Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) at 06:37, 4 December 2021 (Fixed Lint errors in signatures. (Task 2)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Anatomical structures' list

We would like to activate Wikiproject Anatomy. That's why I'd like to move Anatomical structures' list to Anatomy project. Comments? NCurse work 15:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I moved it, but my question is whether I should live the same list here or not? NCurse work 20:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I moved it to a new subpage on the Anatomy Project, by the way. And I hope to devise a list of articles based on the Terminologia Anatomica, which will be a lot larger than the current list. --Mauvila 23:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Article needs emergency surgery

Catamenial Pneumothorax. Cheers! - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I put the article into Medicine portal Things you can do box. Hope it will help. :) NCurse work 18:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

New changes

I have plans with this project, I try to coordinate work because this project is not too active now. So:

  • I made a stub-sorting page where I collected all medicine related stub categories, templates.
  • I want to organize article lists in a subpage and communicate with other wikiprojects. For example, as a first step I moved anatomy related articles' list to Anatomy wikiproject.
  • I want to reorganize the main page of the project, showing tasks, other projects, subpages, etc...

If anybody has problems with these suggestions, please let me know. NCurse work 19:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Medical Genetics

As you may know, Down syndrome is currently undergoing peer review. One of the reviewers wondered why we were not using the format for clinical medicine for the article. While researching that issue, I came here and was somewhat disappointed that there is virtually nothing in the project concerning Medical Genetics. None of the numerical abnormalities is listed (other than the generic trisomy). Neither is genetic counseling, in vitro fertilization, newborn screening, Cri du chat, etc. There are some diseases with genetic origins (Tourette syndrome, cystic fibrosis, etc.) that are in the "Other diseases" box.

Unless there are objections, I will make a new box entitled "Medical Genetics", move the genetic diseases that are in "Other diseases" there, and fill it with the missing medical genetics articles. Another possibility is that I create the box in the Biology Project under Genetics (with a subsection on Medical Genetics).

I am still struggling with the original issue of whether it is useful to have Down syndrome use the Clinical Medicine template, and if so, how best to do it. If you have any suggestions, post them at Wikipedia:Peer review/Down syndrome/archive1 or Talk:Down syndrome.TedTalk/Contributions 19:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I plan to make a medical genetics wikiproject. I have 2 exams now, and then I start to work on it. Just give me one week. :) NCurse work 06:44, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Ok, maybe it should consist of medical genetics, clinical genetics, genetics disorders. NCurse work 13:35, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Great! I'll put it off, and contribute when you get started with the project. TedTalk/Contributions 15:31, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I think medical genetics idea is a good one. When I return from vacation (currently in a cafe in Moscow!) I am planning on starting a portal for pediatrics. I've noticed that a lot of pediatric diseases (such as genetics) are not well represented here and I would love to set up a nice system! InvictaHOG 16:20, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Great! I hope it will become a good team. :) Have a nice time in Moscow! When I finish the first part of the basics of the project, I tell you. NCurse work 19:49, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Can you all please let me know when you're up and running, for the Tourette syndrome article? Thanks ! Sandy 03:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Of course. Just a few days left. One exam to go... :) NCurse work 09:48, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Please list yourself as interested here. Then the work can begin... NCurse work 13:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
If you have comments on my work, don't hesitate. I'm interested in suggestions. NCurse work 18:38, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Attachment Therapy afd needs expert insights

This afd could do with some expert opinion from the wikiproject wikipedians Bwithh 01:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

There was no consensus on deleting this page. However, there is substantial disagreement between several editors and one editor about the usefulness of this page and what material to include as one contributor appeares to be speaking for a specific group (is a leader and spokesperson for that group: Advocates for Children in Therapy. RalphLender 17:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
this issue seems to have been resolved for now. RalphLendertalk 17:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Medical Genetics WikiProject

I started this project here. Please leave comments, help to create correct guidelines. Thanks. NCurse work 16:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

med-stub split proposal

I've proposed a number of new sub-types here. Comments and additional ideas are welcome. (Offers to help with the heavy lifting even moreso!) Alai 09:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Recently, I started to create these stub types. Any help is welcomed. :)

NCurse work 13:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Attachment therapy / Dyadic developmental psychotherapy

NEW TOPIC (sorry, i don't know how to do this exactly) Can anyone provide help on psychiatric/psychological topics where there is considerable disagreement and an ongoing wrangle about the meaning of evidence-based treatment? I refer to Attachment Therapy and to Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy. A look at the histories of these topics will show intense disagreement and periodic POV claims when contradiction of certain contributors occurs. Attachment Therapy (use caps for both words) is especially sensitive because associated practices have been connected with child deaths and injuries. Thank you-- we have a mediator who is doing his best, but this requires specialized knowledge. Jean Mercer 15:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

