Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine

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

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

• Unsure about something? Make sure to look at our style and source guidelines.
• Please don't shout, remain civil, be respectful to all, and assume good faith.
• Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
• Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~).
• Threads older than 10 days are automatically archived.
• Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Newsletter/Mailing_list

List of archives

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

A few more eyes

This editor User:Harrygouvas edits Wikipedia using primarily papers he himself has written. They are not generally review articles. Help getting some of the papers he has worked on inline with policy would be appreciated. Have provided him some feedback. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:40, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Adoptee

Would anyone be willing to adopt User:Quantumash? They've left a request at my talk page, but this isn't my area of expertise.Smallman12q (talk) 23:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Predictive medicine? This is futuristic stuff which will never come to pass as it is a misunderstanding of Chaos theory --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Article request

Would someone be willing to add a stub on short anagen syndrome? ---My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 01:42, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I have made a start. I only found 16 references on Pubmed. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:28, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you so much! ---My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 18:56, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Pott's fracture

Working in german medical WIKI on ankle fracture (my edit), patella, osteochondritis etc I started correcting potts Fraktur in german. Looking for better versions I found yours in englisch. I would like to commend on that. nomen49--78.54.118.139 (talk) 07:57, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Histologic bodies

Would someone be willing to help me ensure that Wikipedia has coverage of all these histologic bodies? Perhaps we can create a new list, or expand an existing one, as well as create either redirects or stubs for them? ---My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 00:14, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Experts for anthrosophical medicine

Can anyone particularly familar with Anthroposophical_medicine look at the page? it appears to be overly positive but with no balance of criticism. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:46, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Stimming

Would someone like to deal with this? Second time. I've read a whole ton of literature on stimming, and haven't come across that. If there's a reliable source that says masturbation is a stim in the autistic or stereotypy sense, it should be found and cited. I don't really want to engage "LustyRoars". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:43, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

January collaboration

For everybody who missed it:

--WS (talk) 18:54, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. For that article, quality rather than quantity of the information is of the essence. JFW | T@lk 20:01, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Given the high-level nature of the article, I wonder if we might do well to use a couple of top-quality medical textbooks for most of the basic/background information, rather than journal publications. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:00, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Since many sections are completely unreferenced any secondary refs, either in journals or books, would be a huge improvement.--Garrondo (talk) 07:24, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I've since discovered the list of WP:General references at the end of the page. Perhaps they were the source for those sections without WP:Inline citations. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:17, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Advanced topics

I'm looking for a quick estimate of our views.

Are there any subjects that are both (1) appropriate to include in an encyclopedia and (2) so complex that they cannot be explained at a level that an interested layperson could understand (at least most of it)?

For example: Is there any medicine-related article on Wikipedia that you think cannot be written so that I can understand it, or so that a typical university student could understand it? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:54, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I think any medicine-related topic can be written so that a typical university student could understand it. ---My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 02:00, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:51, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

We have pages that are written in too technical a manner but this is something which can be fixed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:30, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

There are clearly notable things in biochemistry and pharmacology that would probably be a pain to describe to the typical university student, as the typical university student probably doesn't understand organic chemistry. Can't think of any examples right now, but I imagine that there probably are some. NW (Talk) 03:49, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I think there are many areas of medical science that are beyond most bright lay readers abilities to grasp without some serious study, and one could argue that they are encyclopaedic. I suspect, however, they are also probably at the limit of most general medical folks abilities too. Fortunately, most aspects of medicine do not require a planet-sized brain to understand. There doesn't appear to be a big audience here for such science-speciality stuff. In contrast, the maths folk write utterly impenetrable articles (you can't even read the lead sentence) but claim they have an audience for their articles and have consensus support for WP including a "graduate-level maths encyclopaedia" within its scope. Colin°^Talk 08:25, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

You're telling me that you can't understand Lefschetz zeta function? Come on, $\zeta _{f}(z)=\exp \left(\sum _{n=1}^{\infty }L(f^{n}){\frac {z^{n}}{n}}\right)$ makes perfect sense. NW (Talk) 22:29, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

