Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine

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

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

• Unsure about something? Make sure to look at our style and source guidelines.
• Please don't shout, remain civil, be respectful to all, and assume good faith.
• Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
• Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~).
• Threads older than 4 days are automatically archived.
• Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Newsletter/Mailing_list

List of archives

Merged Archive WikiProject Preclinical medicine: 1 Merged Archive WikiProject Clinical medicine: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 WikiProject Medicine Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171

Recent changes in WP:Medicine

Articles and their talkpages:

• In all Medicine articles (not talks)
• In articles with Top-, High-importance
• In articles with Mid-importance
• In articles with Low-importance
• In pages with NA, ???=unknown importance
• In the 1000 most popular articles (source)

Not mainspace:

• In all non-articles
• In all templates
• In Medicine navigation templates

Top	High	Mid	Low	NA	???	Total
99	1,103	11,534	38,024	18,710	891	70,361

List overview · Lists updated: 2015-07-15 · This box:

Health claims

We have an interesting situation here Pantyhose#Risks were a bunch of health claims are made using poor quality sources. Attempted to add a Lancet review and a user have removed it twice without joining the discussion here Talk:Pantyhose#Risks. Peoples thoughts? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:02, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Agree that the sources are poor quality. Removed some of them and asked for medical citations compliant with WP:MEDRS. Also asked for a few clarifications with respect to who is making these health claims. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 03:00, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Unusual citation activity in Monoclonal antibody

Would someone please check this series of recent edits? I get worried when I see low volume numbers on things that have plenty of articles in journals with high volume numbers, but maybe that's just me. EllenCT (talk) 01:29, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

they were funky, thanks. fixed. Jytdog (talk) 04:30, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Is a MEDRS suggesting systemic bias suitable to establish noteworthyness of non-MEDRS secondary sources?

Regarding the discussion at Talk:Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing#WP:WEIGHT of new study: "Proximity to Natural Gas Wells and Reported Health Status" (2014), I believe [1] (PMID 24413211) is a WP:MEDRS which may establish the noteworthyness of secondary news source coverage of [2]. If this is incorrect, please explain why.

Also, which articles at 7 are WP:MEDRS? Is 8? EllenCT (talk) 02:44, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

i don't understand what the section header means. As for specific questions... Your link 5 is not an article about health, it is about lobbying/politics/jurisprudence and is indexed that way by medline as you can see here. Your link 6 is a WP:PRIMARY source and not what MEDRS calls for (and notewothyness has nothing to do with MEDRS). your link 7 is a blank search page. your link 8 is WP:PRIMARY and not what MEDRS calls for. Jytdog (talk) 03:23, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

The medline link says the article is a "Review" in Reviews on environmental health and its abstract says "money can buy favors and determine policies that are often counter to the public interest and can even lead to failure to protect the health of the public" (emphasis added.) Is the article about health and lobbying/politics/jurisprudence both? EllenCT (talk) 07:47, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

yes medline reports the title of the article. it doesn't classify it as health-related review - the classifications are jurisprudence, etc as I mentioned above. Jytdog (talk) 12:29, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

To what extent does the subject matter of the journal bear on the question? EllenCT (talk) 18:23, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Primary studies should rarely be used in articles because we need secondary sources to establish their significance. (You have not provided secondary sources.) Remember the warning for opinion polls, "these numbers are accurate within 5% 19 out of 20 times?" Primary studies have similar problems and need corroboration before they become accepted or rejected. Sometimes too they are attacked on methodology. TFD (talk) 04:23, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, link 7 should have been NEW SOLUTIONS: A Journal of Environmental and Occupational Health Policy Volume 23, Number 1 / 2013 (Special "Fracking" Issue: FREE Content) -- which of those articles are WP:MEDRS? And link 8 appears to me to be a review of more than 38 primary source studies. Why is it primary and not secondary? If it is secondary, is it WP:MEDRS? EllenCT (talk) 07:29, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Link 8 appears to me to report the results of a survey of 108 individuals (p 59), though referring to many other studies. That's very primary. Johnbod (talk) 12:36, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, its discussion of these references is its most secondary part:

14. T. Colborn et al., “Natural Gas Operations from a Public Health Perspective," Human & Ecological Risk Assessment 17 (5) (2011): 1039-1056, doi: 10.1080/10807039.2011.605662.

15. L. M. McKenzie et al., “Human Health Risk Assessment of Air Emissions from Development of Unconventional Natural Gas Resources,” Science of the Total Environment 1 (424) (2012): 79-87, doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2012.02.018.

