Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
→‎Can we use this as a study?: per WAID [I think this thread should close now]
Line 1,703: Line 1,703:
::::::Also, not every meta-analysis must fall in line with PRISMA guidelines and there are thousands of meta-analyses we have cited that have not fallen under every PRISMA guideline. For example, it is not taken for granted to write systematic review and meta-analysis in the title whereas PRISMA guidelines explicitly outline so. If meta-analyses and systematic reviews are conducted within a paper, it is considered sufficient. [[User:Dashoopa|Dashoopa]] ([[User talk:Dashoopa|talk]]) 23:33, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
::::::Also, not every meta-analysis must fall in line with PRISMA guidelines and there are thousands of meta-analyses we have cited that have not fallen under every PRISMA guideline. For example, it is not taken for granted to write systematic review and meta-analysis in the title whereas PRISMA guidelines explicitly outline so. If meta-analyses and systematic reviews are conducted within a paper, it is considered sufficient. [[User:Dashoopa|Dashoopa]] ([[User talk:Dashoopa|talk]]) 23:33, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
:A paper that is 17 years old is not "a little old". [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 02:19, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
:A paper that is 17 years old is not "a little old". [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 02:19, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
:*What [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] says. Given the existence of recent directly pertinent medrs, fails WP:MEDRS per [[WP:MEDDATE]. Period. [[Special:Contributions/31.50.193.212|31.50.193.212]] ([[User talk:31.50.193.212|talk]]) 10:48, 11 April 2021 (UTC) <small>[previously 86....]</small>


== [[Hemolytic disease of the newborn]] ==
== [[Hemolytic disease of the newborn]] ==

Revision as of 10:48, 11 April 2021

Skip to top
Skip to bottom

    Edit with VisualEditor

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

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

    List of archives

    Reviewing protected medicine articles

    Hi all, I think at some point in the not-so-distant past we discussed reviewing the protection of medicine-related pages, with an eye towards reducing or removing protections that are no longer needed. Cryptic was kind enough to provide a list of pages tagged with WP:MED and under some level of protection. You can see the full list here, but below I've pasted a trimmed version that doesn't include move protection (which I think is less of an issue), protected redirects, templates (here if you're interested) or covid-related pages (since those protections were placed fairly recently). For folks interested, please take a look through the list. If there are any that you feel are candidates for reducing or removing protection, let me know and I'll happily look into it. Bonus points if you can commit to watchlisting the article for a few months so we can easily re-protect if needed. Also, the list is from November 2020, so if you come across any that are no longer protected just remove them from the list. Happy to hear folks' thoughts! Ajpolino (talk) 14:25, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Table of protected pages

    Feel free to annotate the "Comments" column for any you look into to avoid duplicating efforts.

    Collapsed table of protected pages
    WP:MED tagged pages with edit restrictions
    Page Protection level Expires Comments
    Abortion autoconfirmed infinity
    Acupuncture autoconfirmed infinity
    Adult_diaper autoconfirmed infinity
    Affordable_Care_Act autoconfirmed infinity
    Aktion_T4 extendedconfirmed infinity
    Alcoholism autoconfirmed infinity
    Alexander_Fleming autoconfirmed infinity Placed in 2018 after persistent vandalism. Will leave in place for now. -A
    Alternative_medicine autoconfirmed infinity
    Alzheimer's_disease autoconfirmed infinity
    Amphetamine autoconfirmed infinity
    Andrew_Wakefield autoconfirmed infinity
    Antonie_van_Leeuwenhoek autoconfirmed infinity
    Apraxia_of_speech autoconfirmed infinity
    Asperger_syndrome autoconfirmed infinity
    Asthma autoconfirmed infinity
    Autism autoconfirmed infinity
    Autism_Speaks autoconfirmed infinity
    Ayurveda extendedconfirmed 20210524202500
    Bacteria autoconfirmed infinity
    Bhopal_disaster autoconfirmed infinity
    Bioidentical_hormone_replacement_therapy autoconfirmed infinity
    Bipolar_disorder autoconfirmed infinity
    Black_Death autoconfirmed infinity
    Blood autoconfirmed infinity
    Bubonic_plague autoconfirmed infinity
    Bullying autoconfirmed infinity
    Burzynski_Clinic autoconfirmed infinity
    Calcium autoconfirmed infinity
    Cancer autoconfirmed infinity
    Cannabis autoconfirmed infinity
    Cannabis_(drug) autoconfirmed infinity
    Cardiovascular_disease autoconfirmed infinity
    Childhood_obesity autoconfirmed infinity
    Chlamydia autoconfirmed infinity
    Cholera autoconfirmed infinity
    Circumcision autoconfirmed infinity
    Cleft_lip_and_cleft_palate autoconfirmed infinity
    Cocaine autoconfirmed infinity
    Common_cold autoconfirmed infinity
    Concussion autoconfirmed infinity
    Condom autoconfirmed infinity
    Constipation autoconfirmed infinity
    Constitutional_challenges_to_the_Affordable_Care_Act autoconfirmed infinity
    Crab_louse autoconfirmed infinity
    Crack_cocaine autoconfirmed infinity
    Cryonics autoconfirmed infinity
    Cyanide autoconfirmed infinity
    Death autoconfirmed infinity
    Dermatophytosis autoconfirmed infinity
    Diagnosis_of_HIV/AIDS autoconfirmed infinity
    Diarrhea autoconfirmed infinity
    Dietary_supplement autoconfirmed infinity
    Don_Francis autoconfirmed 20211006210213
    Douche autoconfirmed infinity
    Down_syndrome autoconfirmed infinity
    Drug autoconfirmed infinity
    Dysarthria autoconfirmed infinity
    Dyshidrosis autoconfirmed infinity
    Dyslexia autoconfirmed infinity
    Ebola autoconfirmed infinity
    Electronic_cigarette autoconfirmed infinity
    Electronic_harassment autoconfirmed 20211114050735
    EPA_list_of_extremely_hazardous_substances autoconfirmed infinity
    Erectile_dysfunction autoconfirmed infinity
    Eugenics_in_the_United_States autoconfirmed infinity
    Euthanasia autoconfirmed infinity
    Exercise autoconfirmed infinity
    Female_genital_mutilation autoconfirmed infinity
    Finnish_heritage_disease autoconfirmed infinity
    Fiona_Wood autoconfirmed infinity
    Flatulence autoconfirmed infinity
    Florence_Nightingale autoconfirmed infinity
    Genital_herpes autoconfirmed infinity
    Genital_wart autoconfirmed infinity
    Goggles autoconfirmed infinity
    Gonorrhea autoconfirmed infinity
    Hair_loss autoconfirmed infinity
    Hair_transplantation autoconfirmed infinity
    Harm_reduction autoconfirmed infinity
    Health autoconfirmed infinity
    Health_at_Every_Size autoconfirmed infinity
    Healthcare_in_Belarus autoconfirmed infinity
    Healthy_diet autoconfirmed infinity Unprotected 3/7 -A
    Heart autoconfirmed infinity
    Helium autoconfirmed infinity
    Hemorrhoid autoconfirmed infinity
    Heroin autoconfirmed infinity
    Herpes_labialis autoconfirmed infinity
    Herpes_simplex autoconfirmed infinity
    High-functioning_autism autoconfirmed infinity
    HIV autoconfirmed infinity
    HIV/AIDS autoconfirmed infinity
    Human_feces autoconfirmed infinity
    Hydroxychloroquine extendedconfirmed infinity
    Hypothermia autoconfirmed infinity
    ID2020 autoconfirmed infinity
    Infant autoconfirmed infinity
    Influenza autoconfirmed infinity
    Insanity autoconfirmed infinity
    Intellectual_disability autoconfirmed infinity
    Islam_and_domestic_violence autoconfirmed infinity
    John_A._McDougall autoconfirmed infinity
    John_Snow autoconfirmed infinity
    Kelli_Ward extendedconfirmed 20211129050054
    Ketogenic_diet autoconfirmed infinity
    Labiaplasty autoconfirmed infinity
    Laser_hair_removal autoconfirmed infinity
    Leech autoconfirmed infinity
    List_of_diets autoconfirmed infinity
    List_of_phobias autoconfirmed infinity
    Louis_Pasteur autoconfirmed infinity
    Low_back_pain autoconfirmed 20210813194027
    Lupus autoconfirmed infinity
    Lysergic_acid_diethylamide autoconfirmed 20220528180845
    Major_depressive_disorder autoconfirmed infinity
    Management_of_hair_loss autoconfirmed infinity
    MDMA autoconfirmed infinity
    Measles autoconfirmed infinity
    Medical_cannabis autoconfirmed infinity
    Menstruation autoconfirmed infinity
    Mental_disorder autoconfirmed infinity
    Methamphetamine autoconfirmed infinity
    Michael_Greger autoconfirmed infinity
    Micropenis autoconfirmed infinity
    Miracle_Mineral_Supplement extendedconfirmed infinity
    Morgellons extendedconfirmed infinity
    Multiple_sclerosis autoconfirmed infinity Trialing unprotection 3/6 -A
    National_Eligibility_cum_Entrance_Test_(Undergraduate) autoconfirmed infinity
    Nazi_human_experimentation autoconfirmed infinity
    Needle_and_syringe_programmes autoconfirmed infinity
    New_York_Rescue_Workers_Detoxification_Project autoconfirmed infinity
    Non-communicable_disease autoconfirmed infinity
    Novichok_agent autoconfirmed infinity
    Obesity autoconfirmed infinity
    Obsessive–compulsive_disorder autoconfirmed infinity
    Overweight autoconfirmed infinity
    PANDAS autoconfirmed infinity Switched to pending changes 3/6 -A
    Parkinson's_disease autoconfirmed infinity Trialing unprotection 3/6 -A
    Passive_smoking autoconfirmed infinity
    Pedophilia autoconfirmed infinity
    Penicillin autoconfirmed infinity
    Penis_enlargement autoconfirmed infinity
    Physical_medicine_and_rehabilitation autoconfirmed infinity
    Physician autoconfirmed infinity
    Physicians_for_Human_Rights–Israel extendedconfirmed infinity
    Pimple autoconfirmed infinity
    Planned_Parenthood extendedconfirmed infinity
    Planned_Parenthood_2015_undercover_videos_controversy autoconfirmed infinity
    Plant-based_diet autoconfirmed infinity
    Pneumonia autoconfirmed infinity
    Polio autoconfirmed infinity
    Post-traumatic_stress_disorder autoconfirmed infinity
    Potassium autoconfirmed infinity
    Pregnancy autoconfirmed infinity
    Pro-ana autoconfirmed infinity
    Puberty autoconfirmed infinity
    Pudendal_nerve_entrapment autoconfirmed infinity
    Quetiapine autoconfirmed infinity
    Rabies autoconfirmed infinity
    Ralph_Northam autoconfirmed 20210427180340
    Rape autoconfirmed infinity
    Rape_during_the_Kashmir_conflict autoconfirmed infinity
    Remdesivir autoconfirmed infinity
    Renée_Richards autoconfirmed infinity
    Robert_Gallo autoconfirmed infinity
    Robert_Sears_(physician) autoconfirmed infinity
    Rorschach_test autoconfirmed infinity
    Schizophrenia autoconfirmed infinity
    Scientific_method autoconfirmed infinity
    Scientology_and_abortion autoconfirmed infinity
    Sexual_intercourse autoconfirmed infinity
    Sexually_transmitted_infection autoconfirmed infinity
    Sildenafil autoconfirmed infinity
    Skin_care autoconfirmed infinity
    Smallpox autoconfirmed infinity
    Smoking autoconfirmed infinity
    Smoking_cessation autoconfirmed infinity
    Spanish_flu autoconfirmed infinity
    St_Christopher_Iba_Mar_Diop_College_of_Medicine autoconfirmed infinity
    Streptococcal_pharyngitis autoconfirmed infinity
    Stroke autoconfirmed infinity
    Sucharit_Bhakdi autoconfirmed 20211120193516
    Suicide autoconfirmed infinity
    Suicide_methods autoconfirmed infinity
    Supervised_injection_site autoconfirmed infinity
    Syphilis autoconfirmed infinity
    Tasuku_Honjo autoconfirmed 20210724153634
    Tetrasomy_X autoconfirmed infinity
    The_Cambridge_Diet autoconfirmed infinity
    Theresa_Tam autoconfirmed infinity
    Thiomersal_and_vaccines autoconfirmed infinity
    Tinnitus autoconfirmed infinity
    Toddler autoconfirmed infinity
    Traumatic_brain_injury autoconfirmed infinity
    Traumatic_memories autoconfirmed infinity
    Trichology autoconfirmed infinity
    Triple_X_syndrome autoconfirmed infinity
    Tuberculosis autoconfirmed infinity
    Type_2_diabetes autoconfirmed infinity
    Ultrasound autoconfirmed infinity
    Urinary_tract_infection autoconfirmed infinity
    Urination autoconfirmed infinity
    Urine autoconfirmed infinity
    Vaccine autoconfirmed infinity
    Vaccine_hesitancy autoconfirmed infinity
    Vaxxed autoconfirmed infinity
    Veganism autoconfirmed infinity
    Vertebral_augmentation autoconfirmed infinity
    Virus autoconfirmed infinity
    Vitamin autoconfirmed infinity
    Vomiting autoconfirmed infinity
    Water_fluoridation autoconfirmed infinity
    Water_fluoridation_controversy autoconfirmed infinity
    Weight_loss autoconfirmed infinity
    White_Helmets_(Syrian_Civil_War) autoconfirmed infinity
    William_C._Rader autoconfirmed infinity
    Zyklon_B extendedconfirmed infinity