(stares blankly at screen) umm...yeah. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:57, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree. We have an inherent advantage, in that a large part of clinical medicine consists of explaining complex ideas to laypeople (i.e., patients). So there is actually a large, pre-existing body of effort and work on the question of how to clearly and simply communicate medical information, and we can draw on that for our articles. MastCell ^Talk 19:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Most of psychiatry and surgery is easy to make accessible.....actually I can't think of a topic that I couldn't translate into "lay English" in general medicine. Maybe there is a challenge to find the trickiest one...? Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:15, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I find myelodysplasia one of the more challenging concepts to translate into lay terms, because it requires some knowledge of normal and abnormal hematopoiesis. And it's not quite a malignancy, but it kind of is, and some forms are treated with chemotherapy just like actual malignancies. And it's extremely heterogeneous. MastCell ^Talk 22:26, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like a challenge then...Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:57, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Colin's response leads me to the reason I asked: The folks at WT:MATH have received yet another complaint about their impenetrable articles and have responded to it with their (sadly) characteristic bad grace (not all of them, of course, but enough to set the tone).

One of them has begun a FAQ on why maths articles are so opaque, and in it asserts that their inability to explain things to non-experts "is no different from other specialized fields such as law and medicine."

While it's true that we have (hundreds, if not thousands) of articles that need to have jargon removed/explanations added/clarity improved, and while it is true that some concepts will require a bit of study, I don't think that there is a single subject within our remit that cannot be largely explained to a typical university student, at least for more than half the content.

Accordingly, I will eventually wander back to WT:MATH and object to the inclusion of medicine as an OTHERCRAPEXISTS-type justification for their unwillingness to do the hard work of making at least one sentence in each math-related article accessible to people without graduate degrees in mathematics. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:52, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I think they have a fundamentally different attitude, as exemplified here ("Wikipedia is used very frequently as a reference by practicing mathematicians. I value that much more than I value the ability of a random 8th grader to read exterior algebra.") They clearly prioritize the creation of a professional reference over that of a general-readership encyclopedia. And they seem to get away with it - I'm fairly certain we'd be tarred and feathered as "SPOV-pushers" or worse (if there is anything worse) if we suggested anything remotely similar for medical articles. I mean, look at the continual outcry over the minimal common-sense sourcing suggestions in WP:MEDRS... MastCell ^Talk 22:33, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Having a degree in math I must say that math is hard and often not understandable. I am unable to understand my math notes from University. While some of it can be written in lay terminology understandable to all I would agree that probably all of it cannot. Medicine and law however are different and accessible to all ( I have never understood really how an MRI functions but that is physics/math ).Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:22, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I see that several users here have commented that some aspects of medical science (including in particular biochemistry and pharmacology) might be difficult to explain to the layman. Consequently I've changed the math FAQ. Users who want to continue this discussion (and the accompanying discussion which User:WhatamIdoing started at WT:LAW) are invited to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics#"Law and medicine". Ozob (talk) 12:37, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Ozob is referring to undoing my bold edit at WikiProject Mathematics/FAQ. Out of curiosity, could someone point out a medical article whose lead can't be written in such a way that the average university student can understand it? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:29, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I would be interested to see this, too. I have always assumed that such articles exist, because (for example) I don't understand articles like the above-linked myelodysplastic syndrome. But I have no proof that the article can't be written in such a way that I would understand it; I am outside of my specialty here and am not really in a position to judge. Ozob (talk) 22:14, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Have a look at the simple English and German versions of the article, they both do a pretty good job explaining it, our version has quite a lot of room for improvement. Like Doc James said above, MRI physics is probably the only thing I can think of that is next to impossible to explain in lay terminology. --WS (talk) 10:45, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Even MRI can be reasonably explained. I understood the basics with this document.--Garrondo (talk) 10:58, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

To me the MRI article seems crystal clear. Surely this is some effect of having a different background: When it talks about the frequency of photons emitted from a spin-aligned proton, I have a pretty good idea of what's going on. Whereas myelosydplastic syndrome is still impenetrable to me; the Simple English version doesn't have nearly as much content, and the German version (as far as I am able to tell) has the same problems as the English one.