There was no consensus on deleting this page. However, there is substantial disagreement between several editors and one editor about the usefulness of this page and what material to include as one contributor appeares to be speaking for a specific group (is a leader and spokesperson for that group: Advocates for Children in Therapy. Jean Mercer engaged in behavior that was self-promoting (putting her own reference in the listing). RalphLender 17:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
The only disagreement about Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy is that created by Mercer...and some by her colleague and fellow leader of Advocates for Children in Therapy, Sarner, who was banned from the Barrett article and "soft-banned" from the Bowlby article. We see the same conflict now being repeated on the attachment therapy page and maybe moving to other pages. Your intervention would be helpful. RalphLender 17:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
this issue seems to have been respolved at this time. Several experts chimed in and the conflict seems to have ended. RalphLendertalk 17:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Lancet citations in Wikipedia

Is there any consensus concerning citations to The Lancet, pre-1990? The original volume numbers were non-standard, and Lancet retroactively changed them in 1990. Specifically, which of these should be used (or, should a different format be used)?

  1. "Classification and nomenclature of malformation (Discussion)". The Lancet. 303 (7861): 798. 1974.
  2. "Classification and nomenclature of malformation (Discussion)". The Lancet. 2 (7861): 798. 1974.
  3. "Classification and nomenclature of malformation (Discussion)". The Lancet (7861): 798. 21 September 1974. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Thanks. TedTalk/Contributions 17:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

The fuller the information on the citation source the better, so using the template:cite journal as you have idealy have full date and volume number. However forcing date links is, I feel unnecessary with date=[[21 September]] [[1974]] is not ideal - either define date correctly using ISO yyyy-mm-dd or split as year and month parameters (later can take day after the month). I would tend favour the current volume numbering, as that is what current readers will search for or, if they have access to the Lancet site, read directly, so

Either:

{{cite journal| date=[[1974-09-21]] | title=Classification and nomenclature of malformation (Discussion)| journal=The Lancet| pages=798| volume=303| issue=7861}}

>"Classification and nomenclature of malformation (Discussion)". The Lancet. 303 (7861): 798. 1974-09-21. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Or 

{{cite journal| year=1974 | month=21 September | title=Classification and nomenclature of malformation (Discussion)| journal=The Lancet| pages=798| volume=303| issue=7861}}

>#"Classification and nomenclature of malformation (Discussion)". The Lancet. 303 (7861): 798. 1974. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help) David Ruben Talk 21:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

And is there a consensus about putting a wikilink in a reference to the (well known) journal? e.g. this one: Fox IJ, Roy Chowdhury J, Kaufman SS, Goertzen TC, Roy Chowdhury N, Warkentin PI, Dorko K, Sauter BV, Strom SC. Treatment of the Crigler-Najjar syndrome type I with hepatocyte transplantation. N Engl J Med 1998; 338: 1422-1426. PMID 9580649 --Steven Fruitsmaak | Talk 12:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

One of my concerns is that PubMed uses the old volume numbering system. As of right now, some of the Lancet references in Down syndrome use the PubMed listing, and some use the ScienceDirect listing (new Lancet volumes). As for wikilinks, I probably should have included that. TedTalk/Contributions 15:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Regarding wikilinks, I normally include them if the journal or reference book has a Wikipedia article (see my current project, Drug-eluting stent). — Knowledge Seeker দ 19:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Medicine-related articles): I've proposed this as a Manual of Style guideline to writing medical articles, please comment on that talk page!--Steven Fruitsmaak | Talk 12:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

Just to inform everyone in this WikiProject, a Barnstar has been proposed in this link right here. Consensus has not been reached, and would really appreciate it if you could give us your opinions.--Ed 13:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Pseudoscience

Please be aware that there is a lot of activity on WP with regards to POV-pushing about quackery, pseudoscience, and the like. Wikipedia:WikiProject Pseudoscience is set up to watch over pseudoscience articles in general, but does not function as a clearing-house for disputes; these would be best taken here. Recent controversies include something about the dental amalgam controversy, and some (I believe baseless) accusations that orthomolecular medicine is pseudoscience. Please help keep WP balanced by keeping an eye out on these and other related topics that draw attention from the "fringe" and "out there" crowds. In the case of orthomolecular medicine, we seem to be dealing with an overzelous debunker who seems to be more quacky than the purported quacks he is fighting off. linas 15:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Plea for help: Orthomolecular medicine

