Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine

Edit with VisualEditor

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

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

• 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, 172

Proposal to split weight loss

Since July there had been a template at the top of the article on weight loss regarding a split proposal: Talk:Weight_loss#Splitting_proposal I removed the template but others might be interested in continuing the conversation there. It is currently listed as a high-importance article for the project. Biosthmors (talk) 01:56, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

The proposal is to split it into intentional vs unintentional weight loss. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:26, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

I think the split is a good idea. They are very different conditions. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:34, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Quite an important split (intentional and unintentional). Whispyhistory (talk) 10:02, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Please comment there, so that it'll be easy for everyone to take your thoughts into account. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:19, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

commented ... Whispyhistory (talk) 14:15, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

I posted as well but I have concerns about naming, etc. in case others would like to continue the discussion. Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) 16:13, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

same here, I too have concerns about naming--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:30, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Mutation vs Variant

There is some disagreement on whether using "mutation" is acceptable when describing a rare change in DNA that results in a disorder (in this case CDK13-related disorder) or whether we should require the use of the less offensive "variant". This has come up by way of a GA review that can be found at Talk:CDK13-related disorder/GA1. I have found no discussions concerning this issue here, at the MCB wikiproject or the NPOV noticeboard page so do not know what the consensus on this is or if it has even come up before. As it could potentially effect multiple articles it feels more prudent to discuss it here than at a review page. @EllenCT, Canada Hky, and SUM1: who were involved in the review. AIRcorn (talk) 02:11, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Both terms are used in clinical practice and mean different things. A mutation is a change in DNA. A variant is a DNA sequence that is different from a chosen reference. Mutations can cause variants to appear in a genomic assay, but not vice versa. We speak of nonsense mutations, but not nonsense variants. And so son. They really are not interchangable, so which term to use depends on the context and intended purpose.--{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 04:01, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

@Mark viking: That is very true. An event vs. a state. · • SUM1 • · (talk) 04:41, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

I really like the idea that mutation = event, variant = state; when I am king, I will mandate that everyone uses this precise and unambiguous nomenclature. Until then, I'll note that it's common for "mutation" to refer to the outcome of the event (i.e., the state), rather than the event itself. This can be verified by Googling "has a mutation" or "found a mutation". Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 01:43, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

See also this article in BMC Medical Genomics, linked by EllenCT at the GA discussion. In the context of personal genomics, it defines "mutations" as "DNA variants detectable in ... <1 % of the population" – a state-based definition. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 01:55, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

@Adrian J. Hunter: Maybe you misunderstood that I was actually in support of retaining the use of mutation on Wikipedia. My comment was a defence against those trying to say you can't say a genetic condition is caused by a mutation, when the fact the word even more so refers to an event than variant does means there's even more reason to use it. But if it doesn't, according to your source, even better. · • SUM1 • · (talk) 05:11, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

(I've already learned something interesting today! Thanks for posting the explanation.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:11, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

There are a few medical terms that are now considered offensive, typically because schoolchildren use them pejoratively in the playground: "cretin", "spastic", "mentally retarded". Is "mutation"/"mutant" really in this category?

How long before "variant" is considered offensive? *sigh* Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:25, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Deviant has made the transition.

Mutation is fine, and WP:UNCENSORED. The encyclopedia should reflect the field as it is, not as we think it should be. Klbrain (talk) 17:53, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Does anyone have a good source at hand, so that this explanation can be added to the top of articles such as Mutant, Mutation, Allele, and Variant of uncertain significance? It shouldn't exactly say read like a hatnote ("If you're looking for the article about the event, rather than the state, then please see..."), but readers should be left with the same impression from reading the lead of the articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:38, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

I have textbook sources for "mutation" and "variation" which agree but not for "mutant" and "variant". Graham Beards (talk) 15:52, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: I don't think this is necessary. Both mutant and allele mention mutation in the first sentence, and "mutant" is much less used than "mutation" (there's no point pointing worried parents to the page for "mutant" at the top of the article for "mutation"). Variant of uncertain significance makes clear enough (I think) the relationship between mutation and variant in its lead. · • SUM1 • · (talk) 01:14, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Wrt Klbrain citing WP:UNCENSORED, this policy is rarely cited appropriately. The policy links to the guideline Wikipedia:Offensive material and specifically WP:GRATUITOUS is relevant: Offensive material should be used only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available.. Editors should always take care not to cause gratuitous offence, and consider (as the OP did) whether alternative language is desirable, suitable, etc. On the article talk page, a standards proposal was cited and to me is evidence of academic writers trying to use language that avoids prejudice or preconceived ideas of what words mean (even if they do not). Readers will bring ideas of "normal" vs" not normal" when we use a word like "mutant", which for some article topics could be a problem. -- Colin°^Talk 13:27, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Good point Colin. You made me think. I call viruses mutants often as in temperature sensitive mutant. But I would not dream of using the word to describe anything much larger than a fruit fly. Graham Beards (talk) 13:56, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

To return, therefore, to mutation versus variant. Mutation has as precise and well-understood meaning in genetic, for which which variant is not an appropriate replacement. Therefore, omitting mutation would make make many articles less informative and accurate. Klbrain (talk) 00:59, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

This might be something that needs to be solved with good writing. We should always use the word correctly (and we probably don't, in some articles), and it may need an explanation. We don't want readers to be thinking about fictional superhero mutations, and some (most?) of our readers will know more about comic books than about genetics. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:37, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Enterovirus 71 article. Which wording to use?