For example, the description of the WHO classification gives "Refractory cytopenia with unilineage dysplasia" as a possible type of MDS. The only word that I understand in that phrase is "with". If I scroll back up to the top of the article, I find a definition of dysplasia, but not of any of the other words. I understand cyto- but not cytopenia or refractory cytopenia; I can guess at unilineage, but I don't know what unilineage dysplasia would mean.

What I suppose I'm really asking is: Do you expect someone without medical school, nursing school, biochemistry, or other similar training to be able to read this article? What about someone who didn't have such training, but who was willing to look up the other terms (for instance, I looked up cytopenia and now know what it means)? More generally, what do you think are reasonable prerequisites for your articles? Ozob (talk) 12:05, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Can the lead of Myelodysplastic syndrome be made understandable by the average university student? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 12:59, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I think I can do better than university level. Actually, it's not so much opaque as just written in a kind of stilted manner (e.g., the unnecessary passive voice in "Anemia is present"). I'll have a go at it, and then you can tell me what you think. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:14, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Ozob, although the name is a technical description, I basically expect the normal people to treat "Refractory cytopenia with unilineage dysplasia" as a proper noun that is as inherently meaningless as if it were called "Foo bar with baz qux" or "Riemannian Penrose inequality" or "Celiac sprue". That table (which doesn't really make me happy anyway, and I'm convinced we could do better) is basically just a phrase book for translating the older set of terms into the newer set of terms. It's probably most useful to patients who are trying to figure out which article on Wikipedia is actually about their own diseases, or why different hematologists use different terms.

BTW, people interested in mathematics should take a look at the amazing new lead for exterior algebra. This is the first time I've ever been excited about a math-related article on Wikipedia. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:14, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Reference autofill

Good news! The Reftoolbar tool just got autofilling support for PMID, DOI and ISBN. You can enable it by going to the Gadgets tab in your user preferences and checking the checkbox next to "refTools" under "Editing gadgets". If you then add a citation through the cite button above the edit field, and fill in the pmid or doi, all other details we automatically be filled. Makes referencing a lot easier. --WS (talk) 18:08, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

nice. off to try it....Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:17, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

This is actually very nice. Makes adding multiple sources much less tedious. Thanks! Yobol (talk) 22:57, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Oxysterol: Fact or fear?

There's an article on oxysterol with only one source that claims oxysterol has been discovered to be "the" source of heart disease. I'm skeptical. 98.246.191.164 (talk) 01:35, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to fix it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:41, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't have any knowledge of the subject, unfortunately. 98.246.191.164 (talk) 09:28, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

The text appeared to be a copy vio, and I reverted it to the last version prior to the copy vio. Yobol (talk) 17:08, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Access to article

Does anybody have access to PMID 18281448?: I would be interested in a copy and my institution does not have access to it. Thanks.--Garrondo (talk) 08:32, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

If you email me, I'll attach the pdf to my reply. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:12, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery

Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery seems like an incredibly-important journal of surgery, and yet there was no article on it. So I created one recently. However, surgery or medicine in general isn't my field, so I don't really know much about this one, or why exactly it is important, beside being the older journal of surgery. I'm dropping this project a note, because you people presumably have more clue than I when it comes to the history of surgery, and medical journals in general.

This article H. G. Beger (2010). "Archiv für Klinische Chirurgie to Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery: 1860–2010". Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery. 395 (suppl. 1): 3. doi:10.1007/s00423-010-0617-2. should have plenty of relevant information. However I cannot currently access it. WP Journal's writing guide has some basic advice for writing journal articles, and Astronomische Nachrichten is probably the best-written journal article on Wikipedia, so would be a very good model to base yourself on. I can help people writing this if need be (copy editing, etc...), although I am thouroughly unable to expand the article more than what you currently see. Any help would be appreciated. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 10:28, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Assuming this could be expanded to something decent, this would make a very nice WP:DYK. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 10:30, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I think you actually want the entire April 2010 supplement, which seems to be entirely articles about the journal. It doesn't seem to be on my list, though. Some of the abstracts are long and it might be possible to use them for basic facts (e.g., year of founding).

