It shows all recent contributors to articles tagged by the project. Sizeofint (talk) 06:59, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's close to what I'm looking for, thanks. Maybe I can get them to show the number of edits next to each entry. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 12:20, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We have specific data here for WikiProject Med. It was developed using tools to handle large data sets. If you are a programmer would be possible to duplicate what was done. It was based off the very large data files. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:00, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have a programming background and could probably take this on if I had to, but at this point, for the simple information for a small WikiProject I'm looking for, I think I'll just wait for the information to be added to the WikiProject Directory. They are already listing editors who've worked on project-included pages; it should be a minor additional step to indicate how much or what they're editing. At any rate, I'm very impressed what's been done for WP Medicine here, and your project in general inspires ideas for other projects. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 12:10, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Party and play

HIV

I've added the Party and play article to WikiProject Medicine because of the public health risk through unprotected sex with large numbers of sexual partners: see this BMJ editorial. I'd greatly appreciate any help editors on this project could bring to bringing this article up-to-date and improving the number and quality of citations. -- The Anome (talk) 17:17, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

will look--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:52, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Barbara (WVS) thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:05, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New Wikipedia Library Access Donation: AnnualReviews.Com

Annual Reviews is a publisher of review articles in the sciences and social sciences. Its articles cover major topics in each subject area every few years, with other special topics appearing occasionally. For more information see their website. This partnership provides access to their entire Biomedical Life collection. There are up to 100 one-year accounts available to Wikipedians through this partnership. Please sign up at WP:Annual Reviews!

Cheers, Jake Ocaasi (WMF) (talk) 22:01, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I really like these. Anyone who doesn't have access should really apply. CFCF 💌 📧 22:31, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So far, only two of us seem to have signed up for this. That means that there are 98 slots open – well, 97, because I'm going to be #3. If you were thinking about it, please sign up now. The requirements are 500 (just five hundred!) edits and to have an account that is more than six months old. I don't want any publisher to decide that our interest in review articles is merely lip service, so there's no point in offering us free access to reviews. This is a fabulous opportunity for any content creator. If you don't already have this through work or school, and you have any interest at all in improving articles instead of talking about them, then please sign up. If you use it to make one solid improvement during the next year, then it was worth the cost. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:24, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question about requested edits

Hello,

I am an employee at Manifest, a marketing agency representing Abbott Vascular. Last month I requested edits on Talk pages of several Wikipedia pages: Percutaneous coronary intervention, Coronary stent, Bare-metal stent, Drug-eluting stent, and Bioresorbable stents.

So far, there has been one response, which was on the Drug-eluting stent page, and we are working on requested adjustments for the requests for that page.

Would someone be able to let me know how I may go about having the other requested changes reviewed/made?

Thank you for any input in this regard.

Tom at Manifest (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:35, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

please take to talk pages/articles in question--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:56, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is completely appropriate for Tom to ask for attention here, and important for us to respond. Our COI policy will not work if properly made requests are not acted on. I have responded at Talk:Percutaneous coronary intervention and will look at the other pages; more input would be useful. Looie496 (talk) 13:49, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
thank you Louie496--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:22, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Looie496 and Ozzie10aaaa. I appreciate your responses and help on this. I will respond to your comments at Talk:Percutaneous coronary intervention. I'll stay posted for comments on the other articles as well. For the other articles, if you believe that I should proceed as you recommend on the Percutaneous coronary intervention page (i.e. make the edits myself with the idea that copy-editing would then take place after that), please let me know. Otherwise, I will await comments on the other pages. Thank you again for your input. Tom at Manifest (talk) 21:58, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fatigue = exhaustion?

Was this edit appropriate? My medical English isn't good enough to tell whether "exhaustion" is a synonym for "fatigue". Thanks --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 09:15, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

alternate names:Tiredness; Weariness; Exhaustion; Lethargy [3]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:21, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Restored. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:26, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edit to sexual obsessions

Some of the sources added in this edit don't seem to meet MEDRS, but I am posting here to ask if others agree or not. Everymorning (talk) 16:30, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Sexual obsessions#Recently added material. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:40, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Since Everymorning beat me to posting, I've merged the section I created with this one. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:42, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Non-celiac gluten sensitivity