    Table of pending changes protection

    Ah rats, just realized my initial list didn't include pages under pending changes protection. Generated a list with this PetScan query and pasted below. No expiration dates since it came through PetScan, but most pendingchanges protections I've seen are placed indefinitely (although there is an option to add an expiration date).

    Collapsed table
    WP:MED tagged pages with pending changes protection
    Title Comments
    Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder
    Autism Speaks
    Ben Carson
    Blue balls
    Body mass index
    Breast cancer
    Bristol stool scale
    COVID-19 pandemic in Nepal
    Craniosacral therapy
    Deepak Chopra
    Dementia
    Dieting
    Disease
    Doctor
    Electromagnetic hypersensitivity
    Electronic harassment
    Euphoria
    Faggot cell
    Fetal alcohol spectrum disorder
    Genetics
    Health effects of tobacco
    Henrietta Lacks
    HPV vaccine
    Human skin color
    Intersex
    Iodine
    Jack Andraka
    James Rutka
    K. K. Aggarwal (cardiologist)
    List of causes of death by rate
    List of youngest birth mothers
    Low-carbohydrate diet
    Management of Tourette syndrome Unprotected 3/7 -A
    Marfan syndrome
    Medicine
    Mitragyna speciosa
    MMR vaccine
    MMR vaccine and autism
    Nostradamus
    Parasitism
    Parental alienation syndrome
    Pathogen
    Plague (disease)
    Protandim
    Psychomotor retardation
    Psychopathy
    Pus
    Rape of males
    Rape statistics
    Sexology
    Snoring
    Sushruta
    Trypophobia
    Vaccination
    William Harvey

    Discussion

    The first thing I knew was going to be on this list was Triple X syndrome, an article I've been swearing to rewrite from near-scratch to a GA/FA level for years and haven't done. The problem is -- obviously -- the title. The issue is that there are at least two "common names" for this syndrome, that and trisomy X, and I suspect if the page were titled the latter there would be no need for semiprotection. I made a move discussion a few years ago that found consensus to move another page in the same family, but was split over trisomy X. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 00:42, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks so much for getting after this, Ajpolino; we want more medical editors, and one way to get them is to actually let them edit!

    I can suggest three to start with, but want to take this slow to see if issues recur. Does someone know how to “pin” this section meanwhile, so it won’t archive too fast as we work through these? On the three (I believe?) that we have unprotected since I first raised this concern about a year ago, there have been no problems. So I can handle three more as a start on my watchlist.

    I can take on watching the following three, and suggest they do not benefit from semi-protection.

    1. Multiple sclerosis; I suggest removing protection, and I am willing to watch. If that doesn’t go well, we can switch to pending revisions. MS is no longer featured, and is completely dated, so we have no rationale for keeping out IPs. It was indefinitely protected in 2012, and that was based on one or two problematic editors.history at the time We have other means of dealing with that.
    2. PANDAS has been semi-protected many times. It is a contentious FRINGE-ish topic (for which there are reliable sources) that has been the subject of WP:RECRUITING coming from fringe-supporting parent advocacy groups. [1] It is possible (fingers crossed) that has died down, and if we can switch it to pending revisions, I can keep an eye on it and possibly later recommend removal altogether of protection.
    3. Parkinson’s disease like MS is no longer featured, extremely dated, and we have no good reason to keep out IPs. Similar to MS, it was indefinitely semi-protected in 2012, in this case because of student edits, which we have other ways of managing. Rather than keeping out all IPs, we can block classes per MEATpuppetry in cases like this. Like MS, the article is so badly dated now that we should encourage edits by anyone. I think this one could be unprotected and if that doesn’t work, we could move to pending revisions, and I will be watching.

    I will add more over time depending on how these go, so hope we can keep this list on the page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:46, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Great! I've unprotected the two more-straightforward ones: MS and Parkinson's. I've watchlisted both, but if you start seeing vandalism that I'm missing, please let me know and we can figure out how to best address. Will look into PANDAS when I get a moment. Ajpolino (talk) 19:24, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    PANDAS switched to pending changes protection for now. If it seems calm for several months, perhaps we can try unprotecting. Ajpolino (talk) 23:16, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Healthy diet was autoconfirmed protected 23 May 2020. IP 70.98.10.197 and Ddp1991, the vandalizing editors, both stopped editing back in May 2020. Suggesting removing the auto.
    2. Potasium was autoconfirmed protected 12 May 2019. Crapholio, the vandalizing editor, has been indefinitely blocked. Suggest removing the auto.
    3. Vitamin was autoconfirmed protected 30 May 2020. Bshamahakanykasa, the vandalizing editor, has been indef blocked. Suggest removing the auto.
    4. Veganism was autoconfirmed protected 28 November 2019. The brown cows, the vandalizing editor, has been indef blocked. Suggest removing the auto. I will put this on my Watch list, as it has been semiprotected several times in years before the Nov 2019 decision.
    5. Miracle Mineral Supplement was Extended confirmed protected 15 March 2020. Not after vandalism. There was an edit war that ended with the contested content added by Eonds of Mollusk remaining in the article. It remains to this date. There is no subsequent vandalism or edit warring. Suggest removing the Extended.