16. M. Bamberger and R. E. Oswald, “Impacts of Gas Drilling on Human and Animal Health,” New Solutions: A Journal of Environmental and Occupational Health Policy 22 (1) (2012): 51-77, doi: 10.2190/NS.22.1.e.

The only question that remains is which of these articles are literature reviews, or better yet, we could summarize all of their secondary sections, right? EllenCT (talk) 18:32, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not seeing any of these articles as review articles. And we can not take the finding of each review and combine them to create our own review. There is more to high quality reviews than the summary of findings. They do a vigorous review of data sets looking for similarities, biases, and COI among other things. And then base the results on the combination of factors. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 19:05, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Some of them have more substantial review sections than others. What is the proper course of action to take when articles about both policy and health are unlikely to be incorporated in a systematic review? E.g. if we wanted to adapt the data from [3] depicted in [4]? Does WP:OI ("so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments") allow that? EllenCT (talk) 22:51, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

from my perspective none of the sources you have brought are suitable per MEDRS for sourcing content about effects of fracking on health. Whether they are suitable for other content (e.g. policy, law, lobbying, or politics) is a question for different board. Please be careful not to WP:COATRACK health content in any policy/politics/legal/lobbying content that gets generated based on these sources, if any of them are found suitable for policy etc. Jytdog (talk) 23:12, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Topics intersect. EllenCT (talk) 08:08, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

When MEDRS reviews are unavailable

When there are no MEDRS-quality review articles on a topic, but an abundant number of peer-reviewed sources which include literature review sections and would otherwise fit the MEDRS criteria except for the fact that they are not primarily literature reviews, is there any actual specific prohibition on using those review sections as if they were MEDRS-quality? Isn't that established long-term practice here? EllenCT (talk) 18:00, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

you will find a range of opinions on that. some say if there are no reviews at all then the subject shouldn't be discussed in WP at all. others would reach for something like a review of the literature found in the discussion of introduction section of a WP:PRIMARY source but even in that case most would say that strong statements should not be made based on such weak sources. i would tend to agree with the position that WP should be silent if there are no MEDRS quality reviews at all but cannot judge without more details. Jytdog (talk) 18:13, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Who are the "some" that say that topics on which there are no reviews should not be discussed? EllenCT (talk) 21:34, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Colin, one of the initial authors of MEDRS, pretty much takes that stance. it goes deep. the underlying notion is that our goal is to provide reliable information to the public, and if there are no secondary sources that comply with MEDRS then there is nothing reliable that can be said; so we say nothing. it makes sense.Jytdog (talk) 21:47, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I do not see anything in MEDRS that prohibits it. Often writers of original studies will summarize the existing literature before explaining their own research. I do not see anything wrong with using these, particularly when review studies have not been written or are outdated. The same source can be both a primary and secondary source depending on its use. TFD (talk) 19:47, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, MEDRS technically doesn't "prohibit" anything, and WP:IAR is still a policy. But on the assumption that the goal is to have the best possible material supported by the best possible sources, then MEDRS does strongly discourage this, because these mini-reviews tend to be biased. It's not always the case that the authors deliberately include only sources they agree with, but they've got limited space, so they focus on the prior work that explains or justifies their own work. The incompleteness results in (varying degrees of) bias. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:11, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

that is, as usual, perfectly stated WAID. this is what i meant by "weak". Jytdog (talk) 21:30, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Is doing so a long-established practice when editing health-related articles in which there are no WP:MEDRS review articles? EllenCT (talk) 21:34, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Sigh. This whole section is a case of "got a POV, all that's needed now is a good source for it or, failing that, some policy twist that will permit a poor one". There seem to be plenty of good sources on this topic. Why not use PMID 24119661 for the state of the art (which broadly is something like: "we don't yet know the health implications of frac'ing but there is concern, data is being collected, and in time we likely will know more".) Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 00:25, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Yep. QuackGuru (talk) 00:28, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! What search term did you use to get that URL? EllenCT (talk) 18:23, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I saw this source above. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24119661 See to the right: Related citations in PubMed. Click on See reviews.... I can find anything to get what you want in any article. It takes about two to five minutes. It takes another two minutes to format any ref.

There are sources that might work for economic inequality. See https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?linkname=pubmed_pubmed_reviews&from_uid=25076771 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?linkname=pubmed_pubmed_reviews&from_uid=25041736 QuackGuru (talk) 08:08, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Is "confidentiality requirements dictated by legal investigations ... are substantial impediments to peer-reviewed research into environmental impacts." (from this 2013 MEDRS-class review in Science) consistent with "we don't yet know the health implications"? Under such conditions, what are we supposed to infer about the reliability of sources indicating that such nondisclosure is occuring?