My quick look for WP:Independent sources turned up only "study published in Langenbeck's..." kinds of sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:53, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Year 10 English (as used in Australia)

I'm not a doctor, dentist, surgeon or psy-anything. I don't understand jargon, and don't have the time to go back to Uni to get the relevant (6-year++++) doctorates. For example, the article on Melanoma is almost useless to anybody not a med student or qualified doctor: so it has no place in a popular encyclopedia like Wikipedia.

Please can all of the articles in this Project be shadowed by a true encyclopedic treatment aimed at lay people: write them in "Year 10 English", which is considered in Australia to be the minimum acceptable standard of language for High School graduates. This standard ensures that 90+% of Australians will understand 90+% of everything they read or listen to, without recourse to esoteric lexicons.

(School) "Year 10" in Australia equates broadly to 16 or 17 years of age. 122.200.166.53 (talk) 08:06, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

There are over 20.000 medical articles that we know, we are volunteers and actually quite few. We try to make all articles as complete, understandable and factually accurate as we can, but we are outnumbered. You are more than welcome to improve any articles you find hard to understand or make proposals in its talk page. Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 08:57, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

As an alternative in the meantime there is also the simple English version, e.g. simple:melanoma. --WS (talk) 10:32, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

simple:Simple_English#Simple_English has a vocabulary of about 1000 words. Year 10 English in Australia has a vocabulary of about 10,000 words... 122.200.166.101 (talk) 01:13, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

We usually aim for the level of a beginning university student rather than year 10.

Can you tell me what you think the worst part about that article is? Is there any part that you think is basically understandable and would make a good model? For example, I thought that the first couple of paragraphs were easily understandable. Do you think so? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:11, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

In Australia, students would start Uni after graduating Year 12. Of course, this gives them very little chance to acquire tech-jargon.

The "basically understandable" parts of the Melanoma article are the intro and the subsections "In lay terms" and "Natural History" in the section "Cause". The subsection "Genetics" presupposes some technical knowledge appropriate to a first or second year med student, but not really within the reach of a factory hand.

This may give some idea of where I'm coming from:

From The Australian February 27, 2010:

National English curriculum: what all children will learn

Year nine: Students look at the relationship between texts and the influence of cultural
 perspectives; that language can be multi-layered, allowing varying interpretations. They use a
 variety of clause types to improve their writing, and techniques such as parallel structures 
("I came, I saw, I conquered"). Students explore the human condition, respond to the big questions
 of life and consider their presentation in literary texts. They identify and explain the choices
 made by authors to achieve a particular purpose, evaluate texts, and experiment with different
 media to create a short visual text accompanied by sound effects.

Year ten: Students look at the history of the English language and how it has evolved. They learn
 to cite works, recognise nuance and indirect opinions and how language is used to distance or
 involve an audience to create apathy or empathy. Their study of literature looks at cultural bias
 in the way an author presents a character, they learn language devices such as rhetorical
 questions, oxymorons, metonymy and satire, and examine the idea of a literary canon.

122.200.166.101 (talk) 01:35, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

You're right: Most of Melanoma#Genetics is apparently written for people who already know what it says. There are a couple of sentences that anyone can understand, but the first paragraph in particular is a problem.

Additionally, half the sources used in that section are at least ten years old, and so it may be outdated, too.

I don't know much about melanoma, but what would you think of starting off that section with something like:

In some cases, melanoma runs in families. Several different genes have been identified as increasing the risk of developing melanoma. Some rare genes have a relatively high risk of causing melanoma; some more common genes, such as a gene called MC1R that causes red hair, have a relatively low risk. Genetic testing can be used to determine whether a person has one of the currently known mutations.

(That's more or less a translation of the first few paragraphs into English.) Then we can go into the frame shifting and two-gene models and gene names for the people who are either really interested or experts. What do you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:49, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I think I'm in love... I like it. I'll insert that now, with a leetle bit of rearrangement, and at the same time revert a less-than-useful edit to the "In lay terms" subsection. I must reiterate, I have no medical training at all. I do have experience in writing manuals though.

