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

Vaccine "controversies"

Three vaccine"controversy" articles have now been renamed to remove the word "controversy", which gave undue weight to fringe ideas.

• In line with the renaming of MMR vaccine controversy to MMR vaccine and autism, I have proposed renaming category:MMR vaccine controversy to category:MMR vaccine and autism to match the parent article. See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 February 5 § Category:MMR vaccine controversy.
• In line with the renaming of vaccine controversies to vaccine hesitancy, I have proposed renaming category:Vaccine controversies to Category:Vaccine hesitancy, to match the parent article. See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 February 4 § Category:Vaccine controversies.
• In line with the renaming of Thiomersal controversy to Thiomersal and vaccines, I have proposed renaming category:Thiomersal controversy to category:Thiomersal and vaccines , to match the parent article. See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 February 5 § Category:Thiomersal controversy,

I put this through CFD rather than simply move them so that the bot will do the spadework. Please give your opinion on this category change. Guy (Help!) 21:22, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Sounds perfectly reasonable. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:28, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

agree w/ Doc James--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:19, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Good stuff. I was surprised how much our content was presenting vaccine safety an active scientific "debate" (now getting fixed by these and other changes). Alexbrn (talk) 06:37, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

I noted that I don't see "controversy" as endorsing the validity of the fringe claims. "Controversy" is not meant to imply that what the overwhelming majority of scientists state about the matter is controversial. It's meant to get across the point that Wakefield caused controversy. His paper is controversial. But, anyway, whatever Wikipedia decides on. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:02, 10 February 2019‎ (UTC)

I agree with the moves, and would note that the word "controversy" is very broad, and can encompass controversial matters that have nothing to do with hesitancy. The testing of vaccines in third-world countries is controversial without implicating the propriety of vaccination. The concentration of vaccine manufacturing in private for-profit entities can be controversial precisely because this can lead to production shortages or predatory pricing, which impact people who want to receive vaccinations. bd2412 T 17:16, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

AgreedPetersmillard (talk) 01:29, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Template:Infobox medical condition (new) vs. alternative names in the lead

Doc has been updating medical articles with Template:Infobox medical condition (new). While doing that, he has also moved a number of alternative names out of the lead and into the synonyms field of the new infobox, such as here and here. But considering that our medical articles often go by the scientific/medical name, the scientific/medical name isn't always the common name. For example, in the case of myocardial infarction, "heart attack" is the common name and the article currently states "commonly known as a heart attack." I think that "heart attack" should continue to be mentioned and bolded in the lead of that article. In cases like that one, where the topic is dealing with a very common name, or an otherwise significant alternative name, I think that the alternative name should remain in the lead. I'm not stating that three or more names need to be in the lead, though. I understand how that can make the lead cluttered. WP:Alternative name states, "If there are three or more alternative names – including alternative spellings, longer or shorter forms, historic names, and significant names in other languages – or there is something notable about the names themselves, a separate name section is recommended."

Anyway, while updating these articles with the new infobox, Doc has also left the alternative name in the lead in some cases. For example, here, here and here.

Thoughts? And, Doc, are you weighing the benefits of keeping the alternative name in the lead in some cases? Is that why you have left the alternative name in the lead in some cases but not in others? The old infobox has a synonyms field as well, but we still kept the alternative name in the lead. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:04, 13 February 2019 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:13, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Flyer22 Reborn if the alternative name is simple a minor spelling difference IMO that does not need to be in the first sentence. If the alternate name is the more common one it should remain in the first sentence. So I agree heart attack should remain in the first sentence of MI.

"dorsopathy" is a term that no one really uses so should go in the infobox IMO. If people feel strongly that certain ones should be in both places as commonly used feel free to add it as such. I am going through a lot of articles doing this update and of course would love help :-) About 1500 left to go. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:02, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Doc, yeah, I agree. Thank you for updating so many articles; I know the work that you've put into it. If I had the time, I would help as well. I mainly only have enough time to catch up on my watchlist, tweak a few things, and address some matters on talk pages when catching up on what I've missed while away from Wikipedia. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:38, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Okay, we have finished. Have redirected the old template to the new one. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:46, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Leptospirosis as MEDRS microcosm

There is an issue with leptospirosis#Treatment and at first sight it could be dealt with simply by deletion of unsupported content. On reflection, and in my role as Wikimedian in Residence looking at MEDRS, it looks more like a case study.

The issue is antimicrobial treatment for leptospirosis, a bacterial infection that includes Weil’s disease, which is probably better known as a term. It is on the WHO radar as having the potential to become one of its recognised “neglected zoonotic diseases”, by the accumulation of evidence.[1] A 2012 Cochrane review (details below) found no clear benefit to patients from treatment with a selection of prominent antibacterials. On the other hand the article here states: "Effective antibiotics include penicillin G, ampicillin, amoxicillin and doxycycline. In more severe cases cefotaxime or ceftriaxone should be preferred." Hence the problems.

(1) One problem, certainly, is with WP:MEDDATE and a 2012 review. It can't be ruled in as a source, by the letter of the guideline, but it can hardly be ruled out either. There may be later clarifications in the review literature. But this MEDLINE query for leptospirosis+doxycycline (reviews from the last five years) apparently produces nothing very definite. The wording in the abstracts about prophylaxis isn't really convincing.

(2) Another issue is that Wikidata holds no information on drugs used to treat leptospirosis. So, if there is a MEDRS-compliant source about doxycycline or other treatment, Wikidata can be improved.

Under (2), such information could be used in infoboxes. Leptospirosis has Wikipedia articles in 65 languages, and many of those already have infoboxes. The English Wikipedia infobox, not drawing from Wikidata, cites antibiotic treatment to PMID 20628664, a review article published in 2010, before the Cochrane systematic review of 2012 which is PMID 22336839. There was also a 2011 comment on the paper PMID 21391357.

So, I'm interested here in the expert verdict via on the referencing in the existing article of the treatment information, via MEDASSESS and MEDDATE. I also have some detailed comments on the drug-disease information that does exist on Wikidata, but perhaps they are matters better raised on d:Wikidata talk:WikiProject Medicine. Lastly, it would not be surprising if people here were wondering how ScienceSource is getting on with a MEDRS algorithm. Well, there is a version zero that takes into account publisher, publication type and date information, with allowance for a MEDDATE (or other good cause) whitelist; and version 1 will filter to take out retracted papers. Whitelisting and more case analysis, for neglected diseases (how to define?) and rare diseases (more easily defined) are ways forward to better versions.

Charles Matthews (talk) 12:04, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't think there's a MEDRS problem here. The "5 year" rule-of-thumb is only for areas of research which are active, and Cochrane reviews are regarded more leniently in any case as they are assumed (perhaps optimistically) to be updated if there's a significant shift in the evidence. As to Wikidata - it has zero policy bearing on what we write in our articles here. Personally, I ignore it completely as a waste of time. Alexbrn (talk) 12:46, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Added the Cochrane review about the lack of strong evidence. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:50, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Charles, is your "publisher" field generally going to contain the organization that sponsors the publication (an "Academic Society of Researchers"), or the publishing house (e.g., Elsevier)?