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Enterovirus 71#EV71 or EV-A71?. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:47, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:09, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

MEDRS at Race and intelligence

Does Race and intelligence require MEDRS sourcing? I raised this concern at AfD assuming that it fell under the general topic area, but there's been some pushback. –dlthewave ☎ 21:24, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

best to read [1]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 02:01, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm familiar with the policy. Just trying to clarify whether claims of a genetic connection between race and intelligence are considered biomedical information. –dlthewave ☎ 02:21, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

I tend to think of biomedical information as knowledge derived from clinical trials / prospective studies / epidemiological and laboratory-based studies etc. that study treatments, causes, and courses of diseases. So I'd think not. That said, we'd want any scientifically-based article to be using the highest-quality scientific information. Biosthmors (talk) 02:38, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Also, dlthewave, for what it's worth, after a quick scan of the article, it does appear to be more of a sociology-, culture-, and history-based article. This can occur with scientific concepts. The article title of societal and cultural aspects of Tourette syndrome, for example, makes the intent of that article explicit. Right now I'd argue there's tension between what one might think is the focus of the article (I went to the article just wanting to see the current scientific consensus) with what is the actual focus. A more accurate title would be something like Societal, cultural, and historical aspects of the race and intelligence debate, in my opinion. Biosthmors (talk) 02:54, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

The current scientific consensus is that "race" is a social construct. "Race" is not science. Any article about race is perforce about societal, cultural and historical aspects. Bondegezou (talk) 09:47, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

It's true that race is a social construct, a label imposed by one social group by another. However, once you start hypothesising about the traits that you believe are associated with a racial group, you move into the territory of phenotypes and inevitably into the field of genetics, as the article Race and genetics discusses quite cogently. That is science, and not only that, but medicine as well. There is no doubt that the sort of fringe theories under discussion at the article nominated for deletion require MEDRS sourcing every time they allude to a connection between a trait such as intelligence and a racial group. There's no way that primary sourcing is good enough to support any such inferences. --RexxS (talk) 18:50, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Genetics, science, sure, fairly obvious. What makes it medicine as well? · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 09:55, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Genetics has been defined as "a branch of biology that deals with the heredity and variation of organisms" (Merriam-Webster). Our guidance at WP:MEDRS requires that "all biomedical information must be based on reliable, third-party published secondary sources, and must accurately reflect current knowledge." It seems inconceivable to me that anyone would dispute that hypotheses concerning a particular supposed link between genetics and an organism's traits are claims of "biomedical information". --RexxS (talk) 14:50, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

My question was intended to elicit information. Unfortunately your response has not provided what I was looking for. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 08:47, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Because not all traits have any "medical" aspect? For example, eye color is determined by genes, and eye color is a lot more complicated than brown/green/blue. Some people have a dark blue ring around the iris, for example. I get the "bio" part of that, but where's the "medical" part? Having that trait has no association with any health condition. I conclude therefore that it's not a "biomedical" subject. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:12, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

So by your reasoning, it would be acceptable to use primary sources to source a claim about a link between a particular phenotype and race – unless that phenotype could be shown to have health implications, when secondary sources would be required? I just want to be certain of the route you're going down. --RexxS (talk) 00:20, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Where does WhatamIdoing make this assertion? Alternatively, since you punctuate this as a question, which statements by WAID lead you to this tentative conclusion? · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 09:23, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

In addition to what RexxS stated, human intelligence does fall under the topic of neuroscience, which is why the talk page for the Human intelligence article is tagged with WP:WikiProject Neuroscience. WikiProject Neuroscience is one of WP:Med's related projects, and we (those who are familiar with WP:MEDRS and adhere to it) do use use WP:MEDRS-compliant sources for neuroscience topics. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:01, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

So I see. I see also that it is tagged as falling under the topics of psychology, cognitive science and anthropology. It could also be tagged under education, evolution and various other things. A statement of biomedical information should fall under WP:MEDRS, not the whole content of an article if it just happens to contain some biomedical claims. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 09:23, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

We seem to be talking about different things, so let's back up and try for some factual statements. Does anyone disagree with any of these?

1. WP:NOT says that "All article topics must be verifiable with independent, third-party sources". The word all in this sentence means all, as in "every single one, without exception, regardless of whether you're writing about a professor or a film or a controversial subject".
2. WP:V says that "Articles must be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." This, too, is "must", as in RFC 2119, an absolute requirement.
3. WP:NOR says that "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources." This, again, is the standard for every single article, without exception. No article should be based primarily on primary sources.
4. WP:MEDRS applies to Wikipedia:Biomedical information. Specifically, it applies to biomedical information in any article, regardless of whether the main subject of the article is biomedical in nature, and regardless of whether that article happens to be of interest to any given group of Wikipedia editors.