    None of these five show any more recent vandalizing by other editors. David notMD (talk) 21:44, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    David notMD, they could not “show any more recent vandalizing” if they were protected :). Are you offering to watchlist all five in case issues recur? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:37, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Unprotected and watchlisted Healthy diet. For Potasium, will defer to @Materialscientist: for now, since they did most of the earlier protections and edit heavily in this topic. MS, thoughts on us trialing un-protection for Potasium again? Ajpolino (talk) 16:03, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ajpolino great idea to have a look at this. Quite a lot of the articles at first glance don't seem particularly contentious so might have related to a period of media interest or one-editor vandalism Is it possible to include the date that the restriction was placed? And would it be possible to do the same for anatomy articles over at WT:ANAT? --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:33, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Tom (LT): it would be great to have the date restrictions were placed in that table, but sadly I don't know how to do it without manually adding for each (any takers?). If anyone speaks Quarry, here is Cryptic's query that gave me the table above. I assume some small tweak could give date restrictions were placed as well? For anatomy articles, I've just posted the analogous table at User:Ajpolino/Med_protection. Feel free to repost at WT:Anatomy or wherever you'd like, and I'm more than happy to help. As above, I removed move protections and redirects, but if you'd like to see those too check the page history. Also this made me notice that pending changes protection didn't show up in the original list, so I added them manually and I'll check the same for the MED pages above. Ajpolino (talk) 16:17, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If I can butt in here, a lot of these pages seem like they should stay protected. For the more controversial pages, I don't think it should just be up to us to lift protection. I think we should invite users from those talk pages to comment on possibly lifting protection. When you look in the edit histories and archives, you can see that some of the users have been with the pages for years, and so they have a better idea on whether the pages should stay protected. When the pages are unprotected, it's harder to get them protected again. I've seen complaints on talk pages that WP:Pending changes doesn't really help. I think whether the articles are rated good or featured on the scales isn't the only thing to consider. Cancer isn't featured, but I think we can all agree that it's a bad idea to lift its protection. Topics like rape and urination are vandal and POV magnets and should always be protected, in my opinion. Well, rape at least. Near the very top of the list, there are controversial topics like abortion, acupuncture and ayurveda, and all of them have a long history of disputes, and all should stay protected. Veganism may seem like a harmless topic to some at first, but it appears to be protected partly because of the FAQ at the top of its discussion page. Checking the archives, some of that was discussed recently too. A lot of politics with veganism. So some of the stuff I'm seeing in the histories of these pages tells me that these are case-by-case considerations. If a page has a long history of disruption without protection, it's a no-brainer that it will have a lot of disruption again once protection is lifted and that protection quelled a lot of that disruption. RandoBanks (talk) 01:42, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Page protection is normally set by a single admin, often without any discussion or at the suggestion of a single editor, and it's okay to remove the protection later. "Indefinite" isn't usually supposed to mean permanent. We choose that setting when we don't want a vandal to make a note on his calendar that the article will be open on a certain date. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:09, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Edit histories show that page protection is normally set by a single admin after the admin has assessed that the article is a vandal and/or POV magnet and/or after a user has listed a page at WP:Requests for page protection because an article is a vandal and/or POV magnet. You think we shouldn't heed the reasons why articles like abortion, acupuncture and ayurveda were protected in the first place? We should override the concerns of editors who think some of these pages should always be protected? Do you think a controversial topic like abortion will cease to be as controversial as it is any time soon? Lift its protection, and we know what will happen. It will need protection again within minutes or an hour. RandoBanks (talk) 02:25, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    First, Ajpolino did not offer an opinion about which do or don’t need to have protection removed; clearly, some controversial topics need protection. Second, Ajpolino can reinstate protection if vandalism returns just as quickly as protection was removed. Third, pending changes works just fine if someone is watching the article, and is a good intermediate trial. Yes, they are case-by-case consideration, and that is precisely what we are doing here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:32, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Ajpolino is taking suggestions about which pages to remove from the protected class. The discussion also tells us that a bit of it will be a testing phase depending on the article. My thought is that there are pages that shouldn't be removed from protection at all, especially if someone suggests removing it from the protected class and don't even watch after that to see if removing the protection was wise. RandoBanks (talk) 02:40, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we can trust Ajpolino not to do anything so stupid as to remove semi-protection from abortion or rape or sexual intercourse, much less without someone agreeing to watchlist and let Ajpolino know if vandalism ensues. He has removed semi-protection from three articles so far which I have promised to watchlist, and based on what I think is sound reasoning I provided. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:44, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    And for pages that aren't as obviously controversial as those? I wouldn't have even known about the disputes that have taken place at some of these pages if I hadn't looked. I guess you're saying that Ajpolino will do due diligence. As for removing a controversial page from protected status, users sometimes want to give it a trial run to see if things have changed. We see that above too. I'm saying the need for protection won't change for many of these pages. RandoBanks (talk) 02:53, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Given that four of the five I listed were only autoconfirmed protected, they could easily be vandalized even if that protection was retained. If this exercise is "What auto-protections can be removed, I would err on the side of more rather than fewer. David notMD (talk) 03:20, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I just read WP:Autoconfirmed. You say "only autoconfirmed protected" like that isn't what is usually requested and doesn't quell much disruption. Getting an account takes extra effort. Even with an account, there are thresholds to cross before people can edit autoconfirmed protected pages. Right now, I can't edit them. That's why "only autoconfirmed protected" is usually enough to stop disruption, most of the disruption, or cut the disruption in half. "Extended confirmed protected" is heavy duty. RandoBanks (talk) 03:30, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi RandoBanks. My purpose in posting here is to identify pages that no longer need protection. Your concern that some pages still need protection, and indeed may always need protection is well taken. But the fact that Abortion is best left semi-protected, doesn't mean that everything else is best left protected as well. To Ajpolino will do due diligence, well yes of course that's why I'm posting here to garner more attention and opinions. But due diligence doesn't mean seeing the future. Some of these pages may return to being vandalism targets once we remove or reduce protection. If the vandalism is persistent, we will probably re-introduce semi-protection. That doesn't mean this whole experiment has failed, just that we were wrong in that particular case. With multiple sets of eyes on each article, hopefully we'll catch any "failed experiments" quickly. Your eyes could certainly help in that regard. Additionally if there are any pages in the table you look into and think "protection should definitely be retained here", that's helpful feedback as well. Ajpolino (talk) 15:08, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, Ajpolino. Yes, I agree with "doesn't mean that everything else is best left protected as well." RandoBanks (talk) 20:36, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Just a general comment from someone who's answered several hundred edit semi-protected requests – it's disappointingly common for such requests to languish in the queue for weeks, and for perfectly coherent requests to be dismissed for being misformatted or other trivial reasons. I can only imagine how off-putting this must be to potential contributors. Reducing the number of protected pages is well worth the effort, as is watchlisting or otherwise monitoring Category:Wikipedia semi-protected edit requests. Adrian J. Hunter(talkcontribs) 13:57, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Ajpolino it is OK to remove pending changes from management of Tourette syndrome; I didn’t realize it was there. Of course I have that watched :). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:31, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    But now I am quite confused about what we have at Tourette syndrome? I don’t know how to read the log, but it doesn’t show on your list. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:33, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Done! Yes, Cryptic generated the list for me in November, but I didn't get my act together to post here until now. So anything protected between November and now (include Tourette syndrome, in December) will be missing from my list. I figured that's good enough to find long-protected articles, though we could re-run Cryptic's Quarry query to generate a new list anytime. Ajpolino (talk) 16:43, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I missed a step. I do not know why Primefac reset Tourette syndrome based on one edit, when I was having no problem managing pending changes there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:47, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    When I come across PC with few to no accepted IP edits (generally either over a dozen ish IP edits or a few months), it's clear that it is not worth having and thus switch it over to semiprot. Primefac (talk) 17:07, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Primefac. Ajpolino and you are sysops and know the policy, while this is above my paygrade, but I thought that Tourette syndrome was doing fine, I was able to manage, and the typical coprolalia or Tourette’s guy-related vandalism from a decade ago had died down. On a coprolalia-related topic like TS, some ongoing vandalism is expected, but it seemed mild and manageable. But I defer to both of you ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:24, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Primefac faulty ping above. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:25, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Primefac, that's another thing I've seen on talk pages about pending changes. RandoBanks (talk) 20:36, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    This discussion has degenerated into whether to remove any articles from autoconfirmed protected, to what it started as, which was which to remove. In addition to the five I listed, many I looked at since then, I consider were over-reactions to one-time vandalism (by IP and autoconfirmed accounts!). If this exercise is to be useful, I suggest we persist at identifying articles to remove from autoprotected. Be BOLD. Many articles on the list already have watchers, so criteria does not have to be we add delisted to our own Watch lists (albeit a valid precaution). That said, I propose removing Calcium, Constipation, John Snow and Plant-based diet. The last has frequent reverts, but based on good-faith edits, not vandalism. Lastly, Kelli Ward is not a medicine article. David notMD (talk) 16:51, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I’m not entirely clear what you are saying about the discussion, but if we *don’t* agree to watchlist unprotected article, we are leaving the entire burden on Ajpolino. After he was kind enough to do the initial work here of providing a list, that doesn’t seem right. And constipation strikes me as a typical vandal-attracting topic. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:55, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, diarrhea (also autoconfirmed protected, back in 2010) was much more vandalism-prone than constipation. Even after AP. I think because there are more diarrhea jokes than constipation jokes. To my argument in favor of removing autoconfirmed protected, my thoughts are that either Watchers have protection authorization, or can apply to have an article protected, so the burden does not all fall on Ajpolino. David notMD (talk) 19:03, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with SandyGeorgia about constipation. We can try lifting its protection, but I suspect it will need protection again sooner than later. RandoBanks (talk) 20:36, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The watchers list in the history of a page isn't always full of active watchers. I sometimes see vandalism or some other disruption in pages that have a healthy watchers list, but it seems the watchers are inactive or that few are paying attention. Those pages mostly count on the vandal fighters with those automatic warnings and varied revert capabilities to take care of them. RandoBanks (talk) 20:46, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @Ajpolino and Zefr: first failed experiment at Parkinson disease, probably needs re-protection, sorry my computer is in repair, iPad will not allow apostrophe in title, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:06, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @Ian (Wiki Ed): see post above, this looks like student editing. Do you want to try to reach out? It is ridiculous that we have to semi an article because students descend. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:09, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @SandyGeorgia: I revdel'd the copyvios. I agree it looks like students. I'll leave them a note asking their instructor to reach out to us or to ENB. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:22, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It's working so far! The problem at Parkinson's has resolved itself (by dealing with the students directly), so ... so far, so good on experimenting with lessening semi-protection. I suspect we will see increased problems at the end of university terms as students try to cram in edits, but even that can be dealt with via semi-protecting for a week (not indefinite). Other than the student editing, I have had no problems on those I am watching, and suggest we could cautiously try more.
    I am not understanding the logic of RandoBanks when they say that "we can all agree that it's a bad idea to lift ... protection" on certain articles. User:Adrian J. Hunter points out the valid reasons that make it worthwhile to at least try. The worst that happens is we revert and re-protect, while the best case scenario is that we might actually recruit or retain some new editors. RandoBanks, are there no others on the list you might contemplate as worthy of a trial? On many of these, when you actually look at the history before the semi-protection, it turns out to be students, or one passing editor, or just not too much to deal with. Or at least try. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:20, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    SandyGeorgia, correct me if I'm wrong, but posts you made above me mostly show an understanding of what I meant. You expressed an understanding of not lifting protection on controversial topics, but I also commented on lifting protection on articles that aren't obviously controversial until the user does some digging into it. For example, the veganism thing has reared its ugly head again. Ajpolino understood my concerns, and I am satisfied with his reply. Primefac gave his experience with "pending changes" and you said something to David notMD, and both of these replies address my concerns about pages that may not be well-watched.
    Suggestions from me? Hm, is it worth giving Asthma a trial? Is it really vandal and POV-prone? I haven't looked deeply into why it's semi-protected. RandoBanks (talk) 00:27, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    When I said "I think we can all agree that it's a bad idea to lift its protection", I was talking about the cancer page. I suppose cancer isn't a controversial topic to some, but it's a big target for vandals and POV-pushing regardless. We could try lifting its protection, but I don't foresee any positives to doing that. RandoBanks (talk) 00:41, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, yes, RandoBanks; I thought cancer was a good one to explore re why you believe “it’s a big target for vandals”. I also wonder about others like Finnish heritage disease; it went along for most of its Wiki-life with no problems, and then got hit over and over on one day by some IPs, and is still semi’d almost ten years later ... so another to explore. What is it about cancer that makes you reluctant or that make you consider it vandal prone? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:11, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The same reason I wouldn't want the protection at HIV/AIDS lifted. Both are contentious (aka controversial) topics, with many contested or fringe treatments that need to be refuted for the laypeople who just aren't aware (or who don't know what the contested or fringe things are). For cancer, the controversies include screening, clinical trials, survivorship, lung cancer, breast cancer, and so forth.[2][3][4][5][6][7] There's also the alternative cancer treatments (one of the "and so forth" things to look out for) people sometimes consider. And like HIV/AIDS, the cancer jokes are plentiful. For some, the jokes or humor are said to help,[8] but we don't need that in Wikipedia pages. Regardless, I'm not in your way if you and others here want to push forward with lifting protection on the cancer page rather than the asthma page, or if you and others here want to lift protection on both. RandoBanks (talk) 20:05, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Challenged MEDRS at SARS-CoV-2 entry

