Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ryzhou (talk | contribs) at 19:06, 12 January 2015 (→‎Invitation to Participate in a WikiProject Study: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcut

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.

List of archives
Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine
Recent changes in WP:Medicine
Articles and their talkpages:

Not mainspace:

 Top  High  Mid  Low  NA  ??? Total
 100  1,109  11,527  38,659  19,903 1,100  72,398 
List overview · Lists updated: 2015-07-15 · This box:

Mechanisms (or biology) of disease?

I've drafted a MEDMOS proposal (permalink) regarding one of our section headings. I realize that the timing of this proposal may seem a bit perverse following the recent heading change. I'd just like to reassure everyone here that I have no particular axe to grind and I'm not trying to "push through" anything. I just feel that terminological appropriateness is relevant to the encyclopedia, and needn't necessarily conflict with accessibility considerations. 109.158.8.201 (talk) 12:30, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"biological mechanisms"[1] ?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:19, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pathophysiology is the only correct term for this. I know we would like to simplify technical terms for readers, but this cannot be done at the expense of factual accuracy. -A1candidate (talk)
Sure, appropriate use of terminology is important (imo, at least...). But so is effective communication with our general readership, including accessibility considerations. If we scare off certain highly relevant categories of reader (eg patients and those close to them), then in some ways we hinder rather than help provide reliable information freely to all. Research is being conducted by HenryScow and others on what members of the general public actually do when they come to "read" these pages. I can't help wondering to what extent lay readers actually get to or get our information on disease mechanisms (even the admirably succinct Lung cancer section). Could there be a rationale for directing interested readers to specific sub-pages along with carefully crafted pages containing lay-friendly explanations of more general topics such as carcinogenesis (without immediately invoking a "blebbishield" level of detail), while providing on the parent page only information that is reasonably[?] digestible to a sizable portion at least of the lay reading public? Perhaps such an approach (per WP:SUMMARY) might ultimately also facilitate encyclopedic expansion of non-clinical content? 109.158.8.201 (talk) 12:32, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This section should also include pathogenesis. A widely understood term that encompasses both pathogenesis (molecular) and pathophysiology (cellular) is mechanism. Boghog (talk) 14:02, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To combine two of these responses: The "correct term" depends on the content of the section. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:46, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WAID, I agree with that, but I'm not sure all the FA folk (for instance) do. How prescriptive is MEDMOS intended to be? For some, it seems, very. Is that just their interpretation of the processes? Or is that how we're really *supposed* to operate here? 109.158.8.201 (talk) 17:16, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I usually expect the FA folks to be able to read guidelines, and WP:MEDORDER begins with this statement: "The following lists of suggested sections are intended to help structure a new article or when an existing article requires a substantial rewrite. Changing an established article simply to fit these guidelines might not be welcomed by other editors." "Suggested" means "suggested". It does not mean "required", "mandatory", "practically mandatory", "optional in theory but required in practice", or any similar prescriptivist idea. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:53, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Aha... But is there general consensus on that? A question for a new section perhaps (either here or at wt:medmos)? Editors need to know. 109.158.8.201 (talk) 13:07, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there are sections that should be simplified to aid readabiliy. Taking Lung cancer#Pathogenesis as an example (since you've mentioned this), it is possible to summarize and simplify the section in this manner:

Just like many other cancers, lung cancer is often caused by long-term exposure to carcinogens that result in DNA sequence changes. Some of these mutations may lead to the activation of tumor promoting oncogenes such as K-ras and the overexpression of epidermal growth factor receptors (EGFR). Both processes are associated with a significant percentage of certain types of lung cancers. For example, K-ras mutations are present in 10–30% of all lung adenocarcinomas. However, epigenetic changes are also known to play a key role as they affect gene expression and may lead to inactivation of some tumor suppressor genes such as p53 and RB 1.

As you can see, it's not difficult to summarize the text into a single paragraph. I believe the above paragraph could be well-understood by any reader with a sufficient amount of basic education. The rest of the information should be moved to a seperate article ("Pathology of lung cancer"). The actual difficulty lies in finding trained medical experts to do the work. -A1candidate (talk) 14:25, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I fully concur with A1candidate's general strategy. At the same time, I suspect the text may still (at first reading at least) be largely impenetrable to most of the members of the general public who consult Wikipedia – though hopefully they'll find that other parts of the page assume less background knowledge. Would it be well-understood by the majority of those readers who specifically want to find out something about the biology of the process? I just don't know... And what would we consider to be "a *sufficient* amount of basic education"? Imo, that would be the level of background knowledge possessed by those readers who are interested in finding out about these matters (per WP:AUDIENCE, I think). (@Axl: I selected the page because of its merits.) 109.158.8.201 (talk) 17:04, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I also agree about the human resources issue and the need to mentor rather than discourage potential good new contributors – though valid medical writers/editors don't necessarily have to be *experts* in anything in particular. 109.158.8.201 (talk) 17:42, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Since 109.158.8.201 has pinged me and A1candidate has commented on the section in "Lung cancer", I shall respond.
Until six months ago, the "Pathogenesis" section was rather basic. (The old version is here.) In July 2014, Wiki CRUK John posted an external review. One of the comments was "Pathogenesis needs more explaining". On that basis, I expanded the section to its current size. Axl ¤ [Talk] 00:15, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Unlike most writing on diseases, Wikipedia tries to address the full spectrum of audiences. The shortened draft above omits a good deal of detail that part of our readership would understand, & I agree with 109 that it is optimistic to think that a mass-audience will get much out of most of the short version, unless "a sufficient amount of basic education" includes some university level biology. These sections are among the most difficult to make accessible as they require a basic understanding of the science that a general audience simply doesn't have. These are very tricky issues to get right - if that's actually possible. I don't agree that the short section as is should be moved out to a new article, unless a lot more was added. Some of the wording in the short version could usefully be worked in to the existing text though. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 10:31, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

as stated above, it would be best to "simplify technical terms for readers", however, biological mechanisms can be used/mixed with other more specific terms , while not endangering the intent of the article, paragraph or sentence--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:27, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox Templates is Missing a Template