As for the MEDDATE question, Alex is correct about what the guideline says, but in practice, some editors revert anyone who dares to use their best judgement to determine that a six-and-a-half-year-old source in an under-researched area is acceptable for a specific statement.  :-/ WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:50, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: The "publisher" is determined by going paper -> journal -> publisher defined by "organization or person responsible for publishing" e.g. Elsevier. What we are actually doing, for open access papers which are the focus, is relying on the Directory of Open Access Journals to filter out the predatory publishers. On your "best judgement" point, yes indeed, something could be done here, if "under-researched" had a more tangible definition.

Effectively, operating by blacklists (e.g. predatory publishers) and whitelists (cases for lenient application of MEDDATE) is all about lists and how they are compiled. For actual Wikipedia lists, there is what is said at WP:LSC, i.e. clearcut criteria. The incidence of uncompromising reverts, as you describe them, could be reduced by being more explicit, in other words. For example, PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases gives a definite list on this page, that includes leptospirosis, where the WHO list has a narrower focus. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:31, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure that is quite right, but User:DGG is far more informed on this subject than I am. Consider a case such as Journal of the European Economic Association, which was created after a dispute between the European Economic Association and Elsevier: Wiley-Blackwell is certainly the publishing house. Would you also call Wiley-Blackwell the publisher, or would you call the EEA the publisher?

The problem with making a list of journals for MEDDATE leniency is that the journal is irrelevant. A paper in Journal X that is 5 years old can be out of date. A paper in that same Journal X, but twice as old, can be the not merely up to date, but also the best possible source for a given claim. In practice, a reasonable starting point is to go to PubMed and search for the material in question. If the currently cited article is in the five most recent review articles (or primary sources, if it's a subject that can be acceptably supported by a primary source), and you didn't see anything in the list that appeared to contradict the content, then it's probably fine, even if it's more than ten years old. In short, you can't evaluate MEDDATE unless you consider both the availability of newer sources and WP:RSCONTEXT. It is not really something that can be easily automated. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:53, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Journals change publisher. We include the information on the article for the journal. For the purposes of a single term in a citation, the publisher is the publisher at the time the article was published. As for what sources to use , and how far back to include references, I agree wholeheartedly with WhatamIdoing that it needs judgement, not fixed rules or automation. We list the date and the journal and the authors, and the readers are given the information to judge. Just like everywhere in WP , we do not judge for them. There are very few parts of human knowledge where there are simple answers that cannot be expected to change with time. The general concept is known asprogress. DGG ( talk ) 06:09, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: @DGG: That was actually not what I meant, so I'll expand. For the purposes of MEDDATE, and MEDREV, one can compile a list of exceptions to be treated differently, calling it a whitelist if the treatment is lenient, a blacklist to exclude. Instead of a case-by-case whitelist of papers, one can use the "main subject" property on Wikidata, and create a list of subjects, in relation to which one will show leniency. So that addresses the "neglected disease" concept, which is an example of what we are used to calling systematic bias, within the biomedical literature. The main point is that it is possible to correct for that bias in applying MEDRS, and this is common ground. So the next point is exactly how to do that.

Putting it another way, the phrase used above "only for areas of research which are active" can be turned around to ask "what medical areas are there (with a serious global burden of disease) where research is (undeservedly) relatively inactive?", and use that as a working definition of "neglected disease". Operationally, one then needs a reasonable consensus definition in terms of a list. Leptospirosis is an example for which the WHO is still making up its mind. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:17, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

If you're looking for something that works to a first approximation, then you could probably use rare disease status in the U.S. as the dividing line. There are cases where this isn't true (e.g., back labor probably affects a million American women each year, but almost nobody has ever done any serious research into it; cystic fibrosis is rare but actively researched), but as a starting point, you can assume that the five-year advice doesn't apply to most rare diseases, and that it does apply to most non-rare diseases.

But I think you'll find that it's more complicated than that. Research into heart attacks is common, but a source that talks about a specific subpopulation might be quite rare. For example, PMID 28238152 is the only review article I could find at PubMed during the last five years that was obviously about myocardial infarction in babies. "Neonates" and "Myocardial infarction" are both common keywords, but when you put them together, we wouldn't necessarily want to apply the five-year standard to the resulting subject. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:43, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: Thanks, I am actually considering factoring in rare disease status, in terms of the GARD ID (Genetic and Rare Disease database of the NIH). But "neglected" and "rare" are certainly different, with "neglected" seeming to be a harder issue to handle all round. What is practical is to replace five years by another number, say eight, and see what people think of the results. I have read quite widely in the debates around MEDRS, by now, and there do seem to be various schools of thought. What is not so clear is that there is much disagreement on the acceptable sources. This, I believe, is a known phenomenon. Charles Matthews (talk) 20:55, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

That's one of the reasons why I specified rare in the U.S. Many neglected diseases are rare within the US, despite being common worldwide. That list won't cover everything, but it will cover a lot of ground (including dengue, myiasis, leptospirosis, balantidiasis, maybe Chagas, lymphatic filariasis, and more). WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:48, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

• Just as long as we avoid the homeopaths' attempts to steal leptospirosis as a claimed validation of magic water (kleptospirosis?). Guy (Help!) 14:17, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I thought that kleptospirosis was when something takes your breath away.  ;-) WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:23, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

The nature of the most reliable sources will change with the subject, not just from field to field, but within the many special areas making up the broad field of medicine. The general rule has always been that we use the best we can find, as long as it meets the basic criteria of being a publisher with editorial control. I understand the reasons why this project has very reasonably thought it necessary to limit itself to a subset of possible sources, but unless this is interpreted very flexibly it can be in some degree of conflict to the basic principles of WP. I appreciate the recognition that there are fields whee the medical orthodoxy is still uncertain The problem JzG mentions is not that uncommon here or elsewhere-:it's the general problem where the majority of the available sources in a subject represents an unusual or nonscientific prospective. Within our policies, there is sometimes no easy solution, except making sure our articles on the questionable sources indicate their nature. Overall,I don't think we're in basic disagreement. DGG ( talk ) 11:00, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

BGR-34

The BGR-34 article is currently a Biology and Medicine Good Article Nominee. It concerns an Ayurvedic drug which appears to have received quite a bit attention in the lay press (largely in India) but very little in peer-reviewed medical journals. Accordingly, the long list of references is largely to articles in the lay press. I'm just wondering what the stance is on WP:MEDRS for this sort of article. I haven't been much involved in pharma articles so far, and even less so in articles on alternative therapies and wondered if this still applied. These kinds of sources seem to be very thin on the ground for this drug based on a quick PubMed search despite the drug appearing to be a notable subject and well worth including in the encyclopaedia. Secondly, what do others think of the neutrality? The article is quite critical of the drug which is probably justified, but I wondered if others felt that it was too slanted in this direction.

I was tempted to have a go at doing a Good Article review for this one, but wanted some opinions on sourcing and neutrality beforehand.