Assuming we agree upon these statements, then I think I can answer the questions above and forestall some others:

• I believe that most of the content (e.g., at least a physical majority of readable prose) in all articles, including this one, should come from, and be cited to, secondary sources.
• I believe that most of the content in all articles, including this one, should come from, and be cited to, independent sources. (Remember that WP:Secondary does not mean independent.)
• I believe that all content about controversial subjects, including this one, should get an WP:EXCEPTIONAL level of sourcing. This means that I want to see not just more than the average number of citations per sentence, but also a higher proportion of secondary sources than usual, near-exclusive use of independent sources, and an even higher quality of sources than usual (e.g., more scholarly books published by academics, and fewer news articles).
• I believe that only a fraction of the content in this article is biomedical information, and that therefore only a fraction of the content in this article requires MEDRS-style sourcing. Some biomedical information is found, for example, in the Race and intelligence#Health and nutrition section, but not in most of the others.
  • There is a difference between "involves biology" and "is biomedical". Involving biology is a necessary but not sufficient factor for MEDRS to apply.
  • There is also a difference between "is heritable" and "is genetic".
  • Hint: If you think "doesn't require MEDRS" is a code phrase for "any old primary is okay with her", then you did not read what I have written (here, or any of the other many times over the last many years). If, on the other hand, you think "Oh, noes, she thinks we shouldn't have so many articles about people and businesses and products, because I can't source half an encyclopedia article about some of them to anything except their employers' (or manufacturers') websites!", then well, you're probably right about that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:30, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Coronavirus templates

There are several templates about the 2019 novel coronavirus that pull specific data from early papers on the outbreak. Many of these seem on thin grounds with respect to WP:MEDRS. Input would be useful. See:

• Template:2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus data/Treatments given
• Template:2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus data/Symptoms
• Template:Coronavirus data/Patients characteristics Bondegezou (talk) 09:49, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

For example, consider how that first template is used at 2019-nCoV_acute_respiratory_disease#Treatment_research. Bondegezou (talk) 09:54, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Looking for a SARS partner/s...

There are several SARS-related articles on Wikipedia but few are linked to the subject or to each other - or if they are I haven't found the page/list/keyword/whatever that would correlate them. Is anyone interested in helping link/organize/disambiguate or create a list? Or knows how to go about it? Worthwhile in itself, it might form the basis for creating a Coronavirus outbreak overview.

Help or suggestions would be highly appreciated! Cheers! Shir-El too 11:18, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Shir-El too, this list isn't complete, but it will give you almost 400 articles that mention SARS by name. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:05, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestion; it may help track down medically oriented articles. Cheers! Shir-El too 19:15, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Creating a navbox might be a good idea, depending on how many articles there are. I'd be happy to help with that.SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 18:53, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! I'm 'technically challenged' (read 'ignorant') when it comes to the nuts-and-bolts and appreciate whatever you have in mind. Some articles are * Timeline of the SARS outbreak, * Jiang Yanyong, and * Severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus. Many Thanks, Shir-El too 19:26, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

I created a basic navbox at Template:SARS using the articles in the relevant category. I'm sure there are other articles that can be added. Take a look and see what you think... I left The SARS Network out of the navbox because I'm not really sure what to think of that article. It looks like original research or a WP:COATRACK for someone's pet theory to me. Maybe someone here knows more about it? SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 23:09, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Beautiful! Now how is it implemented and how do I add articles to the list when found? Also, some subjects have a sidebar at the top (Zoroastrianism) to give quick reference. Would this be too hard or time consuming to create? Cheers! Shir-El too 07:39, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

It looks like you've figured out how to add articles. :) You can add the navbox to articles by placing {{SARS}} at the bottom of the page. I'm not too familiar with sidebars... I generally see them used for topics with a very large number of related articles and I'm not sure that this qualifies, but I'll look through the query posted above later and see what I can add. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 19:03, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes: copy-paste I can do. ;) You did a wonderful job already and I'm very appreciative. The reason I asked about sidebars is because they'll be needed sooner or later; this is the third or fourth Corona-virus outbreak in the last two decades. BTW I glanced through "The SARS Network" and agree with your evaluation. And would it be possible to put "Plague City: SARS in Toronto" under something like "In the media"? Meanwhile I've been editing the Timeline. Will start adding the navbox tomorrow. Many Thanks! Shir-El too 19:48, 9 February 2020 (UTC) PS Do you like jokes?

I've added an "in culture" section. A sidebar for coronavirus outbreaks in general is a good idea although I wouldn't know where to get started with integrating all the information. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 13:12, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

And I do like jokes. :) SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 13:16, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Congrats! And nice job...

This project is getting some nice airplay this morning in the UK, in a piece about the coronavirus articles in the UK version of WIRED. Well done! MeegsC (talk) 09:14, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

• great work!--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:25, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
• Thank you for the link! This is a great way to refute Wiki-detractors! Cheers! Shir-El too 19:53, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
• Thanks for the link. But please note this project has not contributed significantly to any of the coronavirus articles.Graham Beards (talk) 20:04, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
  • User:Whispyhistory wrote a large part of the outbreak article. They list themselves as part of this project on their user page. They raised the discussion on this page Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Archive_131#2019–20_China_pneumonia_outbreak. A number of others have contributed to lesser degrees. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:39, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
    • Thank you @Doc James: and others. The whole thing went viral, and its not easy to keep up with it. It's amazing how the maps, diagrams and tables have come out. Thank you @Ozzie10aaaa: for that interesting link. @Graham Beards:...which other coronavirus article need attention? Whispyhistory (talk) 06:18, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
      • "The whole thing went viral" *sigh*
      • Anyway, thank you for your contributions, Whispy. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:37, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
        • @Whispyhistory: I think they all do: SpicyMilkBoy created a 'navbox' for SARS to link the separate articles I'm trying to find and include, and I think there should be an overall Corona virus outbreaks sidebar to help navigate between them. I'm not tech savvy enough to do it. Can you, or know someone who would like to? Cheers! Shir-El too 17:29, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
          • @Shir-El too:..sorry, I can't help with sidebars, but will add some of the articles to my watch list and edit where I can. Whispyhistory (talk) 18:45, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Proposal to remove gender bias from WP:MEDMOS

Dear colleagues,

it has come to my attention from a recent study that there is still a long way to go to fix gender bias in Wikipedia's health information.