The article on Orthomolecular medicine is currently embroiled in a very verbose, very contentious edit war. A helping hand from rational clear thinkers is needed. Caution: I am finding that a band of kooks and cranks are now attacking me on my own talk page; so getting involved may be hazardous for your nerves. linas 15:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I have a look. NCurse work 15:36, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
As one of the supposed "kooks and cranks" Linas is complaining about, let me state for the record that I would be very happy if knowledgeable medical personnel assist in editing [[orthomolecular medicine|], which until last week, had been entirely under the control of fervent alternative-medicine supporters. The problem on Linas's talk page came when he burst onto the page and threatened a bunch of skeptics with "bans and blocks" because he disagreed with their edits citing mainstream medical sources. I hope he and User:Fyslee patch up their differences, because the two should really be on the same side on most issues if Linas is really a rational skeptic. I certainly consider myself one, and I'm really befuddled why Linas is taking the topsy-turvy position that I'm on the side of kooks and cranks. -- Cri du canard 23:22, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Baldness treatments

Hi everyone, Baldness treatments needs a lot of peer review in its current state. It's near impossible for any lay person such as myself to tell the self-promotional cranks from the real experts and the genuine treatments (especially non-FDA approved one) from the snake oil you'd find in your spam box. One particularly ongoing concern is Pproctor (talk • contribs) who is Dr. Peter H. Proctor. Proctor is linking to scans of academic papers on his own website (www.drproctor.com) as well summaries of his approved patents in this article. I honestly can't tell if he is indeed an expert editors who can rightfully and impartially cite his own research. Duncharris (talk • contribs) is engaged in a slow revert war with him right now and some impartial reviewers would be gladly appreciated. --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  17:27, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Likely, no expert will touch this page. They will look at the discussion page and steer off. The problem is a common one on Wikipedia in technical areas with any hint of controversy. Anybody who knows a technical field well enough to make valid comments is likely to have "Conflicts" and "opinions", as do I. Scientific publications resolve this problem by requiring disclosure. But it just ain't worth it here. Rather than continue to engage in the usual and customary fights, I have just steered off, even in the arms-length way that is allowed for experts and that I have rigorously followed, just giving cites to papers and patents, etc. So the section is just going to stay the way it is. And yes, it is full of factual errors, non-neutral POV's, and OR..
Incidentally, though Wikipedia has very high page rank, as a practical matter a Wiki link out is of no value at all. In theory, it might help with Google ranking. But Wikipedia has millions of out-going links from its 1.4 million pages. This dilutes any transferred page rank to effectively zero. Pproctor 13:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Any nanomedicine experts out there?

The article Transfersome concerns an example of medical nanotechnology. It is currently up for deletion, and a rewrite for readability by any editors interested in medical research or nanotechnology would help. Plus comments at the deletion debate would be good as well. Carcharoth 16:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

One editor has claimed on Talk:Mifepristone that the Mifeprex product label found on the FDA site(PDF) is not copyrighted. I asked for further information and didn't get any, so I am coming here to see if anyone knows about the copyright status of these labels. It would make sense that if it was a government job, then the work would be in the public domain like most US government work. However, if Danco labs is the creator of the label, the copyright might be a stickier issue. Text from the label was "plagarized" into the article, and I changed the text to be cited quotations. Anyway, any information will help.--Andrew c 01:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Have you seen this page? Maybe you can ask the people at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Drugs?--Steven Fruitsmaak | Talk 15:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Key articles for Wikipedia 1.0

Hi everybody! (...)

We at the Work via WikiProjects team for Wikipedia 1.0 would like you to identify the "key articles" from your project that should be included in a small CD release due to their importance, regardless of quality. We will use that information to assess which articles should be nominated for Version 0.5 and later versions. Hopefully it will help you identify which articles are the most important for the project to work on. As well, please add to your Medicine WikiProject article table any articles of high quality. If you are interested in developing a worklist such as this one for your WikiProject, or having a bot generate a worklist automatically for you, please contact us. Please feel free to post your suggestions right here on your projects talk page. Thanks! --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 13:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I've begun editing the list of key medicine articles for W1.0. Review is much welcomed. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 13:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I'll have a proper look. Please give me at least one day. :) NCurse work 20:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Confusion on some articles

I'm having a bit of trouble telling if Globus hystericus and Globus Pharyngis are the same condition. The former is an article I created after hearing the term on Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? when I saw it had none and the latter is one I just recently found. I'm not into medicine or anything so if someone could straighten those out that'd be great.--SeizureDog 20:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes it's the same.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 23:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Reorganizing project's main page