Hi, I think that infobox templates should include one for Cosmetic Procedures. This is for procedures such as male circumcision and plastic surgery. Many pediatric organizations in the world think that male circumcision has no medical benefit, so the procedure (in these regions ) would be primarily cosmetic or religious. I think that cosmetic would be the best word here.

I work primarily on the male circumcision page. Based on the information I have obtained I have learned that this procedure has varying medical benefit dependent on which country you are observing. For some nations it does have a benefit, for others it is insignificant. It would help if we had an infobox for cosmetic on the infoboxes page. This would better help represent the procedure on the page for male circumcision. I also think that having a cosmetic infobox would help the overall medical literature on Wikipedia. There are medical practices, such as plastic surgery, that are performed by medical professionals for primarily cosmetic reasons.

JohnP 19:20, 28 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnPRsrcher (talk • contribs)

JohnPRsrcher We should use the infobox for surgical procedures without giving the suggestion that it is cosmetic or therapeutic. Infoboxes are meant to be WP:NPOV, and your suggestion runs the real risk of getting a whopping edit war over an infobox. JFW | T@lk 20:46, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. But this is neutral, because many circumcisions would be classified as cosmetic by country's major pediatric organization's policy guidelines, while others are therapeutic in the case of medical interventions or if the country finds circumcision to be a cost effective intervention to prevent certain diseases. This is supported by the policy statements regarding circumcision from most of the world's organizations. In the US, neonatal circumcision may still be defined as therapeutic because circumcision is a cost effective procedure for reducing some diseases; however, this is not the same in Canada, Australia, the Netherlands, or Britain. We need to have an infobox labeled cosmetic so that the procedure is labeled as both a cosmetic procedure and intervention. This is due to the fact that it can be either of these things in different cases.

This would be neutral since the policy guidelines in Australia, the Netherlands, Britain, and Canada have already labeled infant circumcision in the most cases as cosmetic; so the procedure is already both cosmetic and therapeutic and as a result we should label it as such.

JohnP 02:15, 29 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnPRsrcher (talk • contribs)

JohnP, are you aware that readers don't see the name of the infobox? Calling it "Infobox cosmetic surgery" is just as invisible to them as calling it "Infobox stupid idea" or "Infobox 2409".
The more important problem is that we don't actually want to have two separate infoboxes that contain the same list of parameters. "Infobox something" and "Infobox copy of something because I don't like the name" is inefficient and causes maintenance problems. It's so widely agreed to be a bad idea that it is one of the very few grounds for speedy deletion of a template (WP:T3).
Finally, this has the potential to cause pointless drama and edit wars at the many articles about procedures that are used both for cosmetic and for non-cosmetic purposes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:08, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To the first argument. Yes I am aware that readers don't see the infobox, still it is important that we label the procedure by what it is classified as according to law. In many areas the law says that it is cosmetic, so shouldn't we also add a label to indicate that it is cosmetic?

In addition, I don't see any infoboxes on the page that would be interpreted as a copy of cosmetic. It's entirely individual. The only other infobox that is really related to it is intervention. This would make it never be deleted, and applicable to medical procedures that need it.

This does not have the potential to cause drama and edit wars. Once we have the infobox I will propose to add it to the circumcision page. The consensus of the other editors will determine if it is added or not.

In addition, it has one added benefit. Plastic surgery can be classified as a medical procedure with its own infobox.

JohnP 03:27, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

JohnPRsrcher I strongly suggest you do something more productive. Both myself and WhatamIdoing have told you that this is a guaranteed dispute. You have already been warned about edit warring on the circumcision page. People will disagree with you on this one.
I would also suggest that we close this thread now, because you are not likely to get support for your suggestion at all. JFW | T@lk 08:18, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I second that, logic and objectivity dictates there is no reason to pursue this--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:16, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"it is important that we label the procedure by what it is classified as according to law." — No. It is important that readable article content classify it according to the many views presented in reliable sources, not just the legal views. What happens in the infrastructure is unimportant.
If editors really want an infobox on that article (and they might not want one), then use whatever infobox you would use on articles about breast surgeries, which are also legally defined as both cosmetic and medically necessary, depending on the circumstances. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:55, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I also see no point in adding an indication of 'cosmetic', whether in a new infobox or a field in an existing infobox. As JohnP said, the "procedure is already both cosmetic and therapeutic", therefore adding a yes/no indicator would be pointless and encourage edit warring.
If you think it is relevant to readers what countries consider it as cosmetic vs therapeutic, it may make sense to compile the data into a list of countries page. Mamyles (talk) 17:06, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly breast surgery is listed as an intervention even though it in reality is both cosmetic and an intervention. It's the same for a nose job as well (rhinoplasty.) Just wanted to point out that a lot of our surgeries aren't classified correctly. Mamyles I'm not trying to add a yes or no indicator, rather you should be able to just use both infoboxes. WhatamIdoing JFW

JohnP (talk) 02:03, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How about this: you could just add an infobox for intervention/cosmetic. Then we could just use this infobox. Also other pages could make use of it.