One of the important aspects is that WP:MEDMOS discourages, or does not mention, the potential psychological or emotional impact of certain medical conditions. We likely treat this too much from a narrow, medical perspective whereas readers on certain topics (as was mentioned in this recent study, e.g. abortion, menopause, vaginal dryness, but also cancer etc.) are likely interested in emotional and psychological impact too.

I will open an RfC at the talk page: here. I propose to treat this of course like any other aspect according to standard policies such as reliable sources, but I'm sure that for many of these aspects there is a wealth of research on the personal, emotional and psychological impact of diseases.

I would value your input on this important discussion (call cross-posted at WP:Women's Health).

--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 10:07, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Copied to the main discussion

User:JenOttawa and I have looked at women's health versus men's health and we found based on a number of markers women's health coverage is better. Of course covering emotional / psychological impact when good sources are avaliable is perfectly reasonable. Would either go under signs and symptoms or prognosis. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:26, 10 February 2020 (UTC) This is based on a count of the total number of women's health articles (like cervical cancer and contraceptives), and not based on content, like whether Cardiovascular disease mentions pregnancy at all (it doesn't), or whether the differences between males and females in terms of their pathophysiology, treatment, and other areas are adequately described in Myocardial infarction, right? I don't have a great solution to the problem of presenting men's MI symptoms as the 'normal' ones and women's symptoms being relegated to a Separate but equal section, but surely we can all agree that pregnancy ought to be mentioned more than once on the page, and that other factors such as poverty or being of African or Asian descent should be mentioned at least once in those articles. We can do better than this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:05, 10 February 2020 (UTC) @WhatamIdoing: Go easy! Only "when good sources are available" on the variables of gender, poverty, African-Asian-Latino descent, etc, etc, from the medical profession itself. Up till recently, they haven't. Good Luck! Shir-El too 07:33, 11 February 2020 (UTC) I think the above responses to Steven should have been posted to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles#RfC: Adding sections on Psychological and emotional impact of health problems. Would you consider moving them please? -- Colin°Talk 08:00, 11 February 2020 (UTC) @Colin: You're welcome to copy mine there if you think it fits. Besides, the lack of balanced research and reporting in various medical areas does not originate with WP: it has been inherent in the medical profession as a whole for lo these many hundreds - if not thousands - of years. Cheers! Shir-El too 11:12, 11 February 2020 (UTC) Thanks Shir-El. WhatamIdoing would you consider copying this because I can't? I think the claim that "women's health coverage is better" and the responses, deserves exposure at the RFC page. -- Colin°Talk 21:52, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Idea for new community workspace

Hi. I would like to create some kind of collaborative workspace where coordinators or members of various WikiProjects would gather and provide updates and information on what is going on at each wikiproject, i.e. regarding their latest efforts, projects, and where interested editors can get involved.

For those of you at this very active WikiProject, your input would be very helpful, so I wanted to get your input on whether you'd be interested in helping me to make this happen.

we are discussing this proposal right now at:

* Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Idea for new community workspace

Please feel free to let me know what you think of this idea, and please let me know your preference, regarding the options above. if you do not see any need for this idea, that is totally fine. However, I think that the majority of editors lack awareness of where the truly active editing is taking place and at which WikiProjects, and I would like to do whatever I can to help make people more aware of where the activity is, what they can do to help, and also which areas of Wikipedia offer ideas and efforts that might help them in their own editing activities. Please feel free to let me know.

• Would you be interested in an idea of this nature?
• If so, which option below seems most feasible to you?
  • Create a new page/talk page at the existing WikiProject Council, where members of various WikiProject can gather to offer updates, information and ideas on the latest efforts at each of their own WikiProject, such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Town Hall.
  • Create an entirely new WikiProject with an inclusive name such as
    • Wikipedia:WIkiProject Town Hall,
    • Wikipedia:WikiProject Bulletin Board,
    • Wikipedia:WikiProject Water Cooler
  • Create a new collaborative page or forum, but not as a new WIkiProject, i.e. with some name like
    • Wikipedia:Town Hall or
    • Wikipedia:Water Cooler
  • Create a new sub-page in my own userspace, such as User:Sm8900/Town Hall
  • Create a subpage at an umbrella-type WikiProject that already covers a broad topical area, such as Wikipedia:WikiProject History/Town Hall

thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 18:50, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

interesting idea(s), thank you for posting--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:54, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Feedback on sources I cited in the Acupuncture article

Acupuncture

Would a couple of you take a look at citations I added to Acupuncture#Specific conditions - scroll down to the "Sleep" subsection. Please let me know if any of the journals I cited are not reliable sources. I can answer that question with regard to psychology journals but there are so many medical journals sometimes can't separate the wheat from the chaff. ;-) Thanks!   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 22:30, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

they(citations) seem ok--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:06, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Ozzie! If there one or two that are iffy, I'm sure someone will eventually notice.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 23:14, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Citation Template Woes