Also notifying the main contributor to the article. @Winged Blades of Godric: Thanks, PeaBrainC (talk) 10:48, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your willingness to do the GAR.

IMHO, MEDRS is applicable only if I wish to make a claim that the drug works or cures some disease or the like. That there is no MEDRS related to the drug is one of the core locus of criticism (and the article).

As to the negative slant, anything otherwise falls in FALSE BALANCE territory, IMO. Every report on the drug, that came out after the initial buzz, has been uniformly critical of it and the process invested in it. I also have two more sources (atleast one of which is more scathing than any I have read) but are sitting behind lofty paywalls:(∯WBG^converse 11:48, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

PeaBrainC, I have raised the same queries (about MEDRS) over FTN days back but got no response.

If there is no response in the next 72 hrs over either thread; I think we ought to proceed to the GAR. ∯WBG^converse 07:25, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorry to hear you didn't get much response. I hope to get round to the review in time but it won't be for a couple of weeks at least due to real life commitments. There's time to wait for an opinion from editors with more experience than me. Here's hoping someone responds on this board! PeaBrainC (talk) 12:29, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

A significant part of this article isn't Wikipedia:Biomedical information, but some of it is. If "ideal" sources aren't available, then you will have to use the best sources that you can find.

Also, the sentence with 13 refs at the end, in addition to 10 more refs in the middle, probably needs a little more thought. Pick the best sources, and skip the rest. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:38, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

agree w/ WAID--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:19, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Brugada syndrome versus Sudden unexpected nocturnal death syndrome versus Sudden unexplained nocturnal death syndrome versus Sudden arrhythmic death syndrome

Hi, so there appears to be separate bodies of research on SUNDS and Brugada, although I believe the Brugadas themselves are actively doing research that Brugada syndrome is SUNDS. @Doc James: I think prefers to use NIH sources that makes this assertion. However, I believe we should also address that physicians in East Asia had known SUNDS for 60 years before Brugada, the indigenous peoples possibly centuries before that, and while very important work was done in the 1980s, it would be UNDUE to only focus on research by Western physicians and to exclude the history of SUNDS (pre 1980) from discussion at Brugada syndrome. I am not sure exactly why Doc James wants to remove this discussion from Brugada syndrome, and certainly I believe Sudden unexplained nocturnal death syndrome should redirect to Sudden arrhythmic death syndrome. I_Na is not SCN5A, so neither is SUNDS the same as Brugada. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 17:26, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

The requests were:

(1) use sources that fulfill WP:MEDRS and lots are avaliable as we have discussed on the talk page

(2) the exact same term can be used for a number of medical conditions, so yes SUNDS can be used by various people to refer to BOTH Brugada syndrome and to the wider category of sudden arrhythmic death syndrome. As such a disambig is perfectly fine.

(3) the final request was to write in easier to understand language and to put most of the discussion of mechanism in the mechanism section. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:31, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Nearly all my sources except one (which was from an established investigative news journal) are peer-reviewed, and the secondary source (review article) tying in the contextual history is from JAHA in 2018. I don't get why Doc James wants to remove the contextual history tying together SUNDS and Brugada, and I was planning to add sourced material that further clarified what is linked and what is not. AFAIK, BrS is primarily diagnosed by ECG (e.g. to investigate unexplained vasovagal syncope) whereas SUNDS is diagnosed by manner of death or history of sudden unexplained ventricular arrhythmia / aborted sudden cardiac death. This second diathesis was known to the indigenous peoples of Asia hundreds of years before the Brugadas arrived with their ECG analysis. Naturally, this leads to some divergence. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 17:38, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

I respect the NIH as an authoritative and trusted source as much as anyone, and some of my past income was funded by NIH grants, but the NIH is a human institution and I don't think it's fair to think of any authoritative institution as completely immune from systemic bias, e.g. the type that might lead to ignoring or glossing over the work of non-Western researchers and cultures. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 17:44, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

We are looking for "review articles" not just "peer reviewed". How does "SUNDS is also used to mean Brugada" have anything to do with "ignoring or glossing over the work of non-Western researchers and cultures"? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:39, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't. But deciding to make the NIH – an institution that has such a strong history of downplaying others' contributions that even its supporters say that its initials might as well stand for Not Invented Here – the arbiter of whether Asian indigenous cultures were aware of this before the NIH was founded could do that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:42, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

The NIH source is, however, not being used for that at all. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:37, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Brugada syndrome was discovered in Southeast Asian patients first, and the Brugadas have spent considerable effort to try to establish that the Asian diathesis of SUNDS is very much interlinked to (if not outright) Brugada syndrome. Even if we accept the NIH's nail in the coffin that SUNDS = BrS we should at least note the background history and not erase the Asian cultural context. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 17:12, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

The NIH does not say "SUNDS = BrS" and neither do we. What they say is the term "SUNDS" is sometimes used to mean "BrS". Those are very two different statements. Just like we say "heart attack" sometimes means "myocardial infarction". But it also sometimes means "cardiac arrest". Does this mean "cardiac arrest" and "myocardial infarction" are the same thing, of course not. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:04, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Gliflozins/SGLT2 inhibitors

Mechanism of action

Hey all, is there a reason we have the page on SGLT2 inhibitors named gliflozin as opposed to the more commonly used SGLT2 inhibitors? Keilana (talk) 00:00, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

SGLT2 inhibitors: Revision history--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:06, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Yah not sure which we should use. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:52, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

@Doc James: I found many more results on Google and PubMed for SGLT2 inhibitors and it is the MESH term for the drugs. I've moved the article accordingly and left a redirect. Keilana (talk) 16:21, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Sure sounds good. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:02, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

"Health benefits" of candy

Resolved

Despite the well-known health risks of sugar consumption, Wikipedia has an article that describes some purported "health benefits" of candy. Is this section inaccurate? Jarble (talk) 01:30, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

MEDRS issues. Needs updating. QuackGuru (talk) 01:45, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Updated. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 02:52, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Intellectual function article

The psychology Wikiproject seems dormant, so this seems the best place to take it - if there's another active project that would be better, please let me know. Here's the text of the article:

Intellectual function is an accepted way of saying mental function and broader than cognitive function in that it includes psychomotor components. This fundamental distinction is not made clear anywhere else in Wikipedia.

That's it. User:Imersion, who created the article, removed the PROD with a note on the talk page saying "Before you try to delete this please show where the distinction between cognitive, mental, intellectual, and motor functions is made clear." Doug Weller talk 16:58, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Well... I think the first problem to be addressed is getting some sources into that. I'm a little surprised to read that anything named after "intelligence" includes things like how fast you can run ("psychomotor components"). It seems to me that it ought to be the other way around. User:Imersion, do you have any sources for that?