JohnP (talk) 00:53, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dyslexia upgrade effort under discussion

There is currently an upgrade discussion effort at Talk page for User:Zad68 for the Dyslexia medical article following the ICD-10 reclassification. Interested editors are invited to join the discussion there. Cheers. FelixRosch (TALK) 17:29, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

After some frustration, I've finally managed to find this discussion. To save others the trouble, it's at User talk:Zad68#Your interest in medical articles. —Shelley V. Adams ‹blame
credit› 00:27, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok things went down hill fast in this case... can we get some eyes over at Talk:Dyslexia#‎Merger with Alexia please. -- Moxy (talk) 01:08, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion is continuing as stated above for all interested parties on Dyslexia at User talk:Zad68. FelixRosch (TALK) 21:17, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
…and Talk:Dyslexia. Re: ICD-10, apparent edit war, Merge of Alexia into Dyslexia. —Shelley V. Adams ‹blame
credit› 20:35, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

those that are interested, can now go down to the "Dyslexia" section, towards the bottom of this page to contribute. thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:57, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Layout error

There is a layout problem - the bullet points are superimposed on the image. Does anyone know how to fix this? Thanks. Matthew Ferguson 57 (talk) 10:39, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

THey look fine using google chrome. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:48, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes normally I use chrome and never noticed this problem before. But using IE now the layout is broken. Maybe is browser-dependent. Matthew Ferguson 57 (talk) 10:51, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am currently using Internet Explorer. The bullet points are indeed overlying the left-aligned images. (Sorry, I don't know how to fix this.) Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:01, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm using IE 8 and it looks fine to me. NW (Talk) 14:42, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The bullet points have moved slightly, but they still appear superimposed over the image... Matthew Ferguson 57 (talk) 16:23, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The "problem" is that {{multiple images}} is not entirely perfect. Also, for WP:ACCESS reasons, it was in the wrong place, since content in Section X, including related images, needs to be present in the wikitext for Section X, not at the end of the preceding section.
I've re-formatted them as a proper gallery (showing multiple related items is one of the officially accepted uses of a gallery), and made them larger. I'm not sure about the "hover" setting; if it's too glitzy for you, then feel free to remove "-hover" from the gallery tag (leave "packed", or the size setting will stop working correctly). WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:11, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They also look fine in Firefox, what version of IE are you using? Not sure which versions are supported by MediaWiki (main page). Maybe it should be brought up there seeing as most browsers are displaying it properly it shouldn't be an issue with the template but rather with the rendering of something like Module:HtmlBuilder that doesn't work with certain version of IE. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 23:58, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That said the new solution looks better, but sending a bug report might be a good idea anyway, seeing as they are often happy to get them and few actually send reports. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 00:01, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"what version of IE are you using?" A version that the UK National Health Service can afford. Some sort of server edition, I think. Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:19, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The help menu will have an About entry that will tell you. LeadSongDog come howl! 07:54, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Version 9. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:47, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedian-In-Residence at NIOSH

Hello WikiProject Medicine! I wanted to let you all know that I'm the new Wikipedian-in-Residence at NIOSH, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. Usually I edit as User:Keilana but for the purposes of this project, I'll be using this account. There'll be a COI notice on my user page and a soon-to-come WikiProject NIOSH/WikiProject Occupational Safety and Health, so if you have any interest in these topics, many new resources will be coming your way! Watch this space for more details. :) Best, Emily Temple-Wood (NIOSH) (talk) 21:04, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats Emily. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:36, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent news, Emily. :)) 86.181.67.166 (talk) 23:28, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
welcome--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:42, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Emily Temple-Wood (NIOSH) Keilana Hurray, well done! We can definitely do with more content about occupational health and safety, particularly with conditions that affect people of working age. JFW | T@lk 23:19, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also congrats! Wiki CRUK John (talk) 10:12, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Starting back with a bang

Hey everyone. Up until 6 months ago I was editing here frequently but I took a Wikibreak for a while due to worklife. I came back last week to help with an article and (of course) within 2 days of starting someone decides to add a bunch of commercial stuff to the Dental implant article. Six months away and the article stayed clean then within 2 days of returning I'm in an edit-war with what appears to be a company that wants their stuff on the page! I removed the material and left a message on the user page, but it's been replaced. Can someone else take a look at the article and User:FixtTeeth. They openly say it's a procedure they're plugging, so I think it's just lack of knowledge. Sorry for the drama so soon. Ian Furst (talk) 15:21, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Great having you back. Have watched. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:08, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User has been indef-blocked for spamming. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:58, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks everyone. Ian Furst (talk) 02:24, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Need some help with opening a few articles

Hey guys, I want to add a section about the history of Relapsing polychondritis but I can not open the oldest articles about this on Pubmed. Can anyone have a look and send them to me by wikipedia or e-mail me at e.m.w.vanderveen@students.uu.nl

The articles I am looking for:

If you have any other idea about this, that would be welcome also Thank you very much! EllenvanderVeen (talk) 19:29, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We should try to use recent reviews that discuss the history of the condition rather than try to interpret really old articles ourselves. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:58, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree on that actually, unforturnally I have searched hours and hours for it and only found secondary news articles about it. like this one: http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/331475-overview Or a little older from the 60's like this one: http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1177828 So I thought that the best thing I could do is look at those articles and see if the secondary articles are right. I don't know, what do you think I should do? EllenvanderVeen (talk) 20:48, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I tried too,(do what Doc James says get recent reviews)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:00, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Textbooks via google books are often useful for this. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:24, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Here we are [2][3][4] and there are more. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:28, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh thanks guys, yes I will have a look at these links. I will also look in the Uni library next to my house, didn't even think of that, sure there are some books about it. Thx for the good criticism, I appreciate it! EllenvanderVeen (talk) 22:30, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One small suggestion is that MAGIC syndrome should be mentioned and linked in the article somewhere. Matthew Ferguson 57 (talk) 00:16, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Bulleted list item