Am I the only one frustrated with citation templates? It seems they almost always include superfluous information, e.g., stating it's an English-language journal or including the ISBN for a journal, and at least one field always needs correction, e.g., the date format is wrong, or authors' first and last names are transposed. ¶ I am not a programmer (far from it!), so I have no idea how difficult it is to create a citation template. I imagine it's not easy. So please don't take this as a diatribe against the hard-working Wikipedians who create templates, which by and large make our work much easier. ¶ This is mainly a reality check for me. I find myself frequently copying an easy-to-produce citation from Google Scholar, PubMed, or Zotero and pasting it into Cite > manual > basic form, which is not a perfect solution because it loses many of the automatic hyperlinks the citation templates provide. But it's much faster than manually typing every author's first and last name and all the other data into Cite > manual > journal. I am open to suggestions. :) Thanks!   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 22:39, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

@Markworthen: I wouldn't worry too much about superfluous fields. Some wiki-gnome will come along and fix those. For your own use, you might want to try out this tool that generates a citation from a PubMedID, PMCID, etc:

• https://tools.wmflabs.org/citation-template-filling/cgi-bin/index.cgi

and this one for Google books:

• https://reftag.appspot.com/

Hope those are helpful. --RexxS (talk) 22:51, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I rather like this DOI-based citation generator. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 22:52, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Marielle's magical mw:citoid tool is one of the wonders of this wiki-age, even if it's never going to be perfect. Every time one website's description is fixed, another one rearranges its website. Most uses are from the URL, including for books (e.g., the Google Books URL) and journal articles (e.g., the PubMed URL). You can use some identifiers directly. ISBNs (most journals ought to be giving you an ISSN, not an ISBN) depend upon the WorldCat folks, who seem to have settled on down-casing titles and using French spacing in titles, which is common in libraries but isn't my preference. PMIDs all go through PubMed and are consistent with what we're used to (and we like what we're used to).

(The |language= field is appreciated by translators, and the contents are auto-hidden from readers on enwiki, so I'd ignore that.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:15, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Good question @Markworthen:... I needed those answers too. Thank you. Whispyhistory (talk) 13:52, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Really the easiest thing to do is to put a database/identifier url (doi, bibcode, pmid, pmcid, etc...) between <ref></ref> tags and use WP:CE to expand things and clean them up. See also User:Headbomb/Tips and Tricks. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:41, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks y'all! Very helpful. :0)   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 22:26, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Proposal for lede

RfC. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hospitalized_cases_in_the_vaping_lung_illness_outbreak#Proposal_for_lede QuackGuru (talk) 21:39, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:36, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Category:Identity disorders and Category:Sexual and gender identity disorders

Opinions are needed on the following: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 February 5#Category:Sexual and gender identity disorders. This is the result of an editor having tried to remove Category:Identity disorders and Category:Sexual and gender identity disorders from the Gender dysphoria article. I reverted, stating, "It should still be there as a matter of helping readers find this topic. The term [gender identity disorder] is still prominent as a historical name and redirects here. It's mentioned and bolded per WP:Alternative title. We might need to consider renaming the category." I also noted that the ICD-11 will not come into effect until 2022. As for the ICD-10, editors can refer to this section of the Gender dysphoria article. Later, Crossroads also reverted removal of the categories. As seen here, I then took the time to comment, "Wikipedia:CATV states 'should generally be uncontroversial.' 'Generally' (as in not always). We can't stop the fact that some categories will be controversial. And there is the fact that the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders still has the title that it does and is defined the way it's defined in sources."

By mentioning the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders title, I was stating that gender dysphoria is still in a manual about disorders and is still considered a medical condition. Regardless of the DSM-5 renaming the condition to remove the word disorder to reduce stigma, the condition still technically falls under the definition of a mental disorder or psychiatric disorder (if one prefers the latter term) because of the distress involved. Also see the "Definition" section of the Mental disorder article. What other medical categorization do we have for it? We have Category:Transgender and medicine and Category:Psychiatric diagnosis. It's in those categories as well. Is it sufficient to just have them in those categories? Simply calling it a "condition" or "medical condition" is vague. A proposal to split "Sexual disorder" and "Gender identity disorder" might be considered sound. After all, we already have Category:Sexual disorders. But I question letting Category:Gender identity stand in place of Category:Identity disorders and Category:Gender identity disorders. I know that "Category:Gender identity disorders" doesn't exist. Also, the Gender dysphoria article is already in Category:Gender identity. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:29, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

"... ICD-11 will not come into effect until 2022." - WHO is not consistent about the ICD-11 "effective date". For example, the ICD-11 Implementation or Transition Guide (p. 1) states, "ICD11 is now available for implementation, following its adoption at the World Health Assembly on 25 May 2019...." In addition, even if we assume that ICD-11 "comes into effect" on 1 Jan 2022, that fact does not make ICD-11 content meaningless until then.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 23:09, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Never stated or implied that it is meaningless. We, however, shouldn't be putting the cart before the horse. Is WP:Med updating all of its medical articles to the ICD-11 when the ICD-11 has been stated to not come into effect until 2022? Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:56, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

RFD activity

A bunch of redirects to Micropenis and a couple of medicine-related articles are at WP:RFD. Please look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Article alerts. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:16, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:12, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

There's also a proposal to merge Small penis with Penis (disambiguation) at Talk:Penis (disambiguation). SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 18:12, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Our World in Data