There have been a number of edits by an editor relating to gluten currently at wheat and earlier at non-celiac gluten sensitivity, such as disputes over this edit (prevalence of it, what is is, etc.). [4]. Could use some eyes from members here, especially since this topic can get into WP:FRINGE territory sometimes. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:23, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This was recently talked here and archived [5].
It seems that there is an interest from some users to delete, modify or "hide" information about non-celiac gluten sensitivity... I can only repeat my same words: "It is relatively easy to get an idea. Do a search (mark review) in PubMed about "non celiac gluten sensitivity" and check out the current medical literature. There are doubts about pathogenesis, diagnosis protocol, and treatment, but it doesn't mean that the disease doesn't exist. Wikipedia doesn't have "its own POV", Wikipedia must reflect the reality. If knowledge progresses, Wikipedia moves with it."
And I would add that it is unfortunate that there is only "one" editor working in this direction, considering the amount of outdated information that exists in Wikipedia.
Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (talk) 06:23, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stem cell content

Comments appreciated here Talk:Chronic_obstructive_pulmonary_disease#Stem_cells Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:37, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]


give opinion(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:57, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Post-Finasteride Syndrome Foundation

Editors here may remember that the "post-finasteride syndrome" article was deleted as non-notable. It appears that there is an attempt at coatracking the legitimacy of this "syndrome" on this foundation webpage, more eyes would be appreciated. Not sure that this foundation webpage meets WP:N criteria, either. Yobol (talk) 18:09, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

have commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:41, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Will more editors please take a look to give their opinion? AlexBRN's most recent reversion merely says " Rv. to good, this ain't encyclopedic this stuff" which is a very unhelpful comment. The article is being accused of coatracking because many editors here don't want to acknowledge anything about post finasteride syndrome however when you have a foundation that's main purpose is dedicated to researching the syndrome the matter is nearly one in the same. Thanks. Doors22 (talk) 13:52, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did expand on my comment on the Talk page. Yeah, this is yet another attempt by you to coatrack your agenda into Wikipedia. I think what "many editors here" are really thinking is that their patience with this campaign is getting exhausted. Alexbrn (talk) 14:01, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sodium_picosulfate

Hi, I've added a bit of mechanism info to the Sodium_picosulfate article. I don't typically edit medical articles, so it'd be useful if someone from this Wikiproject could cast their eye over it to check if I've made any errors. Thanks! T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 22:16, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That looks pretty good overall, but I suspect that you are used to real-world ideas about sourcing. We usually prefer recent secondary sources (e.g., review articles or book chapters) instead of the original or canonical sources, especially when the original sources are from the previous century. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:36, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking generally, I would be inclined to argue that in situations where we have both 'canonical', 'landmark', or 'original' historical studies and recent reviews which support/endorse the earlier work, we ought to be citing both. It's good to give credit to original discoverers and to provide historical context, instead of just a single present-day snapshot.
In the case of this particular article, one could reiterate the citation of reference 6 (Adamcewicz et al., 2011) to support the 'historical' references 7 (Forth et al., 1972), 8 (Jauch et al., 1975), and 9 (Regev et al., 1998)—at least if refs 7, 8, or 9 are original sources for those facts, or if they represent highly-cited 'landmark' works in the literature. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:17, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, the open-access review (Adamcewicz et al., 2011) was the first thing that I found and was thinking of just using it for the whole section. The reason that I added the primary literature was for a bit more detail on e.g. the prodrug metabolism or formulation (e.g. the review is actually a bit vague on the prodrug aspect). I'll double up for now, but I'm happy to drop the primaries if it turns out I'm in the minority opinion. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 09:26, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds reasonable to me. While I've always been a staunch advocate of robust and up-to-date sourcing, I've also always pushed back against the particularly militant down-the-memory-hole editors who try to prevent Wikipedia from acknowledging the existence of pre-2010 (in two weeks, pre-2011) scientific literature. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:31, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Updated offline app

We have an updated offline medical app [6]. Now includes all of pharmacology and anatomy. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:48, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

page looks great[7]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:03, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That one User:Ozzie10aaaa is the wrong one and not made by use. You need to pay for the files for it to work. And we are working to force them to change their name as they are infringing on our trademark. Our is here and completely free [8] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:14, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for pointing it out,(it is infringement..)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:47, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Further details here Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/App Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:59, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I merged content into the established article and deleted the new one. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:03, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rfc can use your input

Feel free to participate | on this Rfc your opinion is most welcome! KoshVorlon 13:33, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Protein losing enteropathy

would appreciate any help with this important article/stub, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:08, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Model release - medical photos and more - legal review - WMF grant proposal

I am seeking comments and hopefully endorsements on a draft request to the Wikimedia Foundation for grant funds. If you like, please comment at meta:Grants:PEG/Wikimedia New York City/Legal review and templates for model release.