I reorganized the main page, because it was confusing. And created a new announcement template: Template:MCOTWannounce. Comments? NCurse work 07:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I would like to restructure the whole page:
  • article assesment should have an own subpage
  • featured article review, templates, Pages needing attention should be on the main page
  • I would create a requests, reviews box where anybody could ask for help

What do you think? NCurse work 08:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I've made those changes. Please comment. NCurse work 19:49, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Nice. Much better than it was. --WS 20:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Well done with the redesign. Much better organized! -- Samir धर्म 01:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Kudos. Aesthetically, it's very pleasing. Structurally, very well organized (the old version was starting to get a bit crowded). Mip | Talk 10:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Well done! It looks refreshingly nice. But still then somehow it looks incomplete. Its not very clear to the newcomer. First of all the icons need to be sized down. Then the page needs to be categorized into sections. Good luck! -- BDB 12:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
I'll let you know when I'm ready with that. Thanks for the suggestions. NCurse work 16:22, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you all! :) NCurse work 14:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I like the way it looks. Great job. Eilu 15:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments re: Intubation article

Could somebody take a look at the article Intubation please? I removed the content under the headings "Side effects", "Recovery" and "Controversy", for various reasons (see Talk:Intubation). The original editor has reinstated these (albeit with very slightly altered wording), however I'm still not happy. Before I inadvertently start an edit war, I'd quite like others' opinions to make sure I'm not totally off-base.. --John24601 19:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Article assessment

Maybe we should consider changing to articles assessment. With a bot (like in medical genetics project), we could have a list of our assessed articles. I create all needed templates and categories if you agree... NCurse work 09:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

At WP:FAR, we are slowly but surely getting through the list of featured articles with no inline citations, and few inline citations (Wikipedia:Featured articles with citation problems). Contributors here might be able to work on the medical articles before they come under review, since inline citations are now required for FA status.

Tagging talk pages and assessing articles

Wikipedia Assessments within AWB. Click on the image to see it in better resolution

Hi. If you still have work to do tagging talk pages and assessing articles, my AWB plugin might be of interest to you.

The plugin has two main modes of operation:

  • Tagging talk pages, great for high-speed tagging
  • Assessments mode, for reviewing articles (pictured)

As of the current version, WikiProjects with simple "generic" templates are supported by the plugin without the need for any special programatic support by me. I've had a look at your project's template and you seem to qualify.

For more information see:

Hope that helps. If you have any questions or find any bugs please let me know on the plugin's talk page. --Kingboyk 14:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Psychosis

Psychosis is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy 22:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Tree of Hippocrates is a DYK candidate

I've put this article up for DYK, hoping that it will have the same fate as Robinow syndrome did... I'm inviting everyone to improve this article!--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 20:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Assessment

We should focus on article assessment. We are part of WikiProjects participating in Wikipedia 1.0 assessments, and we have the Template:WPMED, so I'll start with the first tables of Article rating. Anyone else wants to join? :) NCurse work 21:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Tuberculosis

Tuberculosis is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy 15:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Tuberculosis is beginning to improve, with effort from User:TimVickers; if others can lend a hand with the issues raised in the Featured article review, the featured status might be salvageable. (Psychosis has now moved to FARC, and you can vote to Keep or Remove its featured status.) Sandy 03:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Participants

In addition to Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Participants, I've noticed that there are at least three other participants lists:

  1. Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Collaboration of the Week
  2. Wikipedia:WikiProject Clinical medicine
  3. Wikipedia:WikiProject Preclinical Medicine/Participants