User:Fæ has done an initial upload of .svgs. The first section is .tab (the underlying data) and the second section is the .svgs https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Our_World_In_Data

Lots pertain to health care. I will likely be adding many to articles as time goes on. The hope is eventually that we can get their data visualizer integrated into the Wikipedia world; however this could take years. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:49, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

very useful information--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:39, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Medicine noted in new science paper

• Arroyo-Machado, Wenceslao; Torres-Salinas, Daniel; Herrera-Viedma, Enrique; Romero-Frías, Esteban; Lozano, Sergi (10 February 2020). "Science through Wikipedia: A novel representation of open knowledge through co-citation networks". PLOS ONE. 15 (2): e0228713. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0228713.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)

Check figure 6, which shows Cochrane journals as a major part of Wikipedia's citation ecosystem.

Thanks to user:JenOttawa, liaison with Cochrane for doing so much to match Wikipedia editors with Cochrane publications. The collaboration with Cochrane has been among the most interactive and least controversial Wikipedia projects I can recall, and additionally, the content has been a good fit for Wikipedia's needs.

Thanks user:Daniel Mietchen for science journal surveillance and pointing this article out.

I am adding this article to science information on Wikipedia, an article I started after the model of health information on Wikipedia. We still do not have much science critique of Wikipedia. If anyone wants to see a profile of health papers on Wikipedia, check Scholia for "health information on Wikipedia". Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:09, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Blue Rasberry thank you for posting--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:26, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Category:Identity disorders up for deletion

See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 February 12#Category:Identity disorders. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 21:51, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

• give opinion(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:22, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

People can't math

(But we still need to put numbers in articles.)

User:Colin recommended this book:

Spiegelhalter, D. J.,. The Art of Statistics: How to Learn from Data (First US edition ed.). New York. ISBN 978-1-5416-1851-0. OCLC 1112668483. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

to me a little while ago, and I have borrowed it from the library. I haven't gotten very far, but so far, I like it.

In chapter one, Spiegelhalter talks about data presentation. Cancer outcomes in the UK are presented in terms of survival (50% live!). Cancer outcomes in the US are presented in terms of mortality (50% die!). Both are correct, and math adept folks will recognize that it's exactly the same.

But it's not quite the same once you leave the world of mathematics. People feel more optimistic when they're told the survival percentage than the mortality percentage. And they feel worse if you tell them that more than 56 million people died in 2015 (so many people died!), than if you tell them that 0.9% of the world's population did (why, almost nobody died!).

Just mimicking a chosen source's framing isn't "being neutral". It can also be abdicating responsibility for tone, and therefore for the neutrality of the Wikipedia article. I don't think that's our best option. Additionally, with the major stats coming from sources that have defined, for their own (sometimes political) reasons, a particular style used consistently, the word usage there does not necessarily reflect anything more meaningful than the geographic location of the author or publisher.

I remember suggesting once that some people are so bad at basic arithmetic that we should consider writing both sides of the equation for them: "60% of people with this cancer will survive at least five years, and 40% will die within five years", or "60% of people will die, and 40% will survive". Having read this, I'm now thinking that we should, at a minimum, write whichever side is larger: "60% of people will survive" or "60% of people will die", but specifically not just the minority outcome. What do you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:16, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

I am open to logical persuasion, but my first thought was that it would depend on what we were talking about. A success rate might be more appropriate when discussing a treatment, and a death rate might be more suitable for a disease. I accept that there are people out there who do not understand what percentage means. I have seen in real life a group of people trying to explain to a person the 0.2 and 20% are the same thing, without success, and two of them were professionals in adult education. My take from that is that there will always be people who don't get it. The other problem is that a some people do not get that a 60% chance of survival does not mean that you are going to be one of the 60% just because it is the bigger number, or that the published statistics often do not mention fairly important demographic conditions, and that risk can vary a lot depending on who you are. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 07:43, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

The scary one was the paper that reported on giving qualified, practicing, doctors similar tests. About 5 years ago. Some did well, but eeek! Johnbod (talk) 16:53, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure writing the larger number is the algorithm to use. Sure if you had a cure that worked 95% of the time, that sounds wonderful. If we compared your drug's 95% cure rate with my drug's 95% failure rate, people might be confused and better to compare 95% with 5%. Peter makes a good point about treatment vs disease. For disease prevalence, morbidity or mortality it is probably better to use the rate of occurrence. It would seem odd to say that 98.% of people won't get X in their lifetime, without good reason for wanting to put it like that.

How does using absolute numbers compare with percentages. Is it better to say 6 out of every 10 patients with X will survive 5 years, than to say 60% of patients? I have a feeling people can understand absolute number better than percentages, decimal fractions, ratios and odds. It works even better when we are discussing the change in risk, such as 6 people out of 10,000 will get X but if they drink Y regularly then the risk rises to 7 out of 10,000 people. IIRC the book also discusses presenting absolute risk vs relative risk (see this article for example). -- Colin°^Talk 12:12, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I learned in a clinical genetics lecture that "people are gamblers, not accountants", meaning that people interpret 6 out of 10 better than 60%.