Mindfulness

Having a discussion about it for the presentation of anxiety disorder here. My concern is that the articles discuss anxiety rather than anxiety disorder. Do people consider that sufficient? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:59, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

UpToDate says:

"Mindfulness-based (ie, nonjudgmental observation of moment to moment experiences) psychotherapies have been shown to be efficacious in decreasing anxiety symptoms in an uncontrolled study of individuals with GAD and panic disorder. Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) combines mindfulness with acceptance of internal states and orientation of actions towards valued goals....A preliminary randomized trial of 16 patients supports the efficacy of an ACT approach for GAD."

So yes, it may be sufficient for GAD, pending further studies and reviews. -A1candidate (talk) 22:12, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes we already state it is effective for treatment. This is a discussion of prevention. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:23, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
None of the sources mention anything about prevention, so the statement "currently there is no evidence on the effectiveness of preventive measures for GAD in adult" should remain. -A1candidate (talk) 23:04, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
by maintaining it, how would this add in a positive manner to the article ?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:20, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If none of the sources even mention prevention, then we cannot say that there is no evidence, because that would be a WP:NOR violation. If no source mentions the subject, then we don't mention it either. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:57, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
One of the sources specific says "currently there is no evidence on the effectiveness of preventive measures for GAD in adult" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:00, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weird and funny category

Sorry for adding so many questions haha, but I found this interesting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Autoimmune_diseases Look at J, Joelle. It is a person, and she has an autoimmune disease, but should we add her to that list? It seems a bit off compared to the rest. What do you guys think? EllenvanderVeen (talk) 21:27, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we should add a sub-category or another category about persons with autoimmune diseases? EllenvanderVeen (talk) 21:29, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We already have a few sub categories for people. Yes we need one for all the people. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:42, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Category:People with alopecia universalis exists. A category for people with autoimmune diseases would be dauntingly broad. Maralia (talk) 21:56, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why that couldn't become a subcategory, along with the lupus and multiple sclerosis people categories, and have created Category:People with autoimmune disease (with the title chosen in analogy to Category:Deaths from autoimmune disease). Huon (talk) 22:06, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think that is a great idea Huon! EllenvanderVeen (talk) 22:12, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, it is all fixed now (thank you Huon!), have a look here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Autoimmune_diseases EllenvanderVeen (talk) 22:41, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome, Ellen. This is a great place to post questions and to ask for all kinds of help. Generally speaking (always use your best judgment, etc.), we try not to put living people in this type of category unless the disease is an important (public) aspect of their lives. If it's not a typical component of sources about the person, then I wouldn't add the category. Also, it really needs to be mentioned (and sourced) in the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:55, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

dyslexia

hi, im helping out on the dyslexia article[5] (after it had some issues [see above]) however I myself could use some help, whether its editing, proofreading , etc, theres no one else at the article (additionally I do the ebola/west Africa article), thank you for your time--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:18, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'll add it to my watchlist and do a copy edit. Cheers, Basie (talk) 20:50, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:57, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Acupuncture arbitration request

WikiProject Medicine members may be interested in taking a look at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Acupuncture, a new case request filed yesterday. NW (Talk) 14:26, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just opted to try out this new Contributors link on medical articles. Right now it's awful. The problem is that you're relying on XTools, which is an incredibly flaky tool. Sometimes a person is lucky and can connect to it but more often the connection hangs or doesn't display everything.

Even if the connectivity problems to XTools are resolved, the contributors - which are supposed to be the main reason for the link - are displayed way at the bottom of the page. If you're going to display all of the article stats then it would be better to call the link "Article stats" because "Contributions" is misleading.

Honestly, if you must have a Contributions link (and I'm not convinced that it's necessary), you'd be better off having an overlay come up populated by something that works all the time. Ca2james (talk) 21:34, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

its down, most of the time, I complain to the "village pump/technical"--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:38, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The idea was to encourage professionals and academics to contribute to wikipedia and feel they would get some personal credit. Matthew Ferguson 57 (talk) 22:59, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Background links on this are here:

Agree that work is required before it is expanded beyond a single article. We need to rearrange the page in question to put authorship/editor stats first and we need work to make it more reliable. I have a programer who is interested in this work but we have not had the time to develop it further yet. Even though we have universal support within this project Wikipedia wide support has been lukewarm. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:11, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More background is at Wikipedia:Wikicredit. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:51, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't make sense to change the Article stats page for your own needs because that page already has a purpose: to list overall article statistics. It would be better to either use the output of Article stats to display what you want or, better, to create your own page from scratch.
I completely understand the general lukewarm response to this proposal: contributor information is already listed on the History tab, the number of edits may not the best way to determine who is at the top of the list, and putting the contributors out there like this seems to be at odds with the collaborative nature of Wikipedia and may encourage ownership of articles. Ca2james (talk) 16:42, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also like to add that IMHO this trial has been badly run as there were no clearly defined parameters for it. We have Doc James saying only one article is affected, Michael Chidester saying there was consensus to try it on a couple of hundred articles, and in reality there are 5965 articles affected. There was no discussion of start and end times for the trial and and there is no clearly defined central discussion place for feedback. In fact, there was no broad consensus to run the trial at all and the discussion was never actually closed; you all just went ahead and did your own thing because WP:MED supported the idea.
At this point, I think this trial should be ended and the Contributors link removed from all affected articles. You have had quite enough time to decide whether it works and you know, based on feedback at Talk:Heart_failure#Author_link and here, that it doesn't work due in no small part to technical problems. After shutting this trial down, I suggest that you take the time to fix the technical problems and re-propose the trial with clearly defined start/end/article parameters and then wait for someone to determine the consensus and close the discussion before starting it up again. If consensus goes against you, then don't implement this change. Like it or not, WP:MED is still part of wikipedia and is subject to broader consensus. Ca2james (talk) 17:13, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah not exactly. Firstly right now it is on zero articles. The code was one one article. There is a feature that might add it but it does not add it for anyone who do not turn on the feature in question. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:18, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I recognize the significant technical problems which Ca2james describes. I also acknowledge that the limits of this trial are not clearly defined, and recognize the value in having a clearly defined trial. I have no opinion about whether this trial should be ended because I fail to see a claim of harm; I am not expecting any defense or argument, but I would expect someone to state a claim that something is being hurt here with the current tests. This trial is the result of another claim of harm, that contributors do not get meaningful credit in a way that normal people understand, simply ending the trail would harm the stakeholders in its outcome and I wish that a goal could be to balance the needs of all stakeholders. I have no opinion about some consensus versus WP:MED consensus versus site-wide consensus, because I have thought that the footprint of this was small and easily reversible, and I have been happy to support this trial based on what support it has gotten. At this time, I can say that I would support clarification of the experimental schedule including any information about technical development and the creation of a place to report complaints about this. If there is harm happening from this trial, then I would like people to know where to voice their concerns. Perhaps a link to a project page can be built into the template somehow, either on the article page or at least in the code. I would like for this project to avoid seeming forceful because I think it so closely aligns with Wikimedia community values. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:31, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see this anywhere. Has it been turned off? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:50, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WAID, enable via preferences > Gadgets > Testing and development > "A three-month test of a more prominent link to the contributors of a page. Part of WikiProject Medicine." Matthew Ferguson 57 (talk) 18:27, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and if you do not want to see these you can simply de-select it under preferences. It is by default off. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:21, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Doc James, my concerns aren't about whether an editor can turn this option on or off; they're related to the technical problems and, of greater concern to me, what I see as a circumvention of procedure (similar to the concerns I had with the Copy and paste bot, whose scope was extended before the BAG was notified). Is this a trial, or isn't it? If it's a trial, it must end. Without a defined end date and evaluation criteria, it seems like this is being called a trial but it's actually something that is going to be permanent. Ca2james (talk) 16:40, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What technical problems exactly? The proposed trial was this going live. It has never gone live thus no trial has every occurred. AT least not one I proposed. Yes the page linked to needs to be better before a trial can occur. There are still efforts to do this but they will take more time.
With respect to the "copy and paste" detection bot nothing was circumvented. There was support for having the bot go global. There is also support for paid staff to help if needed. Some of your comments in these discussions have been a little off color. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:09, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Quite frankly, it seems that WP:MED will do whatever it wants to do regardless of broader community consensus; it's as though the project sees itself as separate from Wikipedia (a walled garden, as it were), with its own rules and goals.
Although there was WP:MED consensus for the trial, there was no broader community consensus for it and you all just went ahead with it anyways. How can anyone know whether there has been harm or negative feedback for this trial when there's no central place for feedback? Also, if the trial was only supposed to be for three months (according to the Preferences page), then that time is up. Ca2james (talk) 00:15, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"in reality there are 5965 articles affected." I looked at a few of the articles listed, but I did not find a "Contributors" link. Did you actually look at any articles and find such a link? Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:41, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"enable via preferences > Gadgets > Testing and development > "A three-month test of a more prominent link to the contributors of a page. Part of WikiProject Medicine." " I don't see that option at all. (I can see an option for "Mobile sidebar preview".) Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:46, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strange - I have it as the last of 3 options in that section, so the last item on the page. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 11:53, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Axl, if the option is set then each of the 5965 articles in the category show the Contributors link. I don't know why you don't see this option in your preferences. Ca2james (talk) 16:40, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The trial which was proposed was to have this go live on a fixed number of articles but this has never occurred. The potential concerns was that this was going to promote improper editing of Wikipedia. We were going to have 100 articles in which it was "on" and 100 which were controls. There is not nor has there been a trial which I have been involved in running. All there has been is discussion and someone creating a gadget. The gadget does not allow a trial to occur. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:18, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's called a trial on the Preferences page, and people can try it out so to an outsider it looks like a trial whether that's the trial you planned to run or not. The technical problems I refer to are the ones I mentioned in the first post in this section related to the use of XTools. As for my remarks being off-colour, above, when I was referring to the copy and paste bot, you and the bot owners did extend the scope of the bot without having permission to do so: you all asked for permission from the BAG afterwards (and received it) but not before. I know you're trying to improve the medical articles and Wikipedia but when things appear to happen outside of consensus and process it can be a bit frustrating, as I'm sure you understand. Ca2james (talk) 00:40, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You will need to bring up the comment about the gadget being a trial with the person who created it. Yes agree there are technical issues. Xtools is working less well than usual.
The comments I found unusual was this one Also, if you're incapacitated or killed, what happens to that person? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:10, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see how that could be thought of as weird and I apologize for making such an unsettling and odd comment. I try to think of how things will be taken by others but I don't always succeed. To be clear, I wish you no ill will of any kind and I hope you live for a long time. Ca2james (talk) 03:33, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Appreciate it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:37, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User:Ca2james, you might be a bit less frustrated with innovations like this if you read WP:PPP and took it to heart (or WP:NOTBURO, if you want the Official Policy™ version). Wikipedia isn't supposed to be a "jump through the correct hoops" project. It's supposed to be a WP:BOLD one. Trying (and usually failing, but then getting up and trying something else) is how we get things done in the end. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:30, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eicosanoid class

Eoxin could use some love.