For some time I have been collecting examples in Wikimedia projects in which there is some disagreement about whether an image violates personality right and would require a model release to host in Wikimedia Commons. See examples in the discussion sections at

For context on Wikimedia Commons policy, see

Currently, the major criteria for determining if an image is appropriate for inclusion in Commons is whether it has a free copyright license. Some other criteria, including personality rights, are discussed sometimes. My expectation is that Wikimedia Commons will continue to consider only copyright, but in some cases, when someone voluntarily seeks a model release and the photographer and model together agree to post their release in Wikimedia Commons, then I would like for such contributors to have access to a standard model release form which has legal review and is backed by community input.

I found a nonprofit organization with expertise in model releases. They are the Fashion Law Institute and are based in New York City. Among other things, they provide curricula to law schools and fashion schools which want to present classes on fashion law. They also help fashion, advertising, and media companies set policy regarding fashion and communication. I have assisted them in partnering with meta:Wikimedia New York City in drafting an application for a Wikimedia Foundation grant (meta:Grants:Start) to do legal review on the issue, provide expert opinions about when a model release may be used and should not be used, and to draft both a model release document and summary templates to apply to Commons uploads. In my opinion, this kind of legal research can only be done with some payment, and this is an appropriate organization to do this. One of their lawyers has had a Wikipedia account for some years as Fashionethics, and he is my point of contact.

This relates to WikiProject Medicine for several reasons, including the following:

  • Some of our contributors take photos while using their own model releases, and it would be good to give them a reviewed standard model release
  • It happens that sometimes we face trouble for using photos without model releases
  • It might be nice to continue to confirm last year's US Copyright Office Decision that medical imaging is in the public domain as non-creative data

Again, comment at meta:Grants:PEG/Wikimedia New York City/Legal review and templates for model release if you will. I am showing this to WikiProject Medicine participants before I show this more generally around Wikimedia projects. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:57, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You've clearly put a lot of work in to this project, and it is commendable. I would use a standardized release form were one available, because the survival of images is more guaranteed than at present, when it seems that any image can be removed by overzealous deletionists on commons at any time. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 16:09, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The release would be different between health care providers and non health care providers I image? Health care providers need to keep image release forms for their licensing body.
The Wikimedia Movement should not be handling these release forms. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:15, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Doc James My expectation is that consent forms will never be managed in a Wikimedia project or in OTRS, which would make this process different from the copyright release. I would like Wikimedia projects to provide a CC-By text of a sample model release, then offer this to institutions or individuals who could use it. The validity of the text would come from its recognition in the Wikimedia community and also from the legal opinion of the Fashion Law Institute, who will endorse at least the initial version and perhaps later versions also. There might be an OTRS process in which an institution can say, "We confirm that we hold the model release" but I would not want them to actually share the model release.
If the release is used then I would expect local institutions to keep the document and information like the model's name. The host institution or individual uploader of the image would confirm "The subject in this photo agreed to this model release" and the template confirmation on Commons would only say that the uploader claimed to have the release. We would WP:AGF from there just as we do now.
I am not yet sure whether the form would need to be different for patients modeling for medical journals versus models posing for fashion magazines. If there is reason to differentiate then multiple versions could be produced. Fashionethics anticipated that perhaps one form and one release could be used in most cases. The nature of the release would be that the model confirms understanding of free licensing and distribution of their photo generally on the Internet, and not only in Wikimedia projects. Personality rights are a separate but related issue - I am not sure how those would be addressed in this system but Fashion Law Institute might be able to say what is and is not generally appropriate. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:21, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Clinic Open!

"In a response to rampant poor patient satisfaction scores and an overall demand of patients for more autonomy in their care, a group of internet start-ups have decided to open a network of hospitals where no physicians are required, where patients can receive care they are comfortable with based on their Google searches.[1]

  1. ^ Gomerblog Team (15 December 2015). "Non-physician hospitals, The Web-MD and Wikipedia Clinic, to open in 5 major cities". gomerblog.com. Retrieved 16 December 2015.

Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:41, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is this for real? Matthew Ferguson (talk) 23:19, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's from a popular medical satire site. :) Keilana (talk) 23:49, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh =) Matthew Ferguson (talk) 09:14, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Glicken

Please see Talk:Harry Glicken#Hair pulling. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 02:51, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[9]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:44, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New image, a painting by Edvard Munch in Borderline personality disorder

Unfortunately, a user reverted the inclusion (as seen here) of the image. After that there was a discussion on the talk page. However, the controversy could not be resolved. Therefore, third opinions would be most welcome. Thanks to all.--Saidmann (talk) 15:30, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

have commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:42, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Index of medicine articles

...needs some TLC or LCP. Bazj (talk) 15:36, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cancer deaths by country

Category:Cancer deaths by country, which you created, has 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. Thank you. Big_iron (talk) 12:37, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]


give opinion(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:45, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Warring on Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine

Additional eyes would be appreciated on this article. Old material from QW is being edit warred back in after being removed [10] (by same editor who was correct to initially remove it since it's over ten years old and newer sources are available) in the absence of consensus and in violation of WP:BRD and has removed well-sourced content. Thanks everyone! TylerDurden8823 (talk) 14:51, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

have commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:25, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Getting rid of MEDRS safety information when merging articles?

Various E-liquid Bottles

The articles E-liquid and Electronic cigarette aerosol were merged recently following a inconclusive discussion at [11], but with the removal of nearly all safety information from the articles. The following edit gets rid of several sections concerning the safety and health effects of the substances [12]. CFCF 💌 📧 21:25, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is incorrect. The information that replaced it was from the "Safety" page. Its all "safety" information. Chemical claims were moved to the Safety page, they were not simply removed. Though most of it didnt need to be moved because the article as it sat was not a daughter page, but simply a copy and paste coatrack. This was done in accordance of consensus at a merge discussion.[13] Unilaterally replacing things you fought against in that closed discussion but were not found in your favor isnt how things should be done. Opening a discussion on the page and finding if there is consensus to have the material in the page is the way, not running to a wikiproject first before discussion on the articles talk page. AlbinoFerret 22:24, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Patent nonsense from the editor who deleted the information – despite intense criticism and lack of any support for getting rid of the edits. The merge itself was premature, and was performed to the horribly named new article Electronic cigarette aerosol and e-liquid. The problem with these articles is that they are overlooked by the majority of medical editors, and this needs more eyes.
It should not be possible to avoid scrutiny by removing content in a questionable merge that would never have removed through ordinary editing process on an article. WP:COATRACK is an essay, while the section WP:SYNC "Keeping summary sections and detailed articles synchronized" is an editing guideline! CFCF 💌 📧 07:11, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Generally when performing a merge the content should be copied verbatim from the source and its provenance labelled clearly in the edit summary (for license integrity reasons). Then (or beforehand) it can be fettled. If somehow during this process excisions were silently made that were non-neutral, that would be a concern. Unless agreed as part of the merge discussion, I would expect a merge operation not to result in any lost knowledge in our overall content. Given some of the problematic history of these articles, I'd expect any editor performing a merge to be alert to the need for caution. Alexbrn (talk) 07:33, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This was more than a simple merge. The article "Electronic cigarette aerosol" before the work done was a coatrack. The page was not about aerosol, but toxicology, simply copied and pasted claims from Safety of electronic cigarettes, not broken out as a daughter page is normally done leaving a summery and link to the new page. Leaving two pages on toxicology, and the aerosol information still on Safety. This was discussed in an earlier section of the main articles talk page,[14] linked to in the merge discussion.[15] The toxicology information was moved back to safety per the merge discussion. The aerosol section was moved to the aerosol page per the merge discussion. A summery was left in its place and a link to the page added. Then e-liguid was merged in. What we have now is a true daughter page, that can be synced and everything was copied verbatium. Nothing was lost. The information all exists on WP, its just on different pages. The so called "removal" of information can be found here [16]. Each claim that was taken off of Aersol either already existed in the toxicology section of Safety or was moved there. All done per a merge discussion, that was closed by an uninvolved admin as having consensus. What this section is, is forum shopping and since the original post was non neutral, canvassing. AlbinoFerret 13:29, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Synonyms in infobox?

Not sure if this has been suggested before but could be a solution for dealing with a list of synonyms. Thoughts? Matthew Ferguson (talk) 00:50, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I like it for when their are lots. We have one or two in the lead and than others in the infobox.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:10, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a great idea. For some reason that I cannot recall, the use of this INFOBOX may be able to be used by the wiki data people. I can imagine some future analytical program using information from this kind of INFOBOX to assist people in diagnosis. I realize that this is not the purpose of the encyclopedia, but if the data is already entered and part of the encyclopedia, a searchable database would be valuable to clinicians. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) (talk) 12:10, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Who could I contact to make a mock up of an infobox with a list of synonyms? Ping bluerasberry incase they have any suggestions. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 08:41, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Some existing templates, notably template:Infobox drug, already contain lists of synonyms -- you could look there, I suppose. Looie496 (talk) 12:07, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Done see Wernicke–Korsakoff syndrome. IMO we should only have the most common ones in the lead text. Less common can be moved to the infobox. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:27, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect. Next assume would be to seek consensus to see if there is support for this. Is there still an AFC open currently about infobox changes? Matthew Ferguson (talk) 17:36, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this is an excellent idea, especially when there are more than two synonyms since this often clutters the lead's first sentence. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 17:38, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Disadvantage is that mobile users can't see the infobox as far as I'm aware. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 19:52, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You may be thinking of {{Navbox}} which are not displayed on mobile. Mobile users can see infoboxes (see for example testcases). The problem with infoboxes on mobile is that collapsed sections are displayed uncollapsed (see request). Boghog (talk) 20:41, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with anorexia