The same lecturer said clinical geneticists should always give both sides in the manner WAID suggests. Apparently it's normal for a conversation to go "A woman of your age has a 1 in 20 chance of giving birth to a child with a significant disorder" — *GASP!* — "and a 19 in 20 chance of giving birth to a healthy child" — *Oh, whew!* What this means for Wikipedia, I'm not sure. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 21:51, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

I think the "6 out of every 10 patients" is common. I've sometimes wished for a template or something that would show those numbers in picture form. Imagine it assembling 10 stick-figure people, color-coded to represent some situation, something vaguely like this:

Three out of five people with scaryitis will survive.

It would need multiple colors, so you could show things like "Will survive, will survive with treatment, will die even with excellent treatment". WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:54, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

I wonder if one's reaction to numbers depends on whether you are a glass-half-full sort of person or a glass-half-empty:-) -- Colin°^Talk 09:53, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

There's been discussion in the scientific literature about the best way to do this. Having all the affected people at one end is misleading and it has been suggested that you should randomly scatter affected cases throughout the non-affected cases. The choice of stick-figure icon is also an issue. Better that it's a gender neutral one unless there's a particular reason otherwise. Bondegezou (talk) 11:18, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Please update the "spread" info...

... on the main Coronavirus page! Per https://meaww.com/coronavirus-wuhan-virus-can-survive-on-inanimate-objects-for-up-to-nine-days-any-surface-patient, the virus can survive on surfaces for 4 to 9 days depending upon temperature and humidity. I can't seem to update the info; I've left a message on the main talk page and on Doc James' but he's on holiday and it needs to be checked and updated PDQ. Cheers! Shir-El too 10:16, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Had a quick look...my interpretation: CDC have it as unclear "if a person can get 2019-nCoV by touching a surface or object that has the virus on it and then touching their own mouth, nose, or possibly their eyes."....The "up to 9 days" being referred to, comes from the research paper published in the Journal of Hospital Infection and is based on a review of research papers on OTHER coronaviruses ...compiled comprehensive findings from 22 studies on coronaviruses and their inactivation for a future textbook..."The aim of the review was to summarize all available data on the persistence of all coronaviruses including emerging SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV as well as veterinary coronaviruses such as transmissible gastroenteritis virus (TGEV), mouse hepatitis virus (MHV) and canine coronavirus (CCV) on different types of inanimate surfaces and on the efficacy of commonly used biocidal agents used in surface disinfectants against coronaviruses"...not the new one. The 9 days with SARS of 2002/03 appears to come from this. "The experts assume that the results from the analyses of other coronaviruses are transferable to the novel virus. "Different coronaviruses were analysed, and the results were all similar". You could add to talk page of the virus article and see if anyone can word it appropriately or wait until more is known and an expert comments on it. I hope that helps. Whispyhistory (talk) 11:45, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Help with MEDRS-related decisions

I'm developing a script (see below) designed to highlight blacklisted/deprecated/generally unreliable/predatory/questionable sources in citations and elsewhere. Amongst other things is the need to highlight possible-dodgy-but-not-garanteed-awful citations. Note that this isn't a script to remove anything, simply to highlight potential issues. For instance, arxiv/biorxiv/etc. preprints, links to ResearchGate/Academia.edu, and so on, which will often by just fine, but also sometimes contains predatory publications, preprints, self-published nonsense, and the like. That part is working pretty well.

However there's another part which is more grey area, and it's sources that will often fail WP:MEDRS, but which might be otherwise be acceptable for more routine information. Typical examples of this grey area would be Frontiers Media and MDPI publications. Currently, on WP:CITEWATCH, there's a couple of venues that have been listed on Beall's list, but which aren't OMICS Publishing Group-levels of garbage. Those include publications that Beall removed from his list, and those that probably fit the 'questionable' more than the 'predatory' label. Those include

• MDPI
• Frontiers Media
• Hindawi Publishing Corporation
• Medknow Publications
• Bentham Science Publishers (or rather Bentham Open, which my script cannot distinguish from non-open Bentham)
• Dove Medical Press
• Baishideng Publishing Group
• Frontiers in Bioscience

So my question is, should all of those be flagged as sources that should be evaluated against WP:MEDRS? Or should I omit a couple of the above? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 06:22, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

@Headbomb: I welcome this kind of innovation and think that WikiProject Medicine participants have had many discussions in this space over the years. You have competency to make the tools and I want you to keep doing that. I appreciate that you have compiled a first list of journals to flag. Now that you have a model for how technical tool development meets social decisions, I think it should be the place of WikiProject Medicine to take this list out of your control and maintain it elsewhere, probably on its own Wikipedia page, and probably integrated with other existing services to evaluate the reliability of sources. There are multiple wikiprojects which would be interested in maintaining the list.

Jeffrey Beall compiled such a list of unreliable journals but when a hundred thousand people were watching, he took it down without comment. Everyone knows that the takedown meant that a corporation put legal pressure on him as an individual for producing a journal evaluation system which reported their publication as unreliable. Wikipedia has a precedent of identifying some journals as having quality standards below the level of acceptability in Wikipedia. We also know that by identifying journals as being of unacceptably low quality, we come into conflict with the business model and revenue stream of the corporation publishing the journal. I think we should take a clue from Jeffrey Beall's experience and keep a Wikipedia list of low-quality publications in its own place, under crowdsourced maintenance, and use the public and transparent Wikipedia editorial process to place and keep publications on the list. Whereas Beall somehow got in the position of having to talk to publishers and others in backchannels to defend his decision to list them as unreliable, in Wikipedia, we have the option to commit only to have public conversation about reliability judgments. By being open and transparent, our process should establish consensus and create records of evidence and leave no option for corporations to negotiate with fear tactics or to use money to gain non-objective privileges.