@Jfdwolff or anyone interested: The pathway map - File:Eicosanoid synthesis.svg (to the right) - should probably be updated at some point; see Eoxin#Human biosynthesis. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 02:56, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Manual medicine

Anyone know anything about this? Only source is in German. Is this distinct from chiropractic, and is it in fact "an integral part of mainstream scientific medicine" in Germany? Doesn't sound promising. Basie (talk) 11:22, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The German article is poorly sourced, but quite a lot longer. Maybe the best idea would be to alert the German de:WP:MED and ask if they can help verify any of the content. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 11:55, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks CFCF, will do. Cheers, Basie (talk) 04:51, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Changes box

In the box "Recent changes in Medicine" I have reordered the bullets, now Articles are in top. I added a new link for Medicine navigation templates (ca. 625!). This should help editors who follow changes in that area. There is activity in Template talk:Medicine navs. -DePiep (talk) 13:56, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

great idea--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:11, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Diversity

Evaluative diversity was linked from neurodiversity, and when I checked the freely available sources, some of them never mentioned either term, and one was a small primary study. If anyone has time and access to more of the sources, I suspect that the majority of evaluative diversity may be original researach/synth. And/or a general pushing of Simon Baron-Cohen theories, using sources that never mention the terms. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:37, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ANI: [6] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:40, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:John Alexander MacWilliam

Hello again, medical experts. Here's an AfC draft with an active editor. I'm sure it's a notable topic, but there are a lot of statements that need verifying. I have helped with formatting the references, but that's as much as I can do. —Anne Delong (talk) 20:41, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hearing loss

Further thoughts here Talk:Hearing_loss#Changes? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:46, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Substance dependence#Article split into Drug dependence and Drug addiction

This is a WP:MED High-importance & level-4 vital article page split.

Insert your 2¢ if you have any. If anyone objects, propose an alternative; I'm going to follow through with some action to address the problem within a month since I won't let that travesty of an article remain as is. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 13:29, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Elsevier ScienceDirect results mostly out, but more to come?

Over at this page, offering free 1 year subs to Elsevier Science Direct, the initial applications seem to have been processed, and some readers have had good news & some not. I've been told in my joining page "Already Elsevier has agreed to expand the donation of accounts based on the fantastic editor enthusiasm.", and I would urge any editors who have not applied & think it is too late to sign up on the pending/waiting list. So far there only seem to be about 4 further unrejected applicants for the Health & Life sciences section. Applications appear to be being judged strictly on perceived and presented merit, as evidenced by track record, rather than order of signing-up, so take a little time to blow your trumpet, and say clearly which option you are applying for. I helped run the very similar applications process for the Royal Society journals last spring, and everyone suitable who applied within a reasonable time ended with an offer. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 15:43, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Include "Conditions and findings named after foods"?

Since Wikiversity Journal of Medicine is not yet acceptable as a reference itself, its main function is now to be an entry point for texts and images that qualify for inclusion in Wikipedia in their own right. I think that qualification is best discussed even before publication in this journal, and therefore I will now make entries on Wikipedia talk:Wikiversity for new submissions to the journal, starting with the most recently peer reviewed submission, Table of pediatric medical conditions and findings named after foods. Please join its discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Wikiversity#Include "Conditions and findings named after foods"?. Mikael Häggström (talk) 05:50, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like WP:TRIVIA. These lists are kept in social media domains but it doesn't sound encyclopedia. JFW | T@lk 12:58, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
it probably is--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:22, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RfC notification

Hello, there is an RFC related to traditional Chinese medicine: RfC: Is the Nature article an appropriate source for the claim it is attached to?. Diego (talk) 12:47, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Current status, since I suspect that more people who commented over there are watching here than there:
  • There's been a proposal to use WP:INTEXT attribution, in the spirit of compromise. I think it's a laudable proposal, except that the source that's being used to assert that there is no valid mechanism of action is an unsigned opinion piece (not peer-reviewed, not even a news article), and it's kind of difficult to attribute something in-text when you don't know who wrote it.
  • Separately, we've just begun talking about whether a declaration that a medical treatment does (or doesn't) have a valid mechanism of action is "biomedical information", which would make using the opinion piece be a major MEDRS violation even if you could figure out a reasonable way to attribute an unsigned opinion piece to a person. Previously, everyone was distracted by the "pseudoscience" language, and didn't pay much attention to the rest of the sentence (including me).
All of which adds up to: If you looked in a week ago and haven't gone back, then you probably should. The conversation has developed in directions that might surprise you, and people are even trying to find actual compromises. Your idea really might be the one that helps settle the question. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:51, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Teixobactin WP:NOTE?