In order to streamline things around here, would it be possible to consolidate these lists into one? The lists could have various columns (similar to the last one in Wikipedia:WikiProject Preclinical Medicine/Participants) to indicate what specific projects participants may or may not be interested in. Thoughts? -AED 22:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes seems like a good idea, as long a you can still indicate on a common list that you only belong to, let's say, WP:preclinical.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 23:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Great idea, but we must first ask all of the participants in the bigger list whether they want to join all the projects. NCurse work 05:15, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
That's not necessary I think: you could put them in a column which indicates specific interests... It's just a whole lot easier to have a single directory on a single page, but that doesn't mean that someone needs to list himself/herself for every project I think. But you're right if we were just to throw everyone together. I also disagree with JFW: some people just work with one project, have one specific interest...--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 20:36, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Please merge the whole lot. These Wikiprojects have exactly the same aim. JFW | T@lk 19:59, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
A question that I've always had is whether the preclinical/clinical project division is actually needed. I'm not sure where the division originated, but it seems more reasonable to just collapse it into the general medicine and, if desired in the future, allow individual Wiki Projects on, say, histology in keeping with gastroenterology, genetics, and nephrology. I suspect that first year medical students are probably the only people interested in just preclinical medicine and, well, they typically enter the clinical years at some point! Everyone else can contribute to both. In any event, I vote that we merge everything into just WP:MED while we are discussing the issue! InvictaHOG 01:48, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I think both projects are valuable, since some people are only interested in one thing, messages for one group aren't necessarily important for the others... I say we keep the projects.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 12:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't know if the distinction is really useful either. Here's a short history of how it came to be: The original project was started by User:Jfdwolff and grew out of a group of editors working in his userspace (this was before my time). It was called "Clinical medicine" and it was the only medical project. Some time later, User:PhatRita discussed the need for preclinical medicine to have a place to collaborate as well, and set up the preclinical project. The discussions on this also gave me the idea to start the medicine collaboration, which I created at the same time. A little while later, I created the medicine project as kind of an umbrella group, mainly to rate articles and identify areas for improvement. It wasn't my intention at the time for it to take over the role of any other project, though recently it looks like it has greatly increased in scope. — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The following are two options I had in mind. Both would give some indication as to what specific projects the various participants are interested in. (I imagine someone else could do a better job formatting the boxes.) Rather than a list of participants on the "Participants" section of the various pages, perhaps there could be an instruction for people to "register" or indicate interest on the main participant page (i.e. Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Participants). -AED 21:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Option 1:

User name Talk page Special interests or contributions Medical qualification Medicine-related Wikiprojects
NCurse Talk Genetics Medical student WP:MCOTW, WP:PCM
Steven Fruitsmaak Talk Anything, preclinical and clinical. Medical student WP:MCOTW, WP:CLINMED, WP:PCM
Your name Your talk page Your interest Your medical qualification (if any) Your medicine-related Wikiprojects

Option 2:

User name Talk page Special interests or contributions Medical qualification WP:MCOTW member WP:CLINMED member WP:PCM member
NCurse Talk Genetics Medical student Yes No Yes
Steven Fruitsmaak Talk Anything, preclinical and clinical. Medical student Yes Yes Yes
Your name Your talk page Your interest Your medical qualification (if any) Are you a member of WP:MCOTW? Are you a member of WP:CLINMED? Are you a member of WP:PCM?
I prefer option 1, because that would also allow to list other Projects, like for example WikiProject Nephrology. Looks nice!--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 12:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Steven +1! NCurse work 12:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I've got new problems. Should we merge these members into one list? And how? In alphabetic order? And after that, maybe we should send them a message about the new place of the list. It's going to be an enormous job. What if a clinical medicine project member doesn't want to participate in the preclinical work? Is it our task to decide about it? NCurse work 13:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes I think it should be one list.
Alphabetical is a good idea (is there an alternative?).
I would just put a message on the location of the previous list that the list has moved. Or the list could be transcluded on subprojects, or we could put a redirect.
If someone has only listed him-/herself in one project, then we should only list them in that project, like AED has done in the example above. Later on, the participants can change over themselves if they want.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 15:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm OK with all of this. Perhaps there should also be something (i.e. bold or footnotes) to indicate which editors are administrators and which are the Projects moderators. -AED 17:14, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

My alternative solution: we create a new list (option 1 above), and leave a message for every editor on these lists whether they want to list themselves or not. NCurse work 15:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

That would be a good way to weed out who is active and who is not. Another idea is to put everyone into the list, then leave a message asking if they would like to be removed.-AED 17:14, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
It'd be the more complicated solution. In my opinion, leave a message for everyone with the exact place of the new list and then they can decide themselves. The admin-moderator column is a good idea. NCurse work 17:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
In looking over the various participants lists, I see a lot of names of people who haven't contributed to Wikipedia in quite some time. Should there be a guideline stating that inactive Wikipedians may be removed from the list (or have a line drawn through their name after 3 or 6 months? -AED 05:05, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we could talk about it here: #wikipedia-science. I'll be there from now, if you have time. NCurse work 17:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Merging sounds like a good idea, as long as I get to remain first on the list. (Hey, creating both the Medicine Collaboration of the Week and the WikiProject Medicine should count for something, right?) — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm just kidding, by the way. That's just bad KS humor. Alphabetical sounds fine. Though I'm going to have to change my username now. — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Removing inactives is ok if they have been gone for more than a year or so IMO (call me conservative). Moderators: like who??? Admins is a good idea, maybe a column for specific roles; admin, portal maintainer, MCOTW-coordinator and god-knows-what. I strongly oppose against contacting everyone again about listing them as participants: I add other people as project participants, because either you participate or not, there's no sense in not being listed (and after all this is a wiki). May I remind everyone that we have just contacted a lot of people about listing themselves as participants of WP:MED? I say just merge the lot, weed out long time inactives and put a notice on relevant pages that the lists have been merged. Be bold and don't waste time making countless User_talk-edits.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 14:56, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