    In Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2, Allam (2020) (a chapter from a 2020 book published by Elsevier) is currently the source for the "December 1 with possibility of November" date of the index case. Is it MEDRS? Forich (talk) 20:44, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @Forich, This is a chapter in a book published by one of the largest academic publishers in the world. Do you have any reason to believe that it's not a reliable source? Unless you have a good reason to reject it, you should accept it and present its claims balanced in WP:Due weight with other sources that provide conflicting information. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:06, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @WhatamIdoing, MEDRS require comply to this rule: "Ideal sources for biomedical information include: review articles (especially systematic reviews) published in reputable medical journals; academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant fields and from respected publishers; and guidelines or position statements from national or international expert bodies." Allam (2020) fails to meet the criteria of being an academic and professional book written by an expert in the relevant field, because Zaheer Allam, the author of the chapter and book, is an architect that specializes in political economy. He is neither a virologist nor an epidemiologist. The book itsel is about the political economy of the pandemic. Many wikipedians oppose to having non-specialists opine on the origin of the virus, for instance, when Yuri Deigin, an MBA who publishes in favor of the lab leak origin, the argument that he is an MBA comes as the main reason to discard his points. If we apply the rule fairly and equally, the Allam (2020) needs to go. Plus, we got the official WHO report that has new and better quality info on the first cases registered. I tried inserting that source but someone reverted it. Forich (talk) 16:19, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    the argument that he is an MBA comes as the main reason to discard his points ← that's not true, or at least I hope it's not true. It might be true if by "main" you mean noisiest - but the real objection to any source is rooted in the WP:PAGs, not (what Wikipedia editors take to be) the expertise of the author. Alexbrn (talk) 16:51, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Sources can be non-ideal and still be reliable. I think I'd accept this book as being "a" reliable source in general – it might, in fact, be one of the best possible sources for many of the articles listed at Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic – but I would not consider any book about political economy to be an "ideal" reliable source specifically for biomedical information. If you have ideal sources at hand, I encourage you to cite them instead. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:16, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I would in principle agree on Allam (2020) being RS, but it is definitely not MEDRS and, as you said, it should be considered non-ideal for biomedical information. Book chapters from respected publishers by respected virologists would probably start coming up in the following years on the topic of the pandemic, and then we will resort to them as MEDRS. Forich (talk) 17:21, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Singular v plural on article titles

    Examples

    Lewy body dementia is a singular name, and should not be at the plural. I don't think the veins or muscles belong at plural either. We many have many such issues in article names, and need to sort some consensus on ths, as having LBD at such an odd place is causing issues related to those going all the way back to this discussion: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 144#Wikidata DLB LBD error.

    Tom (LT) can you give us an example of something in anatomy that is always in a plural form in English (e.g. scissors) or provide any guidance? Lewy body dementia is almost never used in plural form, and Lewy body and inclusion body have singular usage. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:38, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I think, based on my reading of the article titles policy, that the classes of objects applies to some here - ex: cerebral veins, scalene muscles - but not to Lewy/inclusion body. My reading of the guidance is that in general, if things are referred to more as the plural and there's a definite and common number of them referred to by the plural, then that is the title, whereas for things which can take on many numbers and/or a singular form, the singular is. It also bears looking at what the articles cover - whereas Lewy body covers any one Lewy body primarily, others such as scalene muscles cover the group of muscles referred to as scalene - thus making it a singular noun (describing the group or class of thing) not a plural, even though it appears that way. This probably can be worded better when applied to medicine but I'm likely not the one to be able to do that :P -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:47, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    P.S. - I know I wasn't the one pinged, but I've almost never heard of one Purkinje fiber being discussed, nor one glial cell as opposed to the class of cell as a whole. That being said, at the cellular level, it seems there's no rhyme/reason as to whether they are at the plural or singular - examples can be found of each on WP. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:51, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Berchan, I didn't intend to only ask Tom; I just know it's hard to get his (busy) attention without a ping. I guess there's a separate issue here: are there any medical oddities relative to WP:SINGULAR that should be spelled out at WP:MEDMOS? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:12, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That's what I was trying to get at - when an anatomical/medical feature exists in countable amounts (or 0) but not universal how many or if any one person has - then it is usually singular (ex: Lewy body), when there's only one it's obviously singular, and when everyone has multiple, it's either plural if a set number (or if usually referred to as the group - ex scalene muscles, glial cells) or can be singular if even though there's a set number, they are referred to as the singular often enough (ex kidney). I think this is a rough set of "general" rules from what I see as precedent - while some talk could be given to simplifying these, they're a start at least? -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 23:21, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the ping. I agree with Berchanhimez' thoughts. When something is not countable or referred to in a plural sense then it is usually a plural title, whereas something that is countable may be referred to in the singular. E.g. vasa recta (kidney), scalene muscles, carpal bones, ossicles, Vascular nerves. Articles about cells are generally named in the singular. My feeling is that our articles within the anatomy space generally reflect WP:PLURAL taking into account the nuances surrounding individual article titles. One reason as above is that anatomical things studied in relation to a disease (inclusion bodies), function (ossicles, vasa recta) or physiological process (purkenjie fibres, cerebral veins) might be studied in group form and therefore more often referred to in group form, whereas things that are macro or microscopically interesting from an anatomical basis generally seem to be in the singular. I don't think there is overall a greater issue that needs to be standardised, and I also don't think creating more prescriptive rules is going to be particularly helpful in this case because of the nuances. I do think there are probably some inconsistencies out there though, but think they should be discussed individually, and some titles I think fall into a grey zone where they could be named either way according to your interpretation of WP:PLURAL for each entity. Ping to Iztwoz who I think will also have a considered opinion on this. --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:41, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps I missed a step. So Berchan agrees with me that Lewy body and Inclusion body belong at the singular, then Tom (LT) also agrees with Berchan, and yet Inclusion body was just moved back to the plural. Unless I am misreading, there is only one editor who thinks that article belongs at the plural. This has now happened at Lewy body dementia, and I wonder if Lewy body is next. Could we get this nailed down before articles continue moving ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:23, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Tom - I strongly favour the current usage of groupings of for example some nerves, muscles, veins, and arteries. In many cases these are the common names even if pluralised : cranial nerves, splanchnic nerves, cerebral veins, cerebral arteries; if middle cerebral veins was in the singular, for example, it would have to be a disambiguation page since there is a superficial middle cerebral vein and a deep middle cerebral vein. This is the same for most of the other ‘groupings’. Circular folds, gastric folds are clearly better as plurals than as singulars.
    If somebody is strongly in favour of singularising everything would that include meninx for meninges and gram-negative bacterium for gram-negative bacteria? And if not - why not?
    As for Lewy body dementia being an entry page - like it or not it is an aka for Dementia with Lewy bodies - hence the confusion.--Iztwoz (talk) 17:55, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No LBD is not an aka for DLB; where is that confusion coming from? LBD is an umbrella term encompassing two conditions: PDD and DLB. Dreadful terminology, but that’s the industry because the Parkinson’s people got their dibs on the terminology first, and there’s nothing we can do about the dreadful terminology.
    Separately, do we have inclusion body correctly at the singular now? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:17, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Lewy body dementia needs to go back to the singular; that is almost always how sources use it, and it is a term – it is used in the singular. Dementia with Lewy bodies and Parkinson's disease dementia are the two kinds of Lewy body dementia. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:19, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    LBD v DLB

    LBD is being used as an aka for DLB on some major websites (accessed by the general reader) and also a link using this was left on the LBD talk page some days ago: For example Mayo Clinic site - "Lewy body dementia also known as dementia with Lewy bodies..." and NHS.UK - "Dementia with Lewy bodies also known as Lewy body dementia..."
    LBD page states that it is an umbrella term. 3 million or so that are searching on google for this are surely not searching for an umbrella term but for DLB. Putting the page back to the singular would need other editing changes to avoid going back to confusion.
    Perhaps a better option would be to rename the Dementia with Lewy bodies page as Lewy body dementia and incorporate the umbrella term and distinctions there. This is how it is treated on the NIA/NIH site. Also have come across other sites describing DLB as Lewy body disease as a new entity. Hope to make some edits to the pages soon. Another option - merge LBD into DLB since there is little to add re Parkinson's disease dementia. --Iztwoz (talk) 11:50, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This is wrong on so many levels; I have sub-headed it and will respond later when not iPad editing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:10, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    There are multiple separate but related issues raised here and in the 11:50 post (above)-- a difficult topic because of the dreadful terminology. One issue is the term Lewy body dementia (LBD) relative to dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB) and Parkinson's disease dementia (PDD). Another is the singular vs. plural of LBD. Another is confusion over Lewy body disease relative to all the other terms. And another is whether LBD should be merged to DLB.

    There is considerable confusion above relative to what is stated in high-quality sources. (Of which Mayo is not, and in very particular ways on this topic.)

    Some background. There are three preeminent groups of researchers of Lewy body diseases. Lewy body disease refers to Parkinson's disease (PD) and PDD and DLB, while LBD is an umbrella term for only DLB and PDD (not PD). All involve Lewy body pathology. The Japanese researchers have Kenji Kosaka, and this group has a prominent role in the terminology issues (see Dementia with Lewy bodies#History and Kosaka's book). The British group has Ian McKeith at Newcastle University and the lead author on most consensus reports. The United States has Bradley Boeve at Mayo. And the Mayo group would very much like for the terminology "damage" that is currently accepted by consensus of all three groups to be corrected, but there is opposition from the Parkinson's research people, who don't want THEIR terminology (named after THEIR guy) to be subsumed. Even though all of the conditions have underlying Lewy pathology. Hence, the problem with terminology we are stuck with, even as Mayo does not agree with the consensus terminology, and Lewy gets short-shift because the Parkinson people got their place in the marketing early on. So, please, let's not use Mayo's website as an authoritative source on the topic, as their website is neither a high-quality MEDRS source, nor a source without its own pony in this race. (I happen to agree with them, but the fact is still that for Wikipedia purposes, we are stuck with terminology driven by the Parkinson people, not the Lewy people.) High-quality peer-reviewed literature is more straightforward as to the definitions I list above. I hope that deals with the "aka" issue; please consult the consensus of high-quality peer-reviewed sources, not Mayo's website.