To do this, I think the next step would be to have a stand-alone list of sources on some page, then curate that list like we do with any list. Thoughts? Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:50, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

You're certainly free to fork the script, however, I'd much rather have a single script reflect what WP:MED feels like reflects how those publishers line up against WP:MEDRS. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:53, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

@Headbomb: You already split this off yourself! This is great!

• The Wikipedia SourceWatch, 31 March 2019
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Journals cited by Wikipedia/Questionable1 <--- time to move to be a stand-alone space, or at least to not be a subproject of a subproject?

What a meeting of technology, community, and media! Can you think of a way to better match WikiProject Medicine with that list system you have there? Can WikiProject Medicine review journals in that system? Do you still like that page? It seems never to have been formally presented as a product ready for use. Is it, and how does SourceWatch connect to this what you are describing? Is it CITEWATCH, SOURCEWATCH, or what is this? Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:58, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm really not sure what you're asking here. If you've read the Signpost article, then you know what the WP:CITEWATCH is (WP:SOURCEWATCH is an old name for it). Both WP:UPSD and WP:CITEWATCH are looking for similar things, dodgy citations. WP:UPSD is something that you can use as you read and edit articles, WP:CITEWATCH is slower (updated twice monthly) and more centralized which can be used to actively find problems. As far as reviewing anything, everything's open. As can be seen on both pages, WT:CITEWATCH and WT:UPSD are the places to discuss and review things. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:03, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm inclined to start small, and therefore to omit all of the possibly-okay options. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:02, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Pretty easy to restrict this to MDPI/Frontiers for now if that's the preference here. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:16, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I keep hearing that some of the Frontiers' journals are okay, and others aren't. So why include them? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:12, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

See WP:CITEWATCH#Frontiers Media for the short of it. They're hit-and-miss, have very lax standards, and have sacked editors for being too rigourous. I've yet to see a Frontiers-backed claim survive a WP:MEDRS challenge. But all the script does is simply highlight those in yellow to indicate it's a marginal source that may or may not comply with WP:MEDRS. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:21, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Frontiers is hit-and-miss according to reliable sources, so it shouldn't be included in a list of definitely bad things. Bondegezou (talk) 11:16, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Well, it's not a list of definitely bad things. It's a list of potentially bad things. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:27, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

I think it's unhelpful to mix definitely bad with possibly bad. Bondegezou (talk) 15:33, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Everything listed at WP:RSPSOURCES is possibly bad. Twitter is generally unreliable. That doesn't mean Twitter can't be cited. Context matters. It's no different here. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:17, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Script to detect unreliable sources

Main page: User:Headbomb/unreliable

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. The idea is that it takes something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is new, and I'm still expanding coverage and tweaking logic, but what's there already works very well. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:26, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

installed, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:19, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Good Article nomination of Addison's Disease

An editor, User:Dino245, has nominated Addison's Disease, which is within the scope of this Wikiproject, for GA status. However, Dino has been blocked indefinitely. Would any of the editors in this project be interested in adopting the review? Otherwise, the nomination might have to be removed, since the nominator isn't around to reply to review comments anymore. Hog Farm (talk) 15:44, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

logic dictates the editors who contributed to the article in question[2] per their overall contributions should be the one(s) to take article to GA...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:59, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

The nominator is a blocked troll whose only edits to the article were to edit war over an image, and at a glance the article contains a fair amount of unsourced and outdated material. I think it would be best to just remove the nomination. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 17:52, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Nomination tag removed, I'd been directed to take it here at the WP:GAN talk page. Hog Farm (talk) 02:44, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

More coronavirus

There's a lot of eager editors adding the latest news of each experimental treatment of Covid-19. Some help reining in edits to conform to MEDRS would be useful. See Talk:2019-nCoV_acute_respiratory_disease#Management_content_dispute for the latest example. Bondegezou (talk) 22:23, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

have watchlisted--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:52, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

XX male syndrome article -- female genotype

XX male syndrome (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Some back and forth going on between Natureium and Maneesh over this -- whether or not to use the "female genotype" terminology. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:09, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

• give opinion(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:09, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Gender dysphoria article discussion

Please see Talk:Gender dysphoria beginning with Let's move away from U.S.-centric articles (DSM-5 vs. ICD-11) for the debate.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 06:49, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

2019-nCoV acute respiratory disease listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for 2019-nCoV acute respiratory disease to be moved to COVID-19. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 23:52, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

About the different versions of Template:Shock_types

There are 2 versions of Template:Shock_types. user:Opaque nociceptive neurons and I have different ideas about the preferred version. I would like to know your opinion for this.

• Version 1: The Underlying causes of each Shock types are listed. It is the current version and the version before 20 July 2019‎. (That version was built from Exert yourself). user:Opaque nociceptive neurons prefers this version because it "was comprehensive."

• Version 2: The Underlying causes of each Shock types are NOT listed. It is the version between 30 July 2019‎ and 15 February 2020. I prefer this version because the underlying cause will be described in the article.

--Wolfch (talk) 15:03, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

• Navigation pane allows people to see things at a glance. Also, for the sake of people's time, I have reported the issue at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#WP:Harassment.--Opaque nociceptive neurons (talk) 16:15, 16 February 2020 (UTC)