We need to be careful here, as there seem to be sundry "helpful trolls" lurking. 122.200.166.232 (talk) 01:54, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Propose articles on suicide, mental health in Afghanistan

I'm doing a little work on Category:Health in Afghanistan, and would like to propose creating Suicide in Afghanistan and Mental health in Afghanistan. On the first issue, there was a flood of coverage in mid-2010 of female self-immolation, but I'm not seeing much coverage other than that exact topic. Plus it's hard to screen out everything related to suicide bombing/attacks (outside the scope of my intended article). Further, there have been some studies by various governments on Afghan mental health after 30yrs of war, and I think it could be an extremely fertile topic, and arguably something that a few editors could push up to GA status relatively quickly. Thoughts? Links to recommended resources? Copied from my post at WikiProject Afghanistan. MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:10, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea. Let me suggest that you start by creating a section called ==Mental health== in Health in Afghanistan. When it gets big enough, you can split it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:53, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Uncategorized categories

I found the following categories in Category:Underpopulated categories, and participants in this WikiProject might be able and willing to populate them.

• Category:Cell communication
• Category:Circulating cells
• Category:Cytochromes
• Category:Electrically active cells
• Category:Electrically signaling cells
• Category:Experimental medical treatments
• Category:French medical phrases
• Category:Health educators
• Category:Health law in the United States
• Category:Latin medical phrases
• Category:Life extension lists
• Category:Lymphology
• Category:Medical libraries
• Category:Medically important anaerobes
• Category:Motile cells
• Category:Nervous tissue cells
• Category:Physiognomy
• Category:Pigment cells
• Category:Pulmonologists
• Category:Self-care
• Category:Surfactant secreting cells

(This talk page is on my watchlist, and I will watch here for a reply or replies.)
—Wavelength (talk) 02:58, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure why Category:Self-care, which has many sub-cats, is in the list. It seems more like a category requiring diffusion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:08, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Elderberry -- medicinal effects

I believe both of these articles need to be checked for MEDRS compliance:

• Sambucus#Medicine
• Sambucus_nigra#Medicinal

Brangifer (talk) 03:35, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Well... http://www.jimronline.net doesn't exactly inspire confidence. But technically, it's a non-self-published, peer-reviewed journal article reporting a small, but double-blind, placebo-controlled experiment.

I'd focus on de-peacocking as a first step. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:07, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Parkinson's disease at FAC

I have taken PD to FAC after almost a year of improving it.It is a vital article, of top importance for the project, and with a lot of visits (around 300k a mont). I await comments from those of the project here. Thanks in advance to everybody. --Garrondo (talk) 13:11, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Need someone who knows immunology

I've removed the diagram on the right from six articles, as its accuracy has been contested. Help from knowledgeable contributors would be appreciated. Please keep discussion consolidated at Talk:Cytotoxic T cell#Misleading Diagram. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 13:12, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Sexually transmitted disease move discussion

Members of this WikiProject may be interested to read and comment at this requested move discussion for Sexually transmitted disease. It is proposed that the page be retitled Sexually transmitted infection. NW (Talk) 16:53, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences

The National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences is a proposed new center that would fall under the National Institutes of Health. I was surprised to see that it doesn't have an article yet. The New York Times is running an article on it today[1], and there seems to have been talk about this earlier as well[2][3]. Worth creating an article? NW (Talk) 07:01, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Does it exist yet? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:23, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

The plan is to vote on the proposal in October, so no. NW (Talk) 07:35, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTAL applies, but if the NY Times is writing about it there might be a case for using that as a source and starting an article. JFW | T@lk 09:08, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps it should be included at the main NIH article, with suitable redirects. If it doesn't exist, there probably isn't more than a stub's worth to say about it at this time. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:55, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I created a redirect to the NIH article for the time being. Please feel free to adjust the target or delete the redirect as consensus evolves. ---My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 18:17, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Watchlist request

Teenage pregnancy needs to be on more watchlists. I just found a nearly two-week old copyright violation here. If you're managing to keep up with your watchlist (I'm headed for watchlist bankruptcy again), please add this highly visible article to your list. Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:20, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Already there :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:26, 23 January 2011 (UTC)