This article has been created based on primary sources and news articles. As per that there are no WP:MEDRS sources, which begs the question if the article should exist at all? -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 14:39, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Slightly worse, it snuck its way into Drug resistance (gone now). -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 14:42, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, also discussed at Talk:Antibiotics#BBC_News yesterday. Formally, WP:N doesn't require a WP:MEDRS, just a WP:RS. In that sense, then, an article's existence can be justified, but of course it shouldn't make biomedical assertions in the voice of the encyclopedia. That limits the scope somewhat. Something tells me there will be reviews, and soon, so it really won't be a big problem for long. The methodology used for identifying candidate agents is certainly interesting, if nothing else. :-) LeadSongDog come howl! 17:30, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly agree with LeadSongDog. This is an important research breakthrough that deserves mention in Wikipedia. I think we need to start a frank discussion about the scope and limitations of WP:MEDRS which in my view is increasing being misapplied. The scope of Wikipedia is wider than WP:MED and WP:MEDRS. Furthermore even WP:MEDRS doesn't prohibit primary sources. Clearly Teixobactin is notable given its wide spread coverage by reputable news organizations. No medical claims are being made here. What is claimed is there may be future medical applications. The sources cited clearly point out that it will be a number of years if ever before teixobactin or a derivative could become a drug. Boghog (talk) 18:00, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article should be part of WP:chem. Extensive news coverage is sufficient for notability. The definition of primary sources is unworkable, no need to mention it. The compound should not be listed in the antibacterials box. This box should not be present in this article. This discussion should belong in Talk:Teixobactin V8rik (talk) 17:52, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is a potential antibiotic that is under research. As long as we are not saying it is available for human use I am happy with an article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:05, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm already beginning to regret my optimism above. Editors seem insistent on an unqualified lede statement in Vox encycl. that it is an antibiotic, althogh that still rests on a single publication, even if that was in Nature. LeadSongDog come howl! 02:45, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
nature is a top journal, (though it is a primary source)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:11, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We all understand that, but not infallible. LeadSongDog come howl! 13:19, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Split non-human animal content from the Fight-or-flight response article and rename the article?

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Fight-or-flight response (in humans)#Humans. A WP:Permalink for the discussion is here. Flyer22 (talk) 04:45, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New article/emerging news story: Sleeping illness.

Sleeping illness was recently created based on a news item that seems to be getting recent western coverage: BBC, Daily Mail but see also e.g. Siberian Times. Not sure if it's already mentioned somewhere or if a dedicated article is warranted, but there seems to be no consistent common name for the condition: sleeping sickness, illness, disorder, etc. are variously used in press, and certainly MED:MOS sources should be consluted. --Animalparty-- (talk) 06:37, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, & having consluted them this should probably be deleted, at least for now. It is of course nothing to do with African trypanosomiasis, "Sleeping sickness", but might conceivably be Encephalitis lethargica or "sleepy sickness". Sleeping sickness is a disam page. Johnbod (talk) 14:32, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fexaramine‎

could use some eyes on this article. a study was published last week about some mouse studies done with an old compound - huge hype about a "new diet drug" and resulting pressure to write that up in WP. oy. Jytdog (talk) 21:38, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged it for "refs",curious if this article should exist?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:26, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fexaramine‎ is an investigation drug/research tool that has not yet been tested in humans and therefore is outside the scope of WP:MED. It has been mentioned in at least one secondary source (PMID 15330745) and therefore by definition notable. Boghog (talk) 13:45, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see logic needs to be introduced, as your "talk page" for the article itself indicates it is within the scope of Wikipedia medicine and therefore subject to Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles ,it seems to be an agonist of FXR (nuclear receptor) a protein in short, the results must be reproduced with a Western Blot , the kilodaltons of the band in question and intensity must be reproduced .thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:34, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
by the way, your ref is from 2004--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:52, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ozzie10aaaa the article was created around the recent Nature paper and took away the hype-y description of that paper. I went and found the one secondary source that is there and threw up the drugbox. I agree that it maybe shouldn't exist, but it wouldn't survive an AfD b/c too many people would wave at the Nature paper and the press around it. This is not a big deal, I gave up on it actually. Jytdog (talk) 14:52, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can only applaud you for having tried, I cant believe they got this far,--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:54, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Since this article is not within the scope of WP:MED, I have removed the {{WPMED}} project banner from the aricle's talk page. This compound is no longer a drug candidate. However it does remains notable as a research tool. The date of the review article is irrelevant. Once notable, always notable. If you have any doubts whatsoever about whether fexaramine‎ binds to the farnesoid X receptor, please take a looks at PDB: 1OSH​. Boghog (talk) 17:29, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Point of clarification:

  • "Within scope" == participants here want to work together to support the article.
  • "Biomedical information" == subject to WP:MEDRS (irrespective of whether people here want to work on the article)
  • "Medical article" == subject to WP:MEDMOS (also irrespective of whether people here want to work on the article)

These are completely separate considerations, and the presence or absence of the {{WPMED}} banner does not tell you anything about the applicability of the two guidelines. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:15, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pharmaceutical industry article

Two months or so back I started a major rewrite of this article (still only half done). As summarized on the article Talk page, there are now some objections to some of these edits. Would appreciate the groups input. I think the arguments for and against are well summarized on the article Talk page and so will not attempt to influence anyone by further comments here. Thanks. Formerly 98 (talk) 22:16, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Watching! Jytdog (talk) 15:18, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Continued navbox discussions and cleanup

A wide-ranging cleanup effort of many navboxes under WPMED and WPANT is planned. Discussions include regarding titles, colours and more. If interested please contribute here. Also feel free to identify any navboxes under the scope of WPMED that need some cleanup here. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:59, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rant and counter-rant on Jimbo's talk page:" "Lunatic charlatans" and MEDRS"

