Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Neuroscience

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 09:28, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

University project articles at GAN

I'd just like to note that a few of the university project articles are starting to show up at WP:GAN. I have taken on Neurolaw, but there are others that don't yet have reviewers, and no doubt more will show up. Looie496 (talk) 15:54, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Biography of Henry_Shipton_Drayton

Hey guys I just wrote a new biography so if some of you want to check out the english or the content, i'd appreciate ! Here it is. Jean-Francois Gariepy (talk) 15:04, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Network networking

It would be good to have more eyes from this WikiProject at Talk:Neural network and Talk:Biological neural network, where there is discussion about how these and related pages ought to be organized. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:13, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

The discussion was consolidated at Talk:Neural network, with a proposal to merge biological neural network into it. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 05:12, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Neural network

The usage of neural network is under discussion. See the requested move at talk:biological neural network and the discussion at talk:neural network. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 05:37, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Input on Vilayanur S. Ramachandran page

Can I get some input from the project on the Vilayanur S. Ramachandran page? There is an slow, ongoing debate relating to all things Ramachandran, but it has really escalated in regards to the mirror neuron hypothesis of autism; see Vilayanur_S._Ramachandran#Pathophysiology_of_autism. I might be losing my perspective on this, as I've been involved in a slow battle with several other editors, so I thought I'd ask for some outside input from other experts in the relevant areas. I've also asked a couple of other editors who are part of the neuroscience project for some input, and asked an admin to lock the page to promote discussion instead of edit-warring. Thanks Edhubbard (talk) 20:46, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, the guy is popular, but the subject of autism is hot-button no matter how you address it because it's such a prevalent disease that affects children. It's well known that there are many structural differences in autistic children than adults. I don't really see why people would not put his views on the page regarding him, I could see them not wanting to put it on the autism page. Bloomingdedalus (talk) 19:01, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Assessment

Through a discussion on the talk page of an article that I watch, I found out about Wikipedia:WikiProject Neuroscience/Assessment. Despite my relatively long involvement with this WikiProject, I'm embarrassed to realize that I didn't know about the assessment subpage before. I'm putting this note here in case anyone else has been in the same boat as me. If you are interested, you might want to add it to your watchlist, so that you can see when someone else has asked for review of a page within the project. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:29, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:JCW and neuroscience

The JCW compilation updated a while ago. Here's the top-cited missing journals that are neurology-related (at least as far as I could tell, incluuding neurochemistry, neurology, etc...). Feel free to edit the list as needed.

3

If you're interested to help, Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Writing guide has some guidance about how to write an article on journals. Any help you can give would be much appreciated at WP:JOURNALS, as the Neurology alone represents ~10% of the missing top 500. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 00:10, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Brain development timelines

I came across this article while stub-sorting. It's not really a stub, just a list of three other articles - and each of those is a pretty mal-formed Wikipedia article, with no coherent text but a few lines of Species, Genus, Order, Gestation and then a tabular timeline, with references. Someone from this project might like to have a look at the whole assemblage and decide what to do with them. As far as I can see they form a walled garden, only linking to each other. Thanks. PamD 19:40, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm. I agree they are probably not very useful, but they don't look particularly harmful either. Not sure anything really needs to be done. In any case I think probably "orphan" is a better term than "walled garden", since they are really only isolated due to neglect rather than anything strange about them -- they are basically just list articles. Looie496 (talk) 19:47, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with Looie's assessment. In fact, the three species pages contain quite useful information about day-to-day development, with sourcing. I'll try to de-orphan them a bit. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:29, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Brain heading for FAC

I'd like to leave a note that I am planning on nominating Brain for Featured Article in the next few days -- the main things I want to do first are to develop the Cognition section a bit more, and fill in a bunch of missing or incomplete refs. In the meantime, any feedback would be useful. Looie496 (talk) 17:04, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll try to go through it with a fine toothed comb, but it may take me a few days to get around to it. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:32, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

It's there now -- Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Brain/archive4. All opinions are welcome. Looie496 (talk) 01:57, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I looked at the initial response, and the page may not yet be ready. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:01, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Is this a prank article?

Hendry's_first_law_of_lamination. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 12:59, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm about to PROD it. Hard to tell whether it was really a prank or just some sort of OR, because it superficially resembles a true description of laminar development. But I find ZERO Google Scholar or Google Books hits for it, and the only Google Web hits are Wikipedia mirrors, so it fails WP:N at a minimum. --Tryptofish (talk) 13:39, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:09, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Hendry is probably S. H. C. Hendry, who has done extensive work on the anatomy of the visual system. But anyhow the current article is too stubby and poorly written to have any value at all. Looie496 (talk) 15:57, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I've been doing this Neuroscience thing for a while, and I've never heard of Hendry's law of Lamination. On it's face, I can think of several examples where this "law" doesn't hold up anyway. It does, I note, have a facebook page, with zero friends. Myself, I've always preferred Fudd's First Law of Opposition. Synaptidude (talk) 17:47, 26 October 2011 (UTC)