    Sorry to break the flow - but the point is not whether I place any credence on Mayo's website's info but it's the fact that doing a search on Google leads a reader to these sites which use the aka.--Iztwoz (talk) 06:36, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    With that background, there is no, and never has been any, reason based either on Wikipedia naming or on real-world use and sources, for this move: [9]. Lewy body dementia is a singular term, and that move needs to be undone.

    The page Dementia with Lewy bodies uses the plural term Lewy body dementias 14 times. References used on that page, Armstrong: "Lewy Body Dementias"; Gomperts: "Lewy body dementias"; Hansen: "Review: Clinical neuropathological and general features of Lewy body dementias";Velayudhan: "New therapeutic strategies for Lewy body dementias"; Walker: Lewy body dementias".
    So do you really think that the simple use of plural in the title is not the best option? As varied comments on the use of singular v plural, when there is more than one type of an entity being referred to then it's more logical to use the plural. --Iztwoz (talk) 08:45, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Next, I don't know any factual basis for this statement: "LBD page states that it is an umbrella term. 3 million or so that are searching on google for this are surely not searching for an umbrella term but for DLB." In fact, almost every laypress mention (which drives traffic to Wikipedia, as I often verify by following daily the pageviews of all three articles and noticing spikes when someone is diagnosed or dies and that is reported in the press) is to Lewy body dementia, rather than dementia with Lewy bodies, because the family often does not know if their loved one had DLB or PDD. I even had a conversation recently with the son of someone who died of DLB and was the author of a popular book and had submitted an AFC on his father; when I queried the son on why the book was about LBD, and what did his father actually have, he told of exactly the same issue I am explaining here: I will have to look for that link if you want it. Typically, it seems, people are searching on LBD, and the first line of our article on LBD educates them and sends them in the right direction. We cannot help the fact that the terminology stinks, and people don't usually know that, including the laypress. We can educate in the first line.

    So next, what to do about all of this logic: "... rename the Dementia with Lewy bodies page as Lewy body dementia and incorporate the umbrella term and distinctions there ... [or] ... merge LBD into DLB since there is little to add re Parkinson's disease dementia." First, as much can be written about PDD as has been written about DLB; just because I haven't written that article doesn't mean it can't be written. Sources have as much to say on PDD as they do on DLB. Renaming DLB to LBD would just be wrong; it is understandable that the NIH does not have separate articles for DLB and PDD, rather only treats the conglomerate, because they aim at the level of 12-yos. We don't; our articles reflect the underlying literature, and the highest-quality underlying peer-reviewed literature is clear on the current terminology and distinctions.

    So, the remaining question is whether we should have an article at all on LBD, or just redirect that to DLB where we explain the umbrella. Where would that leave us if someone (like me) did write the full article on PDD? Oh, and then, where would be if the Lewy v Parkinson debate ever got resolved so that they all became the same thing (which they are, just depending on which symptoms appear first). Our articles are in the right place now according to both the high-quality sources AND Wikipedia naming guidelines. The only thing wrong is that LBD does not belong at the plural. There are scores of high-quality sources on precisely this topic and the terminology problem, and they are all used at DLB; our decisions should be based on them. We shouldn't be making up new words (Lewy body dementias) to try to solve what is a real-world unsolved problem. I wouldn't necessarily oppose simply redirecting LBD to DLB, but then we would have a whole 'nother issue to deal with. The bulk of LBD is about Society and culture, because most deaths are reported as LBD for the reasons I explained above. Then we would need a separate Sociological and cultural aspects of Lewy body dementia article ... which sumbuddy already made us delete, and that's a whole 'nother can of worms exactly as this one is.

    Iztwoz, I hope you are taking this all this on board, and will not make other unilateral moves and changes without discussion and without basing reasoning on the highest quality sources (not Mayo). After three years of work to bring to DLB to where it is, we are now months from its intended mainpage date (July 21, 2021), and it would not be optimal for these articles to become unstable. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:33, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I really do not know why you are taking issue with this after all this time? You could have easily reverted as quickly as you changed Inclusion bodies after I linked it into the DLB page.--Iztwoz (talk) 06:44, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thought to repeat here what I entered above - The page Dementia with Lewy bodies uses the plural term Lewy body dementias 14 times. References used on that page, Armstrong: "Lewy Body Dementias"; Gomperts: "Lewy body dementias"; Hansen: "Review: Clinical neuropathological and general features of Lewy body dementias";Velayudhan: "New therapeutic strategies for Lewy body dementias"; Walker: Lewy body dementias".
    So do you really think that the simple use of plural in the title is not the best option? As varied comments on the use of singular v plural, when there is more than one type of an entity being referred to then it's more logical to use the plural.--Iztwoz (talk) 08:54, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Iztwoz, the reason I am bringing it up now is that the issues were not resolved by moving LBD to the plural, and it is important to hold a broader discussion. There is a real-world problem behind the terminology problems, as Kosaka's more sensible scheme has not been adopted, and is unlikely to be adopted, as the Parkinson's people prevail. I am unaware how much of this controversy you are familiar with. If we redirect LBD to DLB, do we then redirect PDD to PD? Because the reason we have the real world problem stems from one Lewy body disease (Parkinson's) having a different name. I don't think redirecting PDD to PD would solve the problems either. We have a problem that few Wikipedians are aware of or have paid attention to (along with confusion among the general public). We have lots of real world advocates for fixing the terminology, and no prospect in sight of that happening. We can't ignore the real world problem, and we still have Wikipedia naming guidelines that say LBD should be at the singular. I don't think we can solve the dilemma that comes from google searches, because the dreadful terminology is a real world (non-Wikipedia) problem. In other words, as DLB is likely going to run on the mainpage in a few months, I hope we can all put our heads together in a way that will not destabilize the suite of articles as DLB is on the mainpage. That is, let's sort this together in advance. My suggestion is that it is what it is, and there's nothing we can do about it, so let's respect Wikipedia naming conventions and leave LBD where it belongs, in the singular. We can't solve the google search problem, and the editing problem largely comes from students who want to add DLB content to LBD. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:26, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    DBD and LBD? Boghog (talk) 22:45, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    They are all in the hatnote :) This is why it is so difficult. I will list them all again:

    Lewy body dementia (LBD) includes
    Lewy body disease (which would be another LBD if we were forced to an acronym) includes

    They are all from Lewy body pathology. They start at different places, but pretty much converge to the same. If the Japanese had their way, the naming of the conditions would be related to which part of the brain they start in. But the Japanese haven’t had their way, the Parkinson’s people have, so the terminology is a mess. But this is the consensus terminology. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:50, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Suicide methods article

    Hi all, Just noticed the 4th most viewed medicine related article on Wikipedia is Suicide methods (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:West.andrew.g/Popular_medical_pages)... I find this quite concerning considering the pandemic's effect on mental health. Obviously we can't pull any conclusions between suicide rates and this article; however, any thoughts if we could perhaps add some kind of warning tag on the article inviting readers to reach out for help if needed? Spyder212 (talk) 19:18, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Project-wide consensus is against this sort of thing, though I think a small message at the top of articles related to suicide directing to a project-space page of suicide helplines and similar may be enough to get that put in as an exception. Regardless, a new project-level consensus would be required to add something like this. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:51, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If anyone's willing to work on that article, we've been generally trying to turn it into an actual encyclopedia article, i.e., one that describes the prevalence of different methods, method-specific prevention measures, how media covers different methods, etc. instead of just listing random factoids about individual methods. Also, pretty much all of the information on the individual methods is out of date and leaves out important information, like "most people survive" or "it's painful and you're conscious the whole time" or "it's unethical because it endangers other people". WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:00, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    As an aside, it is actually 6th most viewed ... this is the new page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Popular pages (the one you accessed is no longer kept up to date). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:13, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure it is worth worrying about whether 4th or 6th. Something odd with the table. Tasuku Honjo was briefly famous in Japan in April 2020 for something he didn't say, and since then continues to get a ridiculous number of page views. The actual article hasn't been edited this year and only a handful of minor edits since July 2020. How can it be getting more page views than COVID-19 pandemic? -- Colin°Talk 10:27, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Image from predatory journal at Centrocyte

    Flagging here so people can make a decision about whether or not this meets WP:MEDRS. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:23, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Images don't have to have reliable sources. If it looks like the cell in question, then it's good enough even if they made it out of cupcakes and frosting. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:32, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    In which case it kind of begs the question - if the image is only for illustration purposes, does it even need a citation? CV9933 (talk) 12:10, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The image doesn't need a citation (in the article; for license/attribution reasons, it probably needs the provenance on the file description page at Commons). The sentence(s) in the caption might need a citation, if they don't repeat content already included and cited elsewhere in the article; however, that citation could be any reliable source, and does not have to be the specific source that contains that image. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:50, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, there's also a concern with to the caption. But if licensing etc... is OK on Commons, then the source could probably removed from our article. Same for the two images sourced to doi:10.23937/2378-3516/1410035 (a ClinMed journal) in Composition of electronic cigarette aerosol. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:20, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Liver rupture

    The entire article on liver injury is written from an external trauma / blunt force / stabbing point of view. From writing Death of Chaniece Wallace, I noticed that liver rupture is a red link, and I'm currently thinking it deserves an article of its own because of the following etiology: "Spontaneous hepatic rupture occurring during pregnancy, though rare, is a potentially fatal incident. It is almost always associated with preeclampsia, eclampsia, and/or HELLP syndrome which always carry an increased risk of both maternal and foetal morbidity and mortality that was reported to be as high as 40-80%."[10] Maybe there are other disease processes that are associated with liver rupture, but if so, I am currently ignorant of them. Any thoughts? Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) 17:07, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Also, I might not get around to it, but I believe the Death of Chaniece Wallace article is eligible to have a WP:DYK hook written about it if anyone is up to that task. Biosthmors (talk) 17:11, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Just noting that another rare cause of spontaneous liver rupture are tumors, like hepatocellular carcinoma and hepatic hemangioma. NikosGouliaros (talk) 18:25, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Are the treatments for pregnancy- and cancer-related liver rupture basically the same as for trauma? If so, then it might be better to expand the existing article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:10, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    They are, so good point. NikosGouliaros (talk) 19:30, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Biosthmors as the liver is a solid organ is it unlikely that it ruptures per se, but more likely the articles you refer to describe a ruptured liver capsule or something similar. For example, in the article you link to, it is used to describe a ruptured haematoma of the liver through the liver capsule. I think it would be better for such an article to redirect to a more accurate title. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:57, 1 April 2021 (UTC)--Tom (LT) (talk) 22:57, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I need medical help

    Hello, at User talk:Firestar464#Your GA nomination of Brie Larson, I believe I've been talking to myself. I'm seeking medical help per WP:IAR, as it would be a great help to the encyclopedia. [4-1] Firestar464 (talk) 10:25, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    COVID-19 vaccine authorization type in the EU

    Any thoughts on the discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_COVID-19_vaccine_authorizations#European%20Commission%20CMA of the type of authorization for COVID-19 vaccines in the EU?