If we wish people to feel encouraged to sign themselves into the project(s) then the markup table needs be relatively easy. Option 1 has the more complex markup adding in links to the various projects. Also it is the most cluttered with everyones entry linking to WP:MCOTW, WP:CLINMED, WP:PCM - surely just linked column headings would suffice. So my preference is Option 2 (unless anyone cares to persuade me otherwise).
To help people insert themselves onto the list, it might help to provide a copy & paste for newer users:David Ruben Talk 18:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 To add yourself into the table of participants, copy and paste the following markup.
 Change the 3 occurances of '???' for your user name and replace optional '<!-- ... -->' fields
 with details (for the 3 projects respond with 'Yes'): 
   |-
   | [[User:???|???]]
   | [[User talk:???|Talk]]
   | <!-- Interests      -->
   | <!-- Medical quals. -->
   | <!-- ?MCOTW member  -->
   | <!-- ?CLINMED member-->
   | <!-- ?PCM member    -->

David Ruben Talk 18:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

It seems there is a consensus to combine the lists, so I'll probably start doing that shortly. I'll use Option 1, with the understanding that columns can be added to make it like Option 2 should that become the general preference. -AED 01:26, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

RFA

Hi,

for those interested, NCurse is up for adminship, voice your opinion here.

--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 20:41, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Overlap with Psychology WikiProject

I'm a part of the Psychology WikiProject, and I'm trying to decide whether or not psychiatry-related issues should be included in our project. Even though psychiatry is a medical field, it overlaps quite a bit with the field of psychology. Most psychiatry articles (such as those related to mental illnesses) could easily fall under both categories, but I'm not sure whether or not articles specifically about psychiatry (such as the psychiatry article itself) should also be covered by our project. I would like to see what members of this project think about it. —Cswrye 17:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that projects should be rigid or as well-defined. Obviously there's a great deal of overlap in real life with psychologists, psychiatrists, and general doctors all treating the same diseases - sometimes in much the same way. I certainly think that psychiatry is within the scope of WP:MED, though there's not really an active psychiatrist/psychologist that I can think of working under the project. I think that, as long some members of Wikiproject Psychology feels compelled to address some psychiatric articles (even the article psychiatry itself), then by all means they should be supported by the project. Also, we should cross-post any articles which we feel might be of interest to each group (such as the schizophrenia and psychosis articles which are featured but under review). InvictaHOG 18:33, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
I am not a project member (because I'm a layperson), but the Psychology Project has been so uninvolved in some of the overlapping articles as to be invisible. It would be great if they would help out more, and help develop and maintain article to the guidelines at WP:MEDMOS. Sandy 19:15, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree that there can be overlap among projects, so psychiatry articles can legitimately fall under both WikiProjects. Unless anyone objects, I'll go ahead and include them in the list of psychology articles. By including them in the project, maybe we can get more of the psychology people involved in them. —Cswrye 21:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
What/where is this list of psychology articles? Sandy 21:54, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
You can find it at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Psychology articles by quality. —Cswrye 02:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks: that's a troubled list. Four of the top five don't meet current FA standards, and AS recently barely squeaked by FARC. Those articles really could benefit from some sustained attention. Sandy 06:00, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Ophthalmology announcement

Invitation to an excellent beginning: Announcing the birth of Wikipedia:WikiProject Ophthalmology!! Its up and running as part of the medicine project! I hereby invite everybody interested in Vision and Eye care to contribute to the long awaited wikiproject on Ophthalmology. Many thanks to AED for getting this project page working and sorting out the details. For a start, we need a shortcut to point to this page. Here's a readymade manual of style for starting Ophthalmology articles. For the past 4 months, I have been working to add articles, relevant info and clinical images to the current sections of Ophthalmology - am currently looking to get some more input and requests, so that we can get cracking - to get some really good articles, raise them to featured status and turn the project Ophthalmology into a resource which is one of the best in whole of Wikipedia! Cheers!!! EyeMD 05:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations. I'm wondering why your layout doesn't follow WP:LAYOUT and WP:MEDMOS? You have:
  • References
  • Footnotes
  • See also
  • External links

Rather than:

  • See also
  • Footnotes
  • References
  • Further reading
  • External links

Sandy 12:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Done as suggested, thanks. EyeMD 07:45, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Article rating