As for a merge target, it's possible that it could be on the mental function page (which is currently a redirect to cognition). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:29, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

It's a rather vague, poorly defined concept judging by the results of my WP:BEFORE search. I've sent it to AfD; perhaps somebody else will have more luck. --RexxS (talk) 18:19, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Baby colic

One WP Med articles unintentionally cites a retracted article. If someone could check if that's OK, or if the article needs to be update, that would be great. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:26, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Was retracted due to copyright issues rather than that it was wrong. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:19, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Okay replaced. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:20, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia page for Justin Yerbury

Hello, I significantly updated the page for Just Yerbury in March last year but all the Project banners on the Talk page still have stub status. I would be grateful if one of your editors has time to review the page and perhaps update all the banners? with thanks JulieMay54 (talk) 01:40, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

You can do that yourself, for any class up to "B" (that is, including B-class, but not including A-class, WP:GA, or WP:FA). There are some instructions at WP:MEDA, or see Wikipedia:Content assessment for more general information.

BTW, I recommend not changing the "priority" or "importance" settings until you're more familiar with the system, as that can sometimes be surprisingly controversial. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:27, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Heart pain

As for this issue, can anybody provide a remedy? That redirect seems to be a really tough nut (@Steel1943: for your information).--Hildeoc (talk) 15:03, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Given that the heart itself is innervated by visceral afferents rather than somatic afferents, pain from a cardiac etiology can present as so many things, not just chest pain. An article titled heart pain could so easily turn into a how-to/medical advice of the differential diagnosis of chest pain (and to add to the problem, cardialgia generally refers to pain that originates from the cardia of the stomach, i.e. heartburn.) In my (not quite yet professional) opinion, when people talk about "heart pain" they usually mean angina, since they see it as "chest pain that comes from my heart", but given the conflicting arguments it is probably best redirected to chest pain. Keilana (talk) 19:27, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

"Heart pain" means "angina" not sure the issue. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:33, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

@Doc James: Please note Thryduulf's final comment in the RfD thread.--Hildeoc (talk) 17:18, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Based on my findings, "heart pain" can mean angina, but it's not the only thing it can mean. It might be different when speaking to a physician who can observe and ask about other symptoms, but there is no primary topic when people search for this phrase on the internet. Sometimes they mean angina, sometimes chest pain, sometimes heartburn, sometimes emotional pain. Thryduulf (talk) 17:50, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

I recommend turning it into a WP:DISAMBIG page for the different articles. QuackGuru (talk) 20:31, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

I would say that people typically mean "angina" or concerns of "angina". Of course there is a differential diagnosis that would include other stuff like heartburn and heartache. But those are a differential of what a person is referring to just like all conditions have a differential. Pts also say "doc I got pneumonia" when in fact they have "heart failure".

The main redirect should still go to angina. We could have a disambig for less common uses I guess. Or put them under a differential diagnosis section in the diagnosis section. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:17, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I just realized no pages link to it. Did someone fix the links or no article ever linked to the redirect? I don't know. This redirect is not being used in any article. QuackGuru (talk) 03:54, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Not a doctor. This University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill source explicitly synonymises heart pain and angina.[2] Yet the indexes for ICD-10 and ICD-10-CM[3] both direct coders to precordial pain, and ICD-11 retains this.[4] Most results on Google talk around chest pain, even when quoting "heart pain". PebMed only has 8 review articles for the term.[5] Agree on disambiguating rather than redirect. Little pob (talk) 14:01, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I started the DISAMBIG page and requested a page move. Soon after another editor created a WP:DISAMBIG page for heart pain. I redirected the current page to the WP:DISAMBIG page. I think we are done here. QuackGuru (talk) 22:52, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#Attention WikiProjects

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#Attention WikiProjects. We are designing a bot script to perform a few article assessment–related tasks and would appreciate your feedback. Qzekrom (talk) 08:49, 23 February 2019 (UTC)Template:Z48

I have accepted this offer to tag the stubs in Category:Unassessed medicine articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:53, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Potential merge

The article Jobe's Test was recently accepted at Articles for Creation. An attempt to move it to the proper titlecase Jobe's test failed, as the latter wikilink had previously been redirected to Empty can/Full can tests. The two articles may need to be merged. I'm not sure what to do with Murphy's Sign and Murphy's sign. Vycl1994 (talk) 16:10, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I fixed the capitalization of Jobe's test. Murphy's sign should be moved to something like Murphy's sign (orthopedics), but someone who knows more about that might have a better idea. Legacypac, can you explain why you are moving AfC accepts to titles with improper capitalization? Natureium (talk) 18:35, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I followed the capitalization on the draft which I presume is a proper name for the test. Wikipedia is sometimes too aggressive with decapitalizing titles. It is possible these tests are known by something else too. Subject matter experts should address any merger and redirect. Legacypac (talk) 18:59, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The WP:AFCH script probably doesn't let AFC editors change the title. (I do wish that it would stop using the "publishes" language in the edit summary. The AFC editors aren't the ones who actually made any of that information available to the public, and any editor who's ever put the words "sued the publisher" into a search engine should understand why I think it's a bad idea for them to be systematically claiming to do so.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:01, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

The script allows changing the title, actually. Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:03, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Have change the page to a disambig which was what it was. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:35, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Tobacco industry terminology

Electronic cigarette mouthpiece

I've started an RfC on the terminology used for some heavily-marketed tobacco products, Talk:Electric smoking system#RfC on solid tobacco heated using external heat sources. I'd welcome your comments.

I'd also welcome any help or opinions on the article, which is one of our most heavily-viewed, and its draft. And if anyone is willing to take some photographs, that would be wonderful, as we are currently mainly relying on promotional photos provided by Phillip Morris, which avoid smoke, packs of cigarettes, charred tobacco, etc.. HLHJ (talk) 22:50, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:12, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick comment. I've replied, and added sourced background info on terms used by the tobacco industry vs. those used by medical researchers. HLHJ (talk) 03:40, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

About the illustration, I'm afraid this actually isn't about electronic cigarettes, Ozzie10aaaa. It's about a solid tobacco "modified-risk" product, a sort of modern "light" cigarette. HLHJ (talk) 03:14, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

its from Talk:Electric smoking system#Harm reduction quantification(section just above the current discussion on EC /talk page) and is meant as a general illustration of the article on Electric smoking system(however should you dislike/or believe improper please feel free to remove, thank you)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:24, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Retraction in [6]

Identified by Rich Farmbrough (talk · contribs), and currently marked as an unintentional citation. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 08:59, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

I have read the retraction and our article. The paper was retracted because of "irregularities in the randomization procedures". Participants were included who had not been randomized.

As well as the retraction, the paper barely mentions alcohol. It notes that the traditional Mediterranean diet typically includes "wine in moderation". However the authors do not say that they encouraged daily wine consumption in habitual drinkers.

On the basis of the retraction, the focus on Mediterranean diet, and only an incidental mention of alcohol, it is unreasonable to conclude that this study indicates a beneficial effect from alcohol. I am deleting the statement and reference from our article. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:17, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

There was an updated version of the paper btw, but it likely isn't any more relevant than the original. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:50, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Video Wiki

Video about acute vision loss.