    Thanks. --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 22:06, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:56, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I’m writing my first Q-submission to the FDA for this regulatory status. I noticed we have breakthrough therapy, although that’s probably because that program is a bit older.

    Anyone care to flesh that out? There’s an interesting article in Nature about the program. Seppi333 (Insert ) 19:20, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Is it actually new? Or is it basically just breakthrough therapy designation applied to medical devices. If it is the second, it may be better to move breakthrough therapy to Breakthrough (medicine) and to cover all forms of "breakthrough" designations around the world - be they for drugs, regimens, devices, etc. If it's something completely different and would not be similar at all, then maybe another article. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 19:27, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The programs are indeed distinct. They're very similar in terms of what they provide, but the regulatory requirements and the forms of collaboration the FDA offers to companies that sponsor drugs/devices with that designation differ. E.g., the FDA trains its staff to keep up to date with the technology underlying breakthrough devices - both current and new. TBH, I have no idea what the breakthrough therapy program provides specifically for pharmaceutical company sponsors because I don't feel like reading yet another 30+ page "FDA Guidance for Industry" document. >.>
    In a nutshell, the BDP is a program that - among other things - allows for expedited regulatory approval (i.e., decreased review times, priority review over other device submission for expedited assessment of submissions, and more flexibility in clinical trial design), increased access to and close collaboration with the FDA to facilitate clinical development, and access to senior FDA managers to help resolve complex regulatory challenges that arise for devices using novel technologies (or whenever the FDA review team assigned to the device and the device sponsor are at an impasse). The last point is actually becoming rather important nowadays with the frequency of new AI, cloud computing, and innovative biotechnologies for which there's no existing technical FDA guidance (e.g., like this for my company, which is only a draft guidance document) occurring in new medical devices. There are also cybersecurity issues for such devices that the FDA has to consider nowadays.
    In any event, the main reason they created that program is that most medical devices that are classified as "high-risk" are required to go through the premarket approval process, which takes years longer than the process for obtaining regulatory approval in most other countries. So, they created a program to expedite the process for devices that can are likely to reduce mortality in the event they perform as expected in a less-stringent pivotal trial.
    As for the WP articles, there really shouldn't be any coverage of the breakthrough device program in the breakthrough therapy article and vice versa. They're two different programs. Seppi333 (Insert ) 20:30, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I'm not saying they're exactly the same program, but the "breakthrough therapy" designation was basically designed (and is used now) to signify a drug or treatment regimen that is "first in class" - i.e. is some new class of drug/regimen that hasn't been attempted before - and such new therapy/regimen has early data to suggest it's vastly superior to current things. If this bar is met, the drug/regimen is given "fast track" approval - maybe allowed smaller trial sizes, or allowed to be marketed with more side effects given the increased benefit, etc. Is this not what a "breakthrough device" is designed for? It appears to me that a "breakthrough device" is simply another form of "breakthrough designation" that allows novel therapeutic "things" (be they drugs, devices, regimens, techniques....) to get accelerated approval given that they're brand new and potentially game-changing. That's why I think it's likely best to have one article covering all kinds of breakthrough designations. But I'm just one opinion :) -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:41, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I suppose if you wanted to lump them together in an article titled "Breakthrough designation" and make the distinction that they're regulated separately, that'd be reasonable. I wouldn't suggest conflating the two programs if the two topics are covered in a single article though. That'd just be misleading. Seppi333 (Insert ) 20:49, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Definitely not - it would be about the overall goal of "breakthrough programs" - which is why I suggested Breakthrough (medicine) at first but can also see Breakthrough designation. I agree that there's enough differences to matter, but I'm not sure there's enough differences for it to be independently notable. Regardless, if you or anyone creates an article at this point, it would help - we'd either see an amount of information that can be merged to a combined article, or we would see that it'll be too long on its own to merge reasonably, in which case it would stand alone. Given that this is borderline, I think it may be best to have a separate article, and then merge them all into one if it's appropriate once all individual articles are fleshed out - because if they're so long that merging would be too long, then it's probably best to have separate with a WP:SS article at Breakthrough designation. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:52, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Eh, I suppose I probably would be the best person for doing that job. =/ I'll see if I can spare some time to tackle that this weekend. Seppi333 (Insert ) 21:44, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    A new article that seems to me to have a whiff of quackery, though I'm no expert. Please evaluate. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:22, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    This seems to be a nearly verbatim recreation of an article that was recently deleted at AfD: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Origin_of_Chronic_Diseases. I've tagged it accordingly. Spicy (talk) 06:42, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Person-First Language that may benefit from input from editors on this project. -- Colin°Talk 10:31, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Citing predatory sources at Talk:Tetracera sarmentosa

    Further participation would be appreciated. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:56, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    thanks for post--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:02, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ozzie10aaaa: did you mean to comment? If so, you forgot to. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:05, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    thanks for bring this to my attention...commented[11]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:34, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Automatic short description at Infobox medical condition

    Feel free to contribute to the discussion about adding automatic short descriptions to {{Infobox military unit}} at Template talk:Infobox medical condition#Automatic short description. --Trialpears (talk) 18:24, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:23, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal for new MED doc page: inclusion criteria

    I think we should have a doc page as part of the Project which is aimed at the user coming to WP:MED with the question, "Is topic/article 'XYZ' subject to WP:MEDRS?" I checked the #Resources sidebar, the #Guidelines section, and the rest of the page, but I don't see anything that directly addresses that question. I'm envisioning a new project page, perhaps parallel to or a subpage of WP:MEDRS, which attempts to offer guidance on that question, which could then be linked from #Resources.

    MEDRS styles itself as a content guideline, and I'm thinking the new page could either be a supplementary guideline attached to MEDRS (tag it with {{Supplement}}), an Info page, or even an essay to start. I'm sure there will be some gray areas or topics for which case-by-case evaluation might be needed which may end up in discussion at WT:MED anyway, but I think a new doc page could clear up the majority of such questions by listing some criteria which define articles that are subject to the guideline. Thoughts? Mathglot (talk) 20:10, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I think that would be useful. If nothing else, for things like this Dr. Vogel (talk) 20:31, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Is this not the purpose of WP:Biomedical information ? Alexbrn talk) 20:36, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems that WP:PSMED and other guides at the bottom of the MEDRS page were intended for this purpose. Perhaps they could be reformed as a short primer, or the WP biomedical information box could be elevated to a more visible position near the top of the MEDRS article. Zefr (talk) 21:35, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Alexbrn:, indeed! That was well hidden, I thought I looked everywhere. In that case, maybe it's only a question of increased visibility, and optionally expanding that page. Any objection to adding a link to BMI from the #Resources section to make it more visible, and adding a couple of prose references to it from the body? Unless I missed it, there are zero links currently from WP:MED to BMI from the body text (there's one in tiny font from a nav template), and it seems like that page is really a must-see. Mathglot (talk) 22:54, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It is linked from the second sentence of WP:MEDRS. Alexbrn (talk) 03:05, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:Nobody reads the directions, and in my experience, experienced editors don't read the introduction to any policy or guideline. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:41, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    English is the language of science

    An interesting article which does not name Tony1, who is the "language mentor" mentioned in this article (and was the language mentor when Tourette syndrome went to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tourette syndrome). Tony1 is excellent at this kind of work (as is Colin), and we could certainly make better use of his talents! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:22, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Ha, I don't deserve to be in the same sentence as Tony1, who does this for a living and ever so slightly more knowledgable about English writing than me! While writing good English is no doubt harder for non-native speakers, plenty natives struggle to express ideas clearly. As a collaborative editing project, Wikipedia has a huge advantage over those who are having to write alone. And, time zones permitting, we can get instant feedback. It is definitely best to work with others who complement our skills, provide a fresh pair of eyes, and complain when something isn't clear or is awkward.
    One aspect where we deviate from a research scientist is that often we are not quite so confident in our knowledge of the topic that we could write an article on it without consulting the literature. I do recommend collecting a good pile of papers and locating textbooks on a subject to get a number of different voices as input. This helps with WP:WEIGHT, but also it is easier to write original text when one has seen an idea expressed several different ways. With only one source for a point, it is difficult to avoid changing the meaning when one changes the words. (I'm not suggesting we then need to cite multiple sources for one point). -- Colin°Talk 08:49, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    New viral vector vaccine article needs expansion

    I've created a short article on Viral vector vaccine, a topic very important for COVID-19 vaccines. Please help expand it! If you contribute text in the next week, you will get DYK credit for it too. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 04:53, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    AZ vaccine deaths

    There's a growing problem here with at least one editor wanting to stretch the well-reported associations between this vaccine and types of blood clotting into a certainty of cause and effect (which MEDRS sources seem careful to disclaim). More eyes could be helpful. Alexbrn (talk) 21:01, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Placed it on my "eyes list" and warned for 3RR and reminded about GS. If they make another edit after this warning/reminder, next step would probably be a good idea to request a topic ban from COVID-19 vaccines - though without RexxS around anymore, I'm not sure if there's any admin who's willing/able to step in without a noticeboard discussion, so... I'll at least watch for continued edits against MEDRS and/or SYNTH violations, but I don't know if I can be the one to request the sanctions. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 21:10, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I proposed that this be selectively merged back into the AZ vaccine article as there's little independent notability and it's quite frankly WP:TOOSOON at this time, any opinions (either direction) or improvements that would assist in keeping this as a second article (MEDRS compliance is hard at this point given very little peer reviewed papers on this, so it's currently sourced to primary [government] sources and news articles). Thanks -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 18:57, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    The main article

    Could also use some oversight. There's a burgeoning problem with every speculative news story that appears instantly being crammed into the lede. Alexbrn (talk) 13:53, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Alexbrn, I tried to do cleanup yesterday so that most of the material was in prose format (along with an added table for the agreed doses), but I got frustrated with how much crap I was just sifting through and decided it would be best to prose-ify it now, then we can all work on guiding it towards encyclopedic writing instead of simply being a collection of "one liners". I'll try to look at it more today or within the next couple. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 19:06, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a problem with a lot of the COVID articles which have been a sort of "daily dashboard" throughout the pandemic. There's going to be a boat load of cleanup to do once this is over (which, most likely, won't get done). WPMED might, anyway, usefully have a post-mortem on how well things were done. Alexbrn (talk) 19:11, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Bigger picture

    This happens with a lot of things.. but would the general sanctions in place for COVID-19 articles help here? I'm not acquainted enough with them other than to know they give administrators leeway to topic ban editors who appear to be pushing a POV/etc, but would they also enable a stricter application of WP:CRYSTALBALL or perhaps even a restriction against adding attributed statements (i.e. one person's opinion or one primary source's opinion) prior to discussion on the talkpage? Perhaps a requirement that any editor who wants to add a statement that would require attribution (to a person, this wouldn't impact statements like "the EMA said" or similar) go to the talkpage first (and edits that don't comply could be reverted as a GS violation). I'm just trying to think of ways now that RexxS is gone and I haven't seen much admin activity on this or other articles that a GS could be implemented that provides a clear rule, easy determination as to if it's violated, and thus maybe more admins could step in and help as it would take less of their time. I think this would ideally be placed on any article related to COVID-19 vaccinations - but perhaps it should just be implemented on specific articles as the need arises? Or, I could be off base completely - comments appreciated -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 19:10, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Recent WP:PMID markup changes

    Trivial I know, but yesterday I spent time trying to work out why inputting something like PMID ######### wouldn't generate the customary PubMed link on a talk page. Was it me getting my upper and lower cases confused or something? Or was it some recent change that had passed me by? After a while, I propended for the latter and, in one of those elusive aha moments, today I stumbled on this. Since I felt that a shiny new template might not be so convenient for rapid talk-page discussions, I went to what seemed to me the obvious forum (WT:PMID) to question the apparent loss. But when I tried to start a new section there, up popped a message warning me,

    If you're seeing this, you're probably in the wrong place.