The Medical genetics project used our article rating system. There, I asked a bot to generate a list for us (assessment project) and now we have an automaticaly updated list, and every unassessed articles are tagged with our templates. I suggest the same here. I make every step required just I need some support votes. :) NCurse work 12:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I've requested a bot help on the assessment work. I'll create a subpage for our old-fashioned article rating and THE article rating page will consist of this list and this statistics. NCurse work 06:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Please help me fixing that list. Categories that are coordinated by other wikiprojects must be removed. NCurse work 18:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I would gladly be of help, but please explain in some more detail what needs to be done.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 14:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok. Our article rating page is old-fashioned, it is hard to use and maintain. I want this project to join to the assessment teamwork. That's why I asked a bot to tag every article our project works on with the unassessed template (WP:MEDGENP) so we'll know exactly which articles we have to rate. In that list you can see the whole medicine category-tree. We must choose categories and subcategories we want to work on. We can't include other medicine-related wikiprojects' categories. That's why we must choose the ones we need. NCurse work 14:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

How to help? Just remove categories that are covered by other medicine-related projects. NCurse work 14:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
And how do we know that? Some WP are very inactive...--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 15:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
In my opinion, we should start with the sure categories. Don't care about the risky ones now, because Betacommand will help us anytime we need. So after the sure ones, we can ask him to finish up with the rest. So two options left:
  1. removing the cats that are not our part
  2. creating a list for the sure ones

NCurse work 15:24, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Pharmaceuticals and psychoactives

I'm not sure this is precisely the right place, but if there's anyone up on their psychoactive pharmaceuticals (I can't even say that three times fast), could they possibly have a look at User:Alai/Psychoactives, and confirm (or deny) if these all appropriate to be restubbed from {{pharma-stub}} to {{psychoactive-stub}}. All are categorised as hypnotics, sedatives, opioids, stimulants, anxiolytics, antidepressants, antipsychotics, psychoactive drugs, alkyl nitrites, mu-opioid agonists, semisynthetic opioids, psychedelics, dissociatives, deliriants, or mood stabilizers (i.e., immediate subcategories of Category:Psychoactive drugs. Alai 05:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Melanome FAC?

I'd like to nominate the melanoma article in FAC. What do you think? I've added a new genetics section. It could be improved. I'd like to get some feedback. Thank you in advance. NCurse work 17:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I've been busy with houseguests: I will look at it as soon as I get a free moment. Sandy 21:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I had a look. I strongly believe the layout at WP:MEDMOS is the best for an encyclopedia, and that it should be followed. Too many Fair Use images. External links needs to be pruned. Can PMIDs or URLs be provided for all references/notes? There are still rather broad patches of text that aren't referenced. 68.199.231.122 23:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Orthodontics

Dear colleagues!

Would you please be so kind to have a look at this Article. A german Doktor (Dr. Risse) removed nearly the complete article by contributions of his german webside wich is an advertisment for his company. Please regard the links, wich are placed by a german IP [1]. See also the discussion in de:Kieferorthopädie.

Sincerely Yours -- Andreas Werle 17:35, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy

I've been involved in a very tedious debate at Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy. It makes claims concerning therapeutic efficacy and evidential basis using a very limited number of credible sources. The vast majority of the references are self-published books, books published in publishing farms, or totally unrelated works. Moreover, members from the APSAC task-force on Attachment Therapy have very recently cast strong doubt on such assertions in Child Maltreatment. http://cmx.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/11/4/381. They even called for a noted proponent of the therapy to remove such claims from his website. The APSAC is a highly credible association as far as I can tell.

Furthermore, claims such as these can be found spread across wikipedia in articles such as Child abuse. This form of therapy has about two peer-reviewed studies to its name (same researcher) and is practiced at about one clinic (associated to the researcher who published the studies). It is the same group of editors that have spread these assertions throughout the psychotherapy related articles.

This is way out of my expertise and I was hoping that someone with more knowledge than I have could address these things. Thanks! shotwell 19:23, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Influenza

Page now nominated as a FAC. Comments and suggestions are welcome on the review page. Thank you. TimVickers 00:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

So sorry not to have commented on time: I've been traveling. I'll catch up on it when I can. Sandy (Talk) 16:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Project directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 00:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

MEDMOS proposal

I posed several questions at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Medicine-related articles). Sandy (Talk) 16:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The Manual of Style (Medicine-related articles) is entering a critical stage: I'm informing people to visit the page, make corrections where possible, and then state there support or disagreements on the talk page, so we can see if there is consensus to turn this proposed guideline into a consensus-supported guideline.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 21:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Proposed guideline