I have recently used the term anorexia in an article as a description of symptoms. Unfortunately, the wiki link leads directly to anorexia nervosa. One is a symptom and the other is a treatable condition. These two terms need to be distinct. I don't know how to fix this. Best Regards,Barbara (WVS) (talk) 12:08, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anorexia_(symptom)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:21, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New charity article may need a look for promoting AIDS denialism

Just seen a newly-created article about a 'non-incorporated' UK charity called the Immunity Resource Foundation. The article so far is entirely written by a user who discloses that they were paid to write the article. I'm concerned that the charity seems to be a front to promote HIV/AIDS denialism and that the article doesn't clearly explain this. Can someone look into this? 85.211.96.114 (talk) 22:49, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no good sources on them. I am not seeing that they are notable. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:32, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move Essential thrombocythosis to Essential thrombocythemia

 Done The following names exist for the same condition:

The most common by a factor of 7 is Essential thrombocythemia as seen here Pubmed. I was unable to move the article to the common name, could an administrator do this? CFCF 💌 📧 13:08, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The 3rd is misspelled, and should be essential thrombocytosis - a common term. — soupvector (talk) 14:57, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that it is—odd how I missed that, and that is the most common name with ~100 more hits on Pubmed than any of the others. I was able to finish the move myself now, but the odd thing was that the misspelled term still gave me some hits on Pubmed, which is why I think I missed double checking (just used copy-paste). CFCF 💌 📧 15:15, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clinical infoboxes

Added a few further details to a new more person centered box here. Some is pulled from Wikidata but I am finding Wikidata so slow to edit that it will be much faster to hand build here on EN WP.

Also not sure how to bring over refs from Wikidata. Does anyone else? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:41, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

About that box: Overall I like it, and of course we just leave out any item that's too long or complicated to list. But is there a generic "treatment" section, or is it just "medication"? I see that "medication" is listed in the example at Gout, and I expected to see dietary changes included, since diet modifications are important for that condition.
I'm not sure how to get the refs from Wikidata, but do you actually need them? In theory (for a reasonably well-developed article, etc.), there should be almost nothing in that infobox that isn't written and sourced in the article itself. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:24, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I find the new infobox is much cleaner and far more usable (if I need to look up the ICD-code I'm happy to scroll down to the bottom of the page). I agree that it is preferable to edit these things on Wikipedia for now (they can always be imported once we have enough data).
There are some additional issues that we would solve by doing this as well:
  1. Adding sources to Wikidata is difficult: I tried to find a way to add alopurinol and got stuck when I tried to source it—and as you say, even when it is sourced, it isn't visible.
  2. Ibuprofen is just one of an entire class of NSAIDs that may be used to treat gout, and the preferred type varies between countries and patient's other risk-factors (Cochrane review PMID 25225849). I can't find a way to add a class of medication, only single medications to this list, this would be very easy on Wikipedia.
CFCF 💌 📧 17:43, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. The same is also true of prednisone, which is not used very much in Sweden, in favor of prednisolone, so it would be more apt to link the class glucocorticoids. CFCF 💌 📧 17:55, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We need to stick with what the sources say. The reference on Wikidata (d:Q133087) is http://www.niams.nih.gov/Health_Info/Gout/ and that makes no mention of ibuprofen. I have changed that Wikidata entry to read non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug as is indicated in the reference, and that has now been automatically reflected in the Gout infobox. We could, of course, override that with any text we choose by supplying a value for a |medication= parameter in the infobox. --RexxS (talk) 18:26, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I used specific agents rather than the classes of medications. Happy with classes aswell. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:49, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just trimmed and placed here Talk:Antimicrobial_resistance#Text. Interesting overview here [17] that is much much less sesational. Not going to sell the tabloids but more accurate. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:59, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

great improvement--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:54, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cunnilingus tongue

Just alerting editors of this project to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cunnilingus tongue. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:18, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine&oldid=696377852"