    This page is not for a Wikipedia article. If you want to request a change to a Wikipedia article, you need to go back to the specific article, and look for the "Talk" button at the top of the article. This page is also not a policy or guideline. If you want to request a change to a policy or guideline, then you need to go back to the specific policy or guideline and look for the "Talk" button at the top of that policy or guideline page.

    If you stay here, you will end up on the talk page of a how-to or information page. How-to pages are meant to tell people how to edit Wikipedia according to the policies or guidelines, or to give instructions about other Wikipedia processes and practices.

    ...etc.

    Gosh, methunked, so where now? Hence, this semiserious patter...

    On a slightly more serious note perhaps, I can well remember how impenetrable "Wikipedia processes and practices" first seemed to me (and presumably to many other newcomers). Sometimes, that still feels the case... So I can't help wondering whether - as far as talk pages are concerned - this sort of obligation to use a template where none was needed before is really an advance. And I don't even know where to ask. Maybe I should ping... But perhaps I won't... Cheers, 86.186.155.179 (talk) 14:15, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    So have all PMID macros stopped working from previous discussions? This is just a change that causes damage/work. Idiots. Alexbrn (talk) 14:32, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    At first glance, no lonker lonked. 86.186.155.179 (talk) 14:56, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you two are looking for mw:Requests for comment/Future of magic links (from 2016). I believe that JJMC89 was involved in this. The goal was to replace all of the magic links with local templates before changing the config. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:59, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Err, and by the looks of it the RfC came down against the change. This change is an act of stupidity. (And, checking out an old archive[12] it seems all the PMID magic links have now gone dead.) Alexbrn (talk) 18:05, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a technical RFC. "Votes" and popularity are irrelevant. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:24, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @WAID et al: Hum, why does that RFC link seem to transport me to the start of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (the bit about the planning permission application being "on display in the bottom of...", oh never mind...)? Fwiw, I've been indecently tempted today to boldly revert the actual change, while providing a reasoned explanation on the relevant talk page, accompanied by a link to this thread. I almost unduly flattered myself that the fact that a mere ip contributoid feels that way might conceivably send a message to some educated people - maybe in the inner reaches of the local galaxy - that the technical side of building and curating Wikipedia isn't just some insider fix, however valuable that sort of input may be in the round. But hey, I'm a really conflict averse sort of humanoid life form (another reason why I'm just an ip around here anyway :) And I do still rather like those words "DON'T PANIC" inscribed in large friendly letters, 86.186.155.179 (talk) 20:38, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You might feel like you hadn't been told about this technical RFC because you're not reading m:Tech/News or the wikitech-l mailing list, where technical RFCs are normally announced. Or you might feel that way because you're not even watching all the major RFCs here, because if you were, you would have seen the "Future of magic links" RFC at Village pump (proposals). (Notice that it begins with the usual comments about another community affecting us without acknowledging our primacy, even though we've said that's how it's supposed to work in our policy for longer than I've been an editor. It also links to some of the prior announcements and discussions on our own wiki, which kind of undercuts the "nobody ever told us on our own wiki because we can't be bothered to take an interest in local affairs" storyline.)
    But the most likely explanation is: This movement is too large and too complex for anyone to read everything, much less to remember everything. To give an example, a couple of years ago, on this page, we talked about redesigning WP:MED on this page. Several editors participated in the discussion. A couple of months later, someone made the changes. Then one of the significant participants complained here: Why didn't anyone talk about this first? Well, we did, and you did, too. It just wasn't one of the thousand most important things for you to remember. Neither, apparently, was the discussion that we had on this page five years ago about the likely end of the magic links. You'll find two other ways to link to PubMed via the id number in that discussion.
    Changing the documentation doesn't change the software. AFAICT the "actual change" is this patch in Gerrit. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:48, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, so now if I've understood correctly, these guys aren't just smoking some stupid stuff we can't get hold of here? Thank you WAID once again for your heroic megagalactic efforts to make the distant clunk of media and stories long ago appear a little closer to home (though I'm still unclear how EveryeditorTM could be expected to understand). So long, 86.161.190.24 (talk) 17:36, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for all the fish? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:46, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Fish? What... (ah, never mind ;-) 86.161.190.24 (talk) 20:05, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Does this qualify?

    I have a question do these sources qualify as MEDRS in the Circumcision article? These are both reliable, secondary sources one of them in PUBMED.[1]

    I'm asking to get this put in as opposed to the current source used in the PTSD section where the authors of the study have a conflict of interest statement which violates Bias under MEDRS. Dashoopa (talk) 18:26, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ Boyle, Gregory; Goldman, Ronald (May 2002). "Male circumcision: pain, trauma and psychosexual sequelae". Journal of Health Psychology. 7 (3): 329–43.
    PMID 22114254 is primary research from 2002. You are proposing replacing a 2019 systematic review (PMID 31496128) with this source in tandem with another article (doi:10.1007/s11930-020-00286-0) which does not even appear in PUBMED. I have already expressed a view on the wisdom of this on the article's Talk page. Alexbrn (talk) 07:19, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I've already explained this, this is written from an extremely biased source with extremely biased authors and a lengthy Conflicts of Interest statement. I suggest removing the source we have now and not replacing it with anything for now until a better source is found. Other than that, the current one is undisputable an awful source. Dashoopa (talk) 22:59, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know about that. The COI statement begins: "The first author is a member of the Circumcision Academy of Australia, a not‐for‐profit, government registered, medical association that provides evidence‐based information on male circumcision to parents, practitioners and others, as well as contact details of doctors who perform the procedure." The English Wikipedia is itself extremely biased towards providing evidence-based information. Is that supposed to be evidence of a problem? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:39, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a pro-circumcision website, it's about as "evidence-based" as Intact America or whatever else. Also, the other guy sells patented circumcision website so he profits off of the study. Again, anyone with a quarter-functioning brain can tell it's not an appropriate study to use. Dashoopa (talk) 13:21, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    A medical association is not generally considered "a website". A review article is not "a study".
    The point behind relying on review articles and textbooks and similar sources is that the format means that we end up with the results from a variety of studies, each of which is performed by a variety of researchers, and therefore with a variety of levels of biases, context, and competence. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:44, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, and the peer-review and publication process is meant to manage/neutralize any taint of COI. The problem here (and it is a permathread on the circumcision articles) is that Brian Morris (biologist) is a hate figure for anti-circumcision activists who cannot abide him being cited. Right back from the time when the article went to GA under the guidance of Zad68 the consensus has been that Wikipedia could not just jettison reputably-published systematic reviews (etc.) just because of editorial objection. So Morris is used but as a compromise if alternative WP:MEDRS are available they are used instead to try to dampen-down any drama. It is not as if the Morris source is even being used to source anything controversial here in any case, so I'm not sure there's any reason for the dramatics we're seeing from this latest drive-by WP:SPA. The "anyone with a quarter-functioning brain" comment reveals all. Alexbrn (talk) 17:04, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Neither the source currently in the article nor the source proposed to replace it look particularly good. Vaticidalprophet 08:02, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dashoopa, that's a good journal,[13] but for such a contentious area, you need to find a review article that was published during the last five years (i.e., no older than 2016). When you look at this article on the journal's website, it says "Research Article" at the top. That means that the authors interviewed or surveyed men themselves to find out what the men thought. That's not the kind of source that Wikipedia wants. Wikipedia wants one in which the authors read all of the other researchers' research articles, and then sum them up into a conclusion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:56, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Looking at the talk page of our friend PainProf (last seen on this site in early September 2020 [?]), I stumbled on a bot-generated section from mid-February warning that this work-in-progress risks being removed due to lack of recent activity. Since I believe that - however incomplete with respect to PainProf's intentions - the current content of the draft could be of real value, I'm boldly wondering whether it might conceivably be appropriate for somebody experienced to move a somewhat condensed version into mainspace. Also very much hoping PainProf is well. Best, 86.161.190.24 (talk) 13:33, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    G13 may be best...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:21, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Disclaimer needed for the WHO's flawed credibility?

    Yes, it's COVID-19 again, and yes it's the "lab leak hypothesis" again, but at

    there is a proposal about WHO-sourced content that may have wider ramifications of interest to WPMED editors in general. Alexbrn (talk) 20:22, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I commented there. I think it's honestly time to start seriously considering general sanctions applied to the topic area - such as one prohibiting editors who are not extended-confirmed discussing the origins anywhere on Wikipedia, as this is just a timesink at this point. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:49, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Even without them, a WP:TBAN for individuals who are Wikipedia:Forum shopping is a possibility. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:47, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Is medscape a good source?

    Sorry if this may come off as a dumb question. But I have interacted with other Wikipedians and they have told them there is a consensus that Medscape is a reliable source.