Please weigh in on this discussion: Wikipedia talk:Scientific citation guidelines. It is currently listed as a "science" "guideline", without review of areas such as Medicine and biology. Sandy (Talk) 17:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I think Sandy's comment above could be construed to imply that there was an attempt to sneak the proposal by as a Wikipedia-wide guideline without consulting with other WikiProjects or the Wikipedia community as a whole. As the primary author of the proposal, I didn't ever mean to suggests – nor do I think I have suggested – that it is a guideline with the consensus of all Wikipedia. It was formulated by editors of the Mathematics and Physics WikiProjects after some recent discussions at WP:CITE and WP:V. It has now been agreed upon by the editors of these projects. It was always my my intent to submit it to the other science WikiProjects, which is indeed why I named the proposal "scientific citation guidelines."
In any case, your comments would be very welcome. In particular, the examples are very cosmology-centric, so if any of you can fix them up to make them a little more general, that would be much appreciated. –Joke 19:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, Joke, I have never meant to imply any "sneakiness", and I apologize if my concern has come across that way. I am concerned that the title including "guideline" and "science" was used at WP:CITE, which implied broader consensus than currently exists in the *proposal* run by Math and Physics, but you didn't add the entry to CITE—I have never meant to imply any sneakiness. Best, Sandy (Talk) 20:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Sinus and right auricula

In right auricular appendix, Grey's anatomy states "It projects from the upper and front part of the sinus forward and toward the left side, overlapping the root of the aorta." What does the term "sinus" refer to here? The coronary sinus, the sinus node, or general the interior of the right atrium? Thanks, AxelBoldt 03:10, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it's the third one, the Sinus venosus.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 19:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, that seems right. AxelBoldt 02:05, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Symptom stub

New stub category for symptoms needs support here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Proposals/2006/October#Cat:Symptom.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 19:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I've just put my lung transplantation article online

Hello, I've just put my lung transplantation article online. I still need to learn how to properly cite references, and I intend to do that in the future. In the meantime, I would appreciate some expert contributions to it. Another thing: is there some sort of template to be placed on its talk page? It's taken me quite some time to write this article (and the related lung allocation score and ventilation/perfusion scan articles), and I hope that it shows! Thanks for any feedback. --Kyoko 19:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Categorization project

Hi. I have no specific competence in medicine but I'm working on the backlog of uncategorized articles and I happened to notice that Category:Diseases is a bit of a mess. I think it would be a very worthwhile task for this project to create a good system of subcategories and clean all of this up. For instance, I wanted to categorize Myelophthisis. Hmmm... So where does this go? The best I could do is the top level category of diseases. If you see a finer cat for this one, please add it of course, but generally speaking I think it would be worthwhile to shoot for a "no disease left-behind" objective: the disease category would simply be the parent of finer categories and any article in it would just be waiting for a finer classification, like Category:Writers, Category:Actors or Category:Lists. Pascal.Tesson 21:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

New announce box

I've created a new box for the announcements (Collaboration Dashboard). Comments are welcome. NCurse work 22:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Policy dispute regarding primary sources and OR (requested comment)

Cross posted to WP:RS, WP:OR and Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine. There is a dispute going on at Talk:Depo Provera#Disadvantages and side effects WP:NOR violations. One user found primary sources, reliable journal articles, that said depo provera may do certain negative things. Another user is disputing this, citing original research. The argument, I guess, is that the 1st user is interpreting the source, and drawing conclusions not published anywhere else. The studies only dealt with rats (not humans), and there is nothing in the patient drug information (or any other way to verify the claims outside of the studies in question). The logic goes that making a connection that a study dealing with rats may effect the use of this drug in humans as a contraception is original research. Furthermore, it may be pushing a POV that this drug is unsafe by mentioning these studies (that are not verified outside of the individual study, and not mentioned in patient drug information). I feel like I am repeating myself, sorry. The counter argument is that a) citing primary sources is a good thing b) the claims are cited and verifiable and reliable, fulfilling almost every wikipedia criteria for inclusion. So I guess there are two issues. Is using the information in this manner original research? And is it giving undue weight to a minority view by citing obscure studies like this? Sorry if I am missing anything or misrepresenting a side. Please direct comments to Talk:Depo Provera#Disadvantages and side effects WP:NOR violations. Thanks!--Andrew c 03:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Reorganizing the article rating page

I've reorganized the whole page and changed to the assessment work. Any comment is welcome. And please help assessing article, because there are 1000 unassessed at the moment. I asked Betacommand to tag these categories. NCurse work 08:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Archive_2&oldid=1058548938"