We have a new project called Video Wiki which allows:

1. The easy creation of videos from scripts from Wikipedia and images / short videos from Commons
2. Script can have inline references
3. The script text ends up in the captions of the video with references. These captions can be turned on and off
4. At the end of the video it automatically adds
   1. i) the license for the text (CC BY SA license)
   2. ii) attribution of those who have edited the scripts
   3. iii) all the metadata for the references supporting the scripts
5. The final video on commons lists the files that the video is derived from
6. Attribution for the images is automatically added at the bottom of each image

References

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:24, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Basically we have a relatively easy way to create videos that are simple to update and can be fully referenced. Looking at starting a movement wide RfC about there potential usage within Wikipedia. Wondering if people have comments / thoughts?

Still work to do to improve and increase the functionality of the underlying software that generates these. For example we are working to tighten up the reference section of the video. And improve flexibility around attribution of the text component. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:38, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Looks promising. The voice speed at 1x is a bit fast for me, and at 0.5x is much too slow. I suggest another option at about 0.8x to 0.9x for people who have a slight hearing disability. Also, overlaying text of subtitles need better contrast (black holes). Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 09:09, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Rogueassasin123 what options do we have for speed? I am thinking User:Pbsouthwood that it might be best to improve the player to give more options.

Also Pb not sure what you mean by black holes? We had a request previously to use the same font as WP. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:38, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Pbsouthwood: Thanks for the feedback. Interesting. We can keep a slider from 0,5x - 2x speed. That way you can adjust your speed to your liking. Yes, we can definitely work on improving the contrast :) User:Doc James: If I am not wrong, Pb was referring the subtitles contrast in the "Black Hole" article on VideoWiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pratik.pks (talk • contribs) 10:52, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

I think Peter's point about contrast is a little subtler than that. The white subtitles and their associated dark grey background actually have some transparency set. That is useful so that the video beneath them is still discernible. Unfortunately, if there is too much transparency, the video itself starts to interfere with the legibility of the text in the subtitles. It's a difficult balance to get right – and the optimal setting may vary from person-to-person – but the present setting is just a little too transparent for me to be comfortable with when trying to read rapidly. If I were deaf, I think I'd have difficulty taking in all that's happening, and I think you may need to slow it down by 10% or so by default, as the video player settings are often fiddly to sort out. Perhaps you might want to do some usability testing if we can find some volunteers with specific impairments. It's certainly worth asking Graham87 if he can get reasonable value out them. I'll ping Sitush and hope he doesn't mind me asking him how he finds the videos. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 14:51, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

User:RexxS Thanks for bring out the nuances . would love to hear Graham and Sitush's comments. A comprehensive usability testing definitely needs to be done to find an appropriate transparency settings. --Pratik.pks (talk) 15:13, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

@RexxS: As a totally blind person, I wouldn't get any use of all out of something like these videos. All blind people I know prefer to use screen readers to have fine-grained control over reading text. The few who would use something like that would find services like Pediaphon much more suitable. Graham87 15:20, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

The pinned video here re: acute vision loss is useless to me. I can't keep track of the subtitles and what is going on in the video itself, and if I concentrate on the subs then the video squiggling away in the background of my focus is a massive distraction. It's a bit difficult to explain why subs on a TV programme are rarely (in my experience) as much of a problem but it is some form of information overload, and I've got a quick brain. - Sitush (talk) 16:23, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

My comment was referring to the black hole video. Sorry, I thought it would be sufficiently obvious, but as is often the case things are more obvious after they have been pointed out. I have no idea about how these videos are assembled, but would it be possible to add the subtitles below the video? then they can be black on white which is best option for most people. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 16:22, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Slider from 0.5 to 2x should cover most people's needs. Certainly exceeds my requirements. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 16:42, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

In the UK, subs tend to be on a black background, not white. Not sure that slowing it down would make any difference - the two I have looked at (acute vision and Kerala) are simply trying to do too much and yet, conversely, are so "potted" as to be almost pointless. Just looks like more dumbing down to me, as with infoboxes. - Sitush (talk) 18:14, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

• support looks great--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:42, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Could you please point us to instructions on how to update the video narrative and the visuals that are in the video? The script is editable, but changing the script does not seem to automatically update the video. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 22:48, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

• Same old problem, and I hope they aren't shoved into articles en masse as happened before. I do not support this venture, for all the same old reasons. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:54, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

It looks like considerable effort has been made to fix some of the issues we've had with videos in the past. I asked this question so we can assess whether all the critical issues have been addressed. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 23:40, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Clayoquot User:SandyGeorgia: It tackles all the issues raised previously :) If you change the script - you will have to click on the "update icon" on the VideoWiki editor and the visual narrative will get immediately updated. Further, if you want to change the visual content - you can click on the "Edit icon" on the VideoWiki editor and simply drag and drop content from the search bar (which pulls content from Wikimedia Commons). The biggest "innovation" of VideoWiki software is that it breaks down a Video into "slides". This "modular approach" allows a video file to be edited wiki style, i.e., anyone can edit any part of the video if they feel that the slide is not appropriate. Further, the Drag and Drop UI is made to be simple to democratize video editing as now, even non-professional editors can edit a VideoWiki Article. You can see the instructions/demo of all the major features of VideoWiki at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wiki_Video . Let me know if you have any further questions, I will be happy to clarifyPratik.pks (talk) 00:22, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

User_talk:Clayoquot changes to the script do not immediately and automatically propagate at this point in time. Whether or not they should and how much can be discussed. But basically with respect to updating once a new stable version of the script is avaliable.

One goes here https://videowiki.wmflabs.org/en/videowiki/Wikipedia:MEDSKL/Acute_vision_loss?wikiSource=https://en.wikipedia.org and than hits the "update article" button. Should likely say "update video".

One then needs to move the new version to Commons before it can be placed on Wikipedia. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:09, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Hm. I don't think turning WP articles into Powerpoint presentations on rocket fuel is particularly helpful. It seems to me to be a solution looking for a problem. - Sitush (talk) 03:11, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Sitush: I think you are confusing the editing interface (which looks like a PPT because we break down a video into "slides") with the final WebM video file that gets uploaded to Wikipedia/Commons. The "Acute Visual Loss" video above is based on a "video" uploaded by MEDSKL. The MEDSKL video was run though VideoWiki so that now the video can be editable and updatable wiki style.Pratik.pks (talk) 07:46, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

I understand. There was no confusion on my part. Call it stop-motion if you like but the fact still remains that I think the entire concept is a solution looking for a problem. - Sitush (talk) 07:56, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Pratik.pks and Doc James. I haven't taken the time to try actually editing a video, so I will take your word for it that it can be done. It looks like my major objections to the Osmosis videos have been addressed, at least in principle. As with the Osmosis videos, I'm still unconvinced that these cartoon/Powerpoint videos are useful to the general reader, or that they're what readers have in mind when they ask for more video content. Both Osmosis and MEDSKL aim their videos at medical students for whom a key goal is to memorize information. I can imagine how cartoon/Powerpoint videos might be a useful supplement to textbooks if you're trying to memorize stuff and your brain is tired of reading. Wikipedia readers are generally looking to learn but not to memorize - Wikipedia is a reference work, not an exam prep tool. My editorial sense is that these videos should be placed in the Further Reading or External Links section of articles, as most readers won't care for them. Cheers, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 06:48, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback User_talk:Clayoquot. - Regards, Pratik.pks (talk) 07:48, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Youtube has 100s of videos that get many 10s of thousands of views that are based on Wikipedia.[7]

The Osmosis videos receive 10s of millions of views and they have nearly a million subscribers on Youtube.