    I’m not entirely sure if this claim is true or not, so I’m just asking. CycoMa (talk) 03:55, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    It was discussed quite recently here. It's not WP:MEDRS. Alexbrn (talk) 04:55, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That discussion did not say it was "not WP:MEDRS". There was consensus that it was adequate for uncontroversial stuff, particularly if the editor doesn't have access to the quality stuff. It isn't a good MEDRS (your title question) but could be used for sourcing some medical content. See WAID's comment at the discussion. -- Colin°Talk 10:38, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I think Alex means that it's not what MEDRS calls "an ideal source". A source need not be "ideal" to be "reliable", especially for uncontentious content. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:46, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, you're both right. I should have said it's not a good MEDRS. Sometimes I call these kinds of sources "MEDRS of last resort" (everything is reliable for something). However, if the OP has been told plainly that Medscape "is a reliable source" in a blanket way, then that's wrong. Alexbrn (talk) 16:52, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Tetrasomy X peer review

    Note for anyone of interest that I've made a PR at Wikipedia:Peer review/Tetrasomy X/archive1 for a topic in this project's scope. Vaticidalprophet 07:40, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Bunch of new-ish MEDRS-failing predatory publishers added to WP:UPSD/WP:CITEWATCH, please help clearing them up!

    • Medip Academy: [14]
    • Jaypee Publishers: [15]
    • Intech: [16]
    • IGI Global: [17]
    • Cureus: [18] (not predatory, but these typically not reviewed, basically it's like preprints that could get reviewed)
    • Canadian Center of Science and Education [19]
    • OMICS: [20]

    If you see no results, someone cleared them. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:01, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Merge discussion

    Over the last days a big part of my clinical work has been dealing with queries around the AZ vaccine, which has been administered to 17 million UK residents. The relevant article is up for merge. While this is a rare phenomenon, there is already a teeming mass of sources (not all of which classically MEDRS, as this is a novel phenomenon).

    Please consider !voting here: Talk:Oxford–AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine#Proposed merge of Post-vaccination embolic and thrombotic events into Oxford–AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine. JFW | T@lk 12:03, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:44, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Experts needed on Martin J. Tobin (new article)

    Is there anyone with knowledge of pulmonology who can help expand the career details of Martin J. Tobin? His research is way too complicated for me to do justice. His bio is a bit overwhelmed by the section on the Derek Chauvin trial. Thank you! МандичкаYO 😜 13:52, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Dubious article - where next?

    I recently came across Edward Tobinick, which is currently just a list of the author's patents. However, after digging a bit deeper, it seems to have survived AFD a couple of times, most recently deciding to keep this version, which was a very different article focusing on his (somewhat fringe) medical theories. It's in a bit of an odd situation - the AFD concluded there was some notability because of the contentious claims, but they're now gone completely. I don't know what the best approach here is - revert to the old version? relist for deletion in its new form? - but figured someone here would have thoughts. Andrew Gray (talk) 13:57, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Digging around a bit more, it looks like there are still half a dozen articles that reference his work with etanercept. Cerebrospinal venous system also looks a bit weird - it suggests that Tobinick coined the term, and searching only finds one or two authors using the term, but it's not clear to me whether it's a mainstream concept under a different name or not . Andrew Gray (talk) 14:07, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure what's best, but I'd guess that relisting for deletion would be best. I'll note the existence of what looks like a single-purpose account to promote the subject: Special:Contributions/Tnfinfo. Biosthmors (talk) 16:24, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I've boldly redirected to Etanercept, where I've put a sentence about the guy. Makes more sense this way, if any mention of him is due at all. Alexbrn (talk) 16:35, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) I think that Special:Contributions/SKKB8 explains a good deal of what happened to the contentious claims. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:49, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @Biosthmors, Alexbrn, and WhatamIdoing: Thanks all. Redirecting seems a better bet than an independent page. I've removed the reference from Dejerine–Roussy syndrome and left the others, as they seem a bit more muted. I'll list the CSVS article for deletion. Andrew Gray (talk) 19:32, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Hmm. Having said that, this review published a couple of months ago seems to treat the CSVS model as valid, so not quite sure. It still seems off to me but I don't really know much about anatomy! Andrew Gray (talk) 19:44, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    With a surname like that perhaps you should . Alexbrn (talk) 19:47, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    RM, once again

    Alerting WP:MED of Talk:Triple X syndrome#Requested move 10 April 2021 for courtesy purposes. Vaticidalprophet 06:54, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:44, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Grump

    Just noticed, that unlike with the good old PMID macro, the new mandatory {{pmid|xxxxxxx}} template generates a link where the "PMID" text is a separate hyperlink. So: PMID 31496128. The "PMID" is easily clicked and leads to PubMed#PubMed identifier. Surely in 99% of cases this will be a mis-click. One wonders if the developers of this site have any understanding at all of its users. Alexbrn (talk) 13:04, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    That feels like a problem with Template:pmid rather than with the developers of this site. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:10, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with Alexbrn that "PMID" needs to be delinked in the output so as to avoid the unnecessary annoyance of having to avoid accidentally reaching PubMed#PubMed identifier. (It's already more fiddly to use than the late lamented 'magic link'; please don't make it doubly fiddly.) 86.177.202.244 (talk) 21:54, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You could just make a direct interwiki link: [[pmid:31496138]] produces pmid:31496138, which should work like you expect it to. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:17, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, yes, thanks for that WAID. 31.50.193.212 (talk) 10:42, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Can we use this as a study?

    I am wondering if we could add this cost-utility analysis about circumcision:

    https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15534340/

    It is a systematic review and meta-analysis as well that aggregates into a cost-utility analysis the risks, benefits, and costs of circumcision. The source is a little old (2004) but it is one of the most comprehensive reviews on the topic and published in a great journal with high-quality information.

    Also, Alexbrn has been quite hostile, so generally try not to engage with him if he comes on. Dashoopa (talk) 14:30, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Dashoopa, As was already pointed out to you on the talk page, it is plainly not a systematic review or a meta-analysis. MrOllie (talk) 14:43, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It is a systematic review and meta-analysis. I will read directly from the paper: "Meta-analyses were performed using a random-effects model (DerSimonian and Laird method) by the Mantel-Haenszel method...Articles addressing the impact of neonatal circumcision on health were collected by searching MEDLINE using circumcision as a search word, reviewing the citations in pertinent articles, and querying experts in the field. Articles published since 1900 were considered. Preference was given to the most current information."
    It literally says in the paper that it is a systematic review and meta-analysis. This is not up for dispute. Dashoopa (talk) 14:45, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    But it was published way back in 2004 (cf WP:MEDDATE). Recent potential MEDRS include PMID 32463643 (a review published in a widely respected medical journal) and PMID 31496128 (a systematic review published in "the official English language journal of the Chinese Cochrane Centre" - as currently cited). 86.177.202.244 (talk) 15:52, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The first paper is not a cost-utility analysis and neither is the second paper, so it is irrelevant to what I am trying to put. Dashoopa (talk) 20:03, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Dashoopa, a cost-utility analysis would normally be considered pa primary source (see WP:MEDPRI), and therefore inappropriate here. Both the suggested sources are scoped reviews containing content that is specifically pertinent to the matters you have wished to address. These two papers both seem to satisfy WP:MEDRS, whereas the one you are leaning on does *not* - per WP:MEDDATE, and also per other considerations, as outlined by Colin below. 86.177.202.244 (talk) 21:27, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Where does it say anywhere on WP:MEDRS that a cost-utility analysis is considered primary research? Dashoopa (talk) 23:33, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Dashoopa, the paper does not claim to be "a systematic review". These words appear nowhere in the paper. It is a Cost–utility analysis, though its data is drawn from previously published studies. The section method for those studies, which you quote above, would not qualify as a systematic review, which requires an explicit algorithm for choosing studies and is designed to minimise bias and be repeatable by other researchers. While the paper does claim to perform meta-analysis on certain aspects of their research, they appear to be doing so only to calculate a risk of developing HIV or other sexually transmitted diseases. It isn't like the conclusion of their paper is simply a meta-analysis of previously published studies. They take the existing data, and add in a huge dollop of their own assumptions and figures, and conduct original research to produce a novel conclusion. -- Colin°Talk 15:59, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    ColinI will read directly from the paper: "Meta-analyses were performed using a random-effects model (DerSimonian and Laird method) by the Mantel-Haenszel method...Articles addressing the impact of neonatal circumcision on health were collected by searching MEDLINE using circumcision as a search word, reviewing the citations in pertinent articles, and querying experts in the field. Articles published since 1900 were considered. Preference was given to the most current information." So, it does claim to be a systematic review and meta-analysis within a cost-utility analysis. Dashoopa (talk) 20:00, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Dashoopa, please note that the fact that the authors claimed, inter alia, to have conducted "meta-analyses" (broadly construed) in the body of a paper that historically passed peer review does not mean that it fits currently accepted definitions of meta-analysis in the context of systematic review [21]. 86.177.202.244 (talk) 21:27, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, not every meta-analysis must fall in line with PRISMA guidelines and there are thousands of meta-analyses we have cited that have not fallen under every PRISMA guideline. For example, it is not taken for granted to write systematic review and meta-analysis in the title whereas PRISMA guidelines explicitly outline so. If meta-analyses and systematic reviews are conducted within a paper, it is considered sufficient. Dashoopa (talk) 23:33, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    A paper that is 17 years old is not "a little old". WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:19, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    There's this set of articles

    I'm not saying this is necessarily a problem, since the topic is well beyond me, but it seems weird to have so many articles on this. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:22, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    If the symptoms or treatments are different, then we'd want to have separate articles. @Snowmanradio would probably know, but isn't around much these days. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:24, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Smoker's paradox and COI

    Hi all, I happened to stumble upon this article. It previously and to some extent is a stealth article about the health benefits of smoking and did use (and probably still has) some very questionable sources that give undue prominence to some (but not all) claims. Could I have some help cleaning it up?

    I am also highly concerned based on the selection of sources and time it would take to collate them, and the fact this seems to be that editor's first article, that there may be a COI editor involved. I note also the article was rejected at AfD and then moved to mainspace without consensus by the author. Tom (LT) (talk) 22:55, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I've removed the content sourced to articles that significantly exceed the recommendations of WP:MEDDATE, except for one that is partly used for historical purposes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:31, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Since it is related to smoking, also linking Talk:Tobacco smoking § Merger proposal that may be interesting to this project, —PaleoNeonate00:43, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Elongated labia

    The artice came to my attention again when looking at my edit logs. It's still in the same questionable state with mostly outdated sources, one more recent one but that only links to those cultural depictions, then a possibly better source from the WHO but that is about labia stretching. Moreover, a 2019 suggestion on the talk page was to possibly merge it in the stretching article, which may be pertinent. I initially thought about posting this at FTN, but I suspect that WP:MED members may be more familiar with the related anatomic and medical literature, to evaluate what to do about this article. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate00:49, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Adding a point I forgot but that helps with the context: the claimed genetic basis has been challenged, versus the existence of the practice. —PaleoNeonate00:51, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]