User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#.22Lunatic_charlatans.22_and_MEDRS, MEDRS, WP medical style, medical research .... Wiki CRUK John (talk) 13:43, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

oy, the section above that is hard to read. The alt med people are really pushing. Jytdog (talk) 15:52, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Safety of electronic cigarettes needs eyes

An editor is insisting that material cited to this position statement by the American Association for Cancer Research and American Society of Clinical Oncology needs to be either removed or qualified because a minority of the authors have previously received money or honoraria from various pharmaceutical companies (see this diff for an example of what they are proposing). I have never seen this done before, can we have some outside input as to whether this is appropriate? Thanks. Yobol (talk) 04:34, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nice canvassing. AlbinoFerret 05:13, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Albino, posting to relevant WikiProjects is not canvassing. I'm pretty sure this conversation has been had already some time ago. Since this is about medical sources, this is about as relevant as it gets and is plenty appropriate. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:29, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm staying out of the actual article, but per WP:MEDRS, "Do not reject a high-quality type of study due to personal objections to the study's inclusion criteria, references, funding sources, or conclusions." That doesn't quite cover this case exactly, but the spirit of it should be clear where we are not be be engaging in original research. There is a point where digging into author affiliations at this level becomes a form of original research or even axe grinding at it's worst, not to mention a red herring. In scientific sources, peer-review and statements by professional organizations are vetted in some fashion by the publisher, so we normally don't consider such statements to have a financial conflict of interest even in such an example as this. If something was indeed biased with a source we generally consider reliable, we'd need another reliable source to demonstrate that the statement was incorrect and biased because of previous involvements. Otherwise, a diff like you provided would be undue weight as we're not in a position to determine whether the authors were unduly influenced or not. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:29, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If these companies had directly funded the position statement than yes there could be justification. But there is no indication that they funded the position statement. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:08, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The former example is a really interesting idea I hadn't thought of. If it were funding for a study done by a university that was peer-reviewed, we wouldn't be scrutinizing the funding source (as Wikipedia editors at least) because there's enough separation. For a position statement though, it seems like we could get into a big gray area depending on circumstances. Are you basically saying that we'd need a smoking gun (source) showing that the position statement itself was prodded along by outside funding, but that the authors simply having previous affiliations wouldn't quite be something we could use in that context? That's at least my general take on it, so I'm curious if that's where you're drawing the approximate line too. Kingofaces43 (talk) 07:02, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A fairly amazing discussion regarding "position statements" from major organizations not being usable on WP Talk:Electronic_cigarette#Policy_Statement_from_the_American_Association_for_Cancer_Research_and_the_American_Society_of_Clinical_Oncology Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:55, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the source is a WP:MEDRS and its content due. Hard to think of anything that could be more "on point" for this topic as things stand. I'd have no objection to attributing to the originating organizations though (if anything that enhances its credibility to our readers). Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 08:19, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
be it "e-cigarette" or anything else, it is always "disturbing" when a company is (possibly) involved--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:42, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1986 review

A user is repeatedly adding a 1986 review [7] which does not appear to be supported by more recent articles.

Discussion is here [8] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:07, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fixing categories

Does anyone know how to fix these categories? [9] There is a category with a capital S and a low case s. Not sure how to merge. Need to fix this to get this table to work [10] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:00, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Doc James: What exactly do you need changed in the titles? Write it out in a "change X to Y" format and I'll deal with it. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 17:29, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See the below post about Wikidata. Probably categories on all Wikimedia projects will be managed there in a few years. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:31, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh... wait, you just want the capital S in "Sanitation" changed to "sanitation" in all the category names? Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 17:33, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In the event you want to do it yourself, you'd need to follow the instructions as listed here: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion#Speedy_renaming_and_merging. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 17:37, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A typical Wikidata health discussion

At d:Wikidata:WikiProject Medicine a common skill among volunteers is being able to manage databases and hierarchies. It is less common for the volunteers to have experience in the fields of information which they are managing.

A typical discussion is happening now and needs comment. Users are seeking a term for "surgical procedure that makes a temporary incision in the musculoskeletal system" so that all such surgical procedures which have Wikipedia articles in any language may be grouped together. Right now the term being used is "musculoskeletal otomy", which might be a made-up term, or might be a term used in technical sorting or by non-English speakers. Anyone who has input into this discussion can comment at d:Talk:Q15636253. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:30, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to Participate in a WikiProject Study

Hello Wikipedians,

We’d like to invite you to participate in a study that aims to explore how WikiProject members coordinate activities of distributed group members to complete project goals. We are specifically seeking to talk to people who have been active in at least one WikiProject in their time in Wikipedia. Compensation will be provided to each participant in the form of a $10 Amazon gift card.

The purpose of this study is to better understanding the coordination practices of Wikipedians active within WikiProjects, and to explore the potential for tool-mediated coordination to improve those practices. Interviews will be semi-structured, and should last between 45-60 minutes. If you decide to participate, we will schedule an appointment for the online chat session. During the appointment you will be asked some basic questions about your experience interacting in WikiProjects, how that process has worked for you in the past and what ideas you might have to improve the future.

You must be over 18 years old, speak English, and you must currently be or have been at one time an active member of a WikiProject. The interview can be conducted over an audio chatting channel such as Skype or Google Hangouts, or via an instant messaging client. If you have questions about the research or are interested in participating, please contact Michael Gilbert at (206) 354-3741 or by email at mdg@uw.edu.

We cannot guarantee the confidentiality of information sent by email.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine&oldid=642193114"