I obviously disagree with the claim that people do not want short summary videos within Wikipedia. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:55, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Those are low viewing figures by YouTube standards, where people tend to be click-happy/low attention span anyway in my experience. Is there way to see how many viewers actually watch an entire video? I have a strong suspicion that, more generally, advertisers on YT are being duped by the numbers also! I looked at a couple, for research purposes regarding this thread, and they're just as useless to me as the one pinned above.

You're welcome to disagree. Clearly, you think dumbing-down has a useful encyclopaedic purpose. I don't. - Sitush (talk) 07:23, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Sitush – You're being unreasonable. 10 million views are under no circumstance "low figures". That something is "not the most popular thing ever" is not the same as it being "irrelevant and useless". Conspiracy theories about youtube view counts don't really belong here either.

As much as people are willing to read entire articles on Wikpedia, summaries serve a useful purpose. Especially so when we know that most articles are not read beyond the lede. That you do not care much for videos because they only cover the basics of a topic is not an argument against their inclusion. For all it's worth, it's simply WP:POINTY and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I don't want to rehash the entire debate on videos that we had here last year, but any valid criticism needs to focus on objective quality and usefulness for the general public, not personal preference and whether one personally finds them useful. Carl Fredrik ^talk 10:00, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Nope. I was referring to the ones based on Wikipedia, not the Osmosis stuff. Nothing to do with I Don't Like It - there is currently a discussion somewhere on WP about just how easy it is to manipulate views. I can't possibly comment on stuff that hasn't been based on WP articles, and as for my specific circumstances, well, of course I will think they're useless - I've already explained why. - Sitush (talk) 10:13, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Oh, and it looks like you may do work for the WMF. Now, on those grounds, yes, I don't like it. I can't remember the last time WMF did something major that was a hobbyhorse project of a few developers and didn't meet serious pushback. If this is going to be used beyond the MED project, it needs a site-wide RfC. And bypassing it by dumping stuff at Commons and then adding it back here will not do. - Sitush (talk) 10:18, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

At the risk of sounding rude, that is some far-fetched conspiracy theory stuff. I don't work for the WMF, no. And if you dislike things from the WMF on a matter of principle, I think it best to ignore your rejection of this on principle too. No one is bypassing anyone, this discussion is fully public and nothing "has been dumped on commons". Commons accepts this content, we're discussing whether it should be used on Wikipedia. It blows my mind that the presence of a public discussion is somehow evidence of "trying to sneak things in the backdoor". You're free to object, I'm just suggesting we should ignore such conspiratorial statements. Carl Fredrik ^talk 10:45, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

You're the one who introduced the idea of conspiracies, not me. You had also obviously not read what I had said previously in this thread, nor seemingly what others have said about how this stuff will work. I am telling you that it will not work for most people who need subtitles. Here's an experiment for you: go to a video about something topic that is reasonably complex and new to you, turn off your sound and try following both the video and the subtitles. I've got a lot of experience in testing and providing feedback for this sort of stuff over the years, including for UK broadcasters and university researchers. - Sitush (talk) 10:56, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

This strikes me as an issue that needs to be overcome, not as an argument against video.

To be concrete: Do you believe these issues are inherent to the video-format, or can they be solved?

And if they can be solved, why are we focusing on youtube-views and advertising money? Carl Fredrik ^talk 11:10, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

I wasn't focussing on YT videos - Doc raised that point and I just responded to it.

I doubt that the problems can be solved. As I said above, it is an information overload issue. There is a reason why I have been used for as a sort of guinea pig etc over the years: as someone who has never heard anything under 110db yet can speak "normally" and has an outstanding vocabulary etc, I'm a very useful tool. And the reason I can do that is because I am exceptionally bright (Cambridge double-first, never went to a lecture, just read it up) and overcome the communication difficulties that stymie most people who are born deaf (although the phone and radio are no-go areas). If it is overloading me, it will overload most other people with moderate to severe deafness, let alone profound. In an increasingly aging society, there are proportionately more people falling into those categories.

Similar problems arise with some television broadcast material. It becomes extreme when the subtitles seem to bear no relationship to the visuals, in which situation one has to have an eye on the text and another on the action. A common example for that is live sports, where the lag between action and text can be massive. Just try what I suggested, please. As I said on your talk page, medics are among the worst people I know when it comes to appreciating the issues, even those who specialise in ENT. - Sitush (talk) 11:24, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Many people want video, not all people. We are talking about adding other ways to learn to Wikipedia. If people do not like specific ways they can ignore them.

User:Sitush what do you think of Khan academy's videos? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:21, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't know what evidence supports your "many people" claim but YouTube views doesn't necessarily do it and WMF research tends to be flawed because they are seeking a certain outcome.

I've just looked at this Khan video. A completely random pick. Presentation of the subtitles in terms of colour and positioning was fine but I'm guessing there is something wrong there somewhere because the speed was so slow that there must be massive pauses in the voicing or bits of what were said are not being transcribed. The *content* was a waste of, ahem, space: the animations added nothing (even writing out the words explosion, infinite etc) and, despite the speed, were also distracting at times. I could have read and understood the equivalent in a fraction of the time it took to watch. A single illustration might help some people but scribbling away on a virtual blackboard is only likely to be useful for the sort of person who would prefer Simple Wikipedia.

Anther issue with videos is inaccessibility to people with relatively poor internet connections (we're not all in the US, UK etc). In addition, we have getting on for 6 million articles here, of which I would estimate at least 5 million don't really do their job: adding yet another stream of maintenance isn't massively helpful when we have so much to maintain already. I'd be concerned about vandalism, too, because changes won't be so obvious unless someone watches a video right through as a monitoring exercise (even without history, text vandalism is usually obvious to spot). - Sitush (talk) 12:58, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

For someone of such outstanding intellect and such a proclivity for words as yourself – it may be useful to understand that one does not always belong to the target audience. Content does not need to be accessible to everyone for it to be useful for someone. As I understand it, the videos are automatically transcribed, which voids your concern that vandalism would be worse than anywhere else. Carl Fredrik ^talk 13:24, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Now you have gone from mildly attacking me as some sort of conspiracist to being outright sarcastic and patronising. I do understand different needs and that is why I mentioned Simple Wikipedia; it is also why I've worked a lot as a volunteer over the years with kids who have often severe learning disabilities. I happen to believe that content should be accessible to all who form our target audience (which is not primary school children) but thanks for confirming your bias and good luck to your patients - they'll likely need it. You seem to be actually proposing that we go out of our way to make it inaccessible to a sizeable and growing cohort: it is not necessary, at least in the examples I've seen it doesn't actually make it more accessible to the rest, and so don't do it. - Sitush (talk) 13:47, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

@User talk:Sitush 1. Doc James many people want video "claim" is actually backed by evidence. Please refer to the Community Consultation [[8]]in 2015 which found rich content such as video was the second highest request by our readers. Further, Visual content such as video was also listed as one of our knowledge gaps in a Feb 13th, 2019 report by the WMF. You seem to believe that WMF Research is biased because they have certain outcomes/agendas. I cannot help you with that belief. 2. This project is not some project by the WMF but started by an individual (me) who is not anywhere related to WMF. Therefore, no ploy of WMF going on here. 3. There is no bypassing happening. A site wide RfC will be conducted. The awareness of the Rfc that will be implemented shortly is being circulated in mailing lists and wiki facebook pages. 4. To the opposite, VideoWiki makes Wikipedia more accessible. In India, approx. 25% (330 Million people) do not know how to read or comprehend text and therefore cannot access Wikipedia. Also an amazing stat is that post 2016, due to the entry of Reliance Jio, the 4G internet cost is the lowest in the world and India has the highest data consumption per user. Every month 10 Million internet users are being added. These "new internet users" are now connected to the internet but their primary consumption is videos in their own native languages. So making neutral and reliable information available in video format, especially in native languages will actually increase the reach of Wikipedia.

I am well aware of the situation in India, thank you. Subtitles will not help the illiterate. Nor would the Khan video make much difference, or the charts in the Kerala one I mentioned above, or many of the squiggles in the Acute Vision one. Oh, and every project WMF has ever undertaken in India that involved this project has caused more problems than it has fixed, notably the Sue Gardner exercise. - Sitush (talk) 13:51, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

While this is an interesting project, it is a long, very long, way from being suitable for incorporation into Wikipedia articles (even assuming the community wants such videos, which is currently a no). I see the Medium article opens with "Imagine seeing Usain Bolt’s world-record breaking 100 meters race rather than just reading about it. Imagine watching the beautiful Aurora lights while learning about them." The Aurora article already has four videos so I don't have to imagine. And the race video is hindered by valuable broadcasting rights by the organisations, but even assuming you got a volunteer to record the race and they were legally allowed to release the video, incorporating the race video into the article is trivial and does not require this technology. What instead we have got is

Imagine listening to a tediously over-long text-to-speech summary of a Wikipedia article while watching a series of PowerPoint slides where someone has just discovered all the transition special effects and is keen to use every one of them.

I looked at the Kerela and United Kingdom videos. Nearly lost the will to live. There is a reason why we like to listen to David Attenborough tell us about Galapagos tortoise mating rituals, and not some text-to-speech engine. Why people will pay to subscribe to Audible rather than Kindle's text-to-speech. Producing engaging audio-video is hard and requires some talent. I know many of the editors here are barely literate and wouldn't know how to write an engaging article if paid to do so (inserting random factoids and playing whack-a-mole with alt-med folk seems to be more of the game here) but at least I have the ability to skim over your tediously dull writing and still draw out some useful information. Auto-video is a linear game with no skim option -- if you bore me I click away and will not get to hear your concluding words.

The "Hand writes on a whiteboard" style is not what is currently possible by editors here. I assume there is some proprietary commercial software that makes generating these easy (in combination with a talented graphic design artist). I think it is false to post that as an example of what can be done. It is also an academic style, as someone notes above, designed to help students memorise key facts for an exam. It is also inherently one-language. The other kind is a series of PowerPoint slides with transitions. A PowerPoint slide presentation is not going to get a million hits on YouTube or keep the attention of Millenials.

Above it claims that licence and attribution is automatically included in the video. I did not see that in the two I watched. Also I can see no way of locating earlier versions and seeing a history. How does one watchlist a video or its segments and manage edits? How is vandalism to be handled?

I don't think you appreciate the reliance on Commons is a problem. Commons is not Wikipedia. The Commons policy on overwriting files is that it is generally not allowed except for the most incontestable edit/improvement. Any edit that might be controversial must be uploaded as a different filename. Commons admins will not step in and resolve your edit wars. Nor will Wikipedia admins be welcome to come over to Commons to resolve your edit wars. Commons is designed as a repository for finished works, not a graveyard for old versions of clips. I'm not clear how you plan to handle attribution if a video clip is altered to replace one work with another: on Commons, the file description page and the media itself have independent histories.

There are many more issues. But I continue to be perplexed that this is falsely promoted with a professionally made video and which has been inserted into Acute visual loss despite overwhelming Community opposition to adding such videos into articles. I would strongly encourage Doc James to remove the video and others like it from Wikipedia articles. You can demonstrate examples using a project page. In the past Doc James engaged in mass edits silently pushing hundreds of videos, edit warring with other editors to keep them, and bullying subject experts on Wikipedia and on Commons, so he should really consider himself de facto topic banned from repeating this. Why is this being pushed at WP:MED? This is a matter for the whole Wiki community. Discussion belongs in a wider forum, with an example video created 100% by regular Wikipedian editors rather than some third-party doctor-training outfit. Go push the United Kingdom video instead.

I think before this goes any further, you need to demonstrate that such videos really can be edited by anyone, can be easily monitored for changes/vandalism, don't spark fiery edit wars, and trivially handle the legal requirements for attribution, history and licencing. And you really need to demonstrate they add value. Text-to-speech + PowerPoint is not adding value. You need to think about what sorts of articles this would work for. I really really don't think Rotavirus is improved by someone creating a summary, generating audio via text-to-speech, and producing a PowerPoint of various virus microscope pictures that are already in the article. I think, to be honest, this is just introducing all sorts of community and cross-project problems that add no value.

You will have to get Commons involvement too, and I really don't think they will be happy about it. Commons is not a "collaborative editing project", just a repository. Bring your "collaborative editing" issues to Commons and they will quickly tell you where you can stick them.

WP:NOTYOUTUBE Wikipedia already welcomes short videos that enhance, rather than replace or summarise articles. There is no community consensus that this approach is workable, appropriate or enhances Wikipedia.

People have always been happy to read illustrated articles. These days, our articles can also be illustrated with short video clips. Compared to other information sites, Wikipedia is text heavy and has no good way to format text and graphics in a way approaching desktop publishing standards. I'd rather Wikipedia moved towards a more professional presentation format like the best websites. There are AFAIK no websites that take their content, and provide a summary of that content read by a text-to-speech engine combined with lame PowerPoints. Our strengths are in collaboratively writing text and sourcing (and making) engaging illustrations. A WikiYouTube is a separate project and should stay separate. -- Colin°^Talk 13:59, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Colin – Don't make it out that you know exactly what the community wants — and don't link to WP:NOTYOUTUBE like it's somehow authoritative. You wrote that. There are WP:NO ORACLES. Carl Fredrik ^talk 15:26, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Em Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Osmosis RfC was a huge oppose-fest, despite attempts to bamboozle with a never-ending addition of "ok, how about this one" variants. NOTYOUTUBE accurately describes the problems that videos have for Wikipedia and Commons. -- Colin°^Talk 16:58, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support Previous video projects were very cool. This is next generation technology. I see this as part of the future trend of increasing automating the production of Wikipedia content with Wikidata and other large and high quality information sources. My read on wiki community culture is that similar to Wikidata, most people will accept it, many will be enthusiastic about it, and a few will oppose it. Obviously the project is not technologically mature and I am sure that Google / Apple / big tech has their own editable video projects, but I think that it is great for the Wikimedia community to be first in this space with an experiment and to demonstrate leadership in community oriented technology. I do not buy into fears that the presence of this technology displaces other Wikimedia community engagement or other content. There is an audience and userbase for projects like this and another demographic for the established way of doing things. The future of wiki is to have 10x more editors, and experiments like this look to the future majority. I am sympathetic to any potential harms that could come from this project or increased engagement with video content. I appreciate that this project has seriously considered and addressed past complaints about video projects with an unprecedented and previously unimaginable leap in technology to advance human-editable video. There is always room for criticism but overall, the effort put into this and the thoughtfulness of the community engagement merits only praise. I sincerely appreciate all past, present, and future criticism which maintains a spirit of positivity and sets reasonable conditions for low-risk experimentation and new product development in the Wikimedia platforms. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:49, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

While this is an interesting effort to ameliorate one of the problems listed at WP:NOTYOUTUBE, it doesn't solve the fundamentals. I'm not sure whether Bluerasberry is "supporting" the use of this "not technologically mature" project on WP right now, or just supporting the direction for some purpose on WikiMedia projects. The most basic problem is that creating engaging audiovideo is hard work and requires talent, both of which are currently lacking at WP:MED/Wikipedia. Folk here know how to read a review, take some facts and crudely rewrite them to avoid plagiarism, and insert them into medical articles. A very few know how to write an interesting article that someone might want to read from start to finish. I know of nobody on WP:MED who is a talented educational video producer. That talent could arise perhaps, but so far it is lacking.

Creating video is really, really hard. This effort does not aid that. We've been falsely shown a professionally created video, but in fact the user examples are more like powerpoint slides. Recording engaging audio is also hard and also largely impossible to collaborate on since we all have different voices. This project does away with the problem of recording audio but instead replaces it with a robot voice. Ok, every editor sounds the same, but they all now sound awful.

Let's compare The medskl video with the VideoWiki version.

• The medskl video is aimed at medical students. It begins with saying "Here are four conditions that you cannot afford to miss". The "you" being a future doctor, not a patient or interested reader. The narrator and video is synced so that the words and writing appear at the same time. The narrator emphasises the words "must" and "cannot". The medskl video narrator pauses before and after introducing the title of each of the four causes. This lets the viewer absorb the switch to a sub-topic.
• The VideoWiki video borrows the video but the audio is computer generated. The spoken words do not include the text being written at the start, leading to confusion. The spoken words are utterly passive and robotic, so there is no sense of seriousness or urgency. The VideoWiki narrator crams in a few sentences on each cause and does not pause at any point. It is tiring to listen to this constant stream of monotonal narration. When symptoms are listed, the natural gaps are missing that help reduce ambiguous meaning.

In the original video the narrator says "The eye pressure will be very high -- in the 40s, 50s, or even 60 millimetres of mercury." It shows a graphic of "55mmHG". The videowiki video says "The eye pressure will be very high typically greater than 40 mmHg" with the same graphic. Let's say as editors we think the range of values was better but actually, as a hypothetical but typical example of fixes we may make, we want to use millibars rather than mmHg. So the graphic should show 73mb and the narration say "in the 50s, 60s or even as high as 80 millibars". On Wikipedia, I just click edit, type my new text over the old text and press Publish changes. On VideoWiki, well I have a problem. I don't have access to the computer animation software that generated that video. Also, it's a webm file, which is also not the software that most video packages use (because we insist on patent free formats rather than mp4 or webp). The original video is webp. So I'm pretty stuck changing the graphic text. And if I change the audio, well that's re-created nicely (if roboticly) but now the video segment isn't long enough to sync with the narration. Oh, how do I slow down that bit of the graphics?

Now as a viewer of this video I read about the eye pressure and want to verify that the values are reliably sourced. On Wikipedia I can click on the little [5] and then follow the link to the source article. Two clicks. On the video, well I see a list of references at the end, but I can't interact with them so they aren't much use.

Now let's say I produce a short video on the ketogenic diet. I go away on my summer holidays and come back to see someone has made lots of edits. One person has reordered the flow ["per MED:MEDVIDMOS"]. Another has inserted some promotional images about weight loss books ["added useful info"]. Another has fixed a mistake where "fat" and "calories" were swapped on screen ["fixed mistake"]. Another has introduced video pauses at the end of each section rather than at the beginning ["per VIDMOS"]. How do I compare the videos to see what changes were made? On Wikipedia I can select the article before I went on holiday and the article after I came back and view the diffs. For video, I can't. I have to sit through all 2 minutes of it, taking notes. I fail to discover that the reordering lost one sentence. I try to revert the re-ordering and the book promotion but keep the mistake-fix but find I have to then redo the pause front/back change myself again. By the time I have done this, I get an edit conflict because someone has added another slide in the middle about testing with "ketostiks". At this point, I lose the will to live and just want to delete this POS from Wikipedia and Commons. I find the admins on Commons won't let me remove it, despite the promotional book advertising, despite the terrible flow, and despite ketostix being spelt wrongly, because it has potential educational use (someone could extract the good frames, I suppose) and because it is "in-use" on WP:MED's talk page.

This project needs to be discussed with both Wiki and Commons users, and not just among the folk here who are openly hostile to any criticism and appear to want medical content to be written by external educators that than "anyone". I fear that Doc James is going to dump a bunch of medskl videos with robo narration onto medical articles, and claim that "anyone can edit them". They still can't. -- Colin°^Talk 16:58, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

WP 1.0 Bot Beta

Hello! Your WikiProject has been selected to participate in the WP 1.0 Bot rewrite beta. This means that, starting in the next few days or weeks, your assessment tables will be updated using code in the new bot, codenamed Lucky. You can read more about this change on the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team page. Thanks! audiodude (talk) 05:41, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

thank you for post--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:06, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Type 1 diabetes

Efforts to add this claim "Researcher Dr. Denise Faustman of Harvard and MGH has successfully reversed type 1 diabetes in humans."

Has been added three times now. Source is poor. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:44, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

will keep eye on[9]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:22, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Rhinacanthus nasutus

There's lots of WP:MEDRS concerns at that article. Mostly CAM claims. Please take a look. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:47, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

There are no decent sources on the topic. Trimmed it back. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:12, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Front hole article

Just letting editors here know that Front hole (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) exists. Discussion about the article has taken place on its talk page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:25, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Should anatomical organs have article hatnotes that redirect to medications?

I invite comment here: Talk:Thyroid#Hatnote. [10]. --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:30, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

• give opinion(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:38, 1 March 2019 (UTC)