And what about "with increasing numbers of drilling sites, more people are at risk from accidents and exposure to harmful substances used at fractured wells" (from this other 2013 MEDRS review)?

And what, do you suppose the "implications for pediatric nursing" are?

Or, the plain language, "shale gas extraction can affect water safety" from this 2013 MEDRS review citing [5] as the first time the US Federal Government admitted health affects from groundwater contamination. All completely consistent with the studies objected to on the original article talk page, and all in the MEDRS reviews linked by QuackGuru. EllenCT (talk) 18:23, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

the Science article is about environment, not health ("We review the current understanding of environmental issues associated with unconventional gas extraction.") The Resources Policy article is not a review of health effects of fracking. It is an article advocating more public disclosure of chemicals used in fracking. Neither are relevant to MEDRS. The Journal of Pediatric Nursing is more interesting. It is not an article reviewing health effects of fracking. It does provide an overview of chemicals used in fracking and potential risks but is quite clear that "The effects of these agents on the water supply and subsequent human health are not well known and require further investigation" and says that "When applied to children, the health consequences associated with ongoing contact with these and other gas exploitation toxic substances, although not presently known, at the very least, constitute a threat to children's health now and in the future." (emphasis added) - in other words - what Alexbrn said above "we don't yet know the health implications of frac'ing but there is concern, data is being collected, and in time we likely will know more". The article from Energy Policy is not relevant to MEDRS. Jytdog (talk) 19:04, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Why is the Energy Policy article not relevant to MEDRS? The bulk of its Section 2 is all about health and safety. EllenCT (talk) 20:02, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd just be careful not to jump on these references as validating edits designed to promote a single view of this subject. The statement that "shale gas extraction can affect water safety" is not equivalent to "shale gas is currently having a negative effect on water safety all across the country". In fact it doesn't really say anything at all. Radioactive materials from meteorites "can" affect the safety of water from above ground reservoirs too, but its contingent on said meteor falling in or near the reservoir. The author encourages better tracking and transperancy of extraction efforts, and points out that gas is a good transitional fuel as we move to more renewable sources.

It always worries me when people use the word "admit" to describe statements or reports by government agencies. Most of these people are just bureaucrats with no axe to grind and no conspiracy to carry out. Most are trying to do their job, and not there for the purpose of frustrating activists. Formerly 98 (talk) 18:58, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I've never been politically active on the issue of fracking ever, but I'm looking for evidence of how obvious and widely-reported COI breaches (such as mandatory nondisclosure laws) off-wiki materialize on-wiki and affect articles here.

How about, "Although potential benefits of Marcellus natural gas exploitation are large for transition to a clean energy economy, at present the regulatory framework in New York State is inadequate to prevent potentially irreversible threats to the local environment and New York City water supply. Major investments in state and federal regulatory enforcement will be required to avoid these environmental consequences, and a ban on drilling within the NYC water supply watersheds is appropriate" (emphasis added) from the MEDRS PMID 23722091? EllenCT (talk) 20:12, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

How that relevant to MEDRS? If you're here "looking for evidence of how obvious and widely-reported COI breaches ... affect articles here" then there's a danger that's a species of WP:NOTHERE. We have strong MEDRS on this topic as I said above; simply use them for health content. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 07:51, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

It is a MEDRS, with a half dozen cites already. Understanding systematic biases brought about by the factors described in the very first MEDRS I cited above is essential for improving article quality while avoiding COI censorship. EllenCT (talk) 13:05, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

i would not use PMID 23722091 to source anything health related in WP's voice. It is an advocacy piece. if the author is notable you could use it to say "X says Y"..... Jytdog (talk) 13:51, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

PubMed says that PMID 23722091 is a review, not an advocacy or opinion piece. We do not have a rule against using reviews if the author has ideas about what the world should do with scientific information. If we did, we'd have to stop using all position statements, all analyses of cost-effectiveness, and every Cochrane review that said to stop doing something because there was no evidence behind it.

Having said that, Jytdog's formulation of "X says Y" is a good choice, and I would use it unless most relevant "Xes" saying the same "Y". WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:19, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

thank you WAID, i agree with all that. Jytdog (talk) 17:10, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Another article in need

Pontocerebellar hypoplasia is in serious need of expert attention, if anyone is up for it. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:26, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

TylerDurden8823 and I have made a start, but it could do with some solid secondary sources and further sections - Diagnosis, Screening, Management, Epidemiology, History are the obvious ones. I've dropped 3 secondary sources onto the talk page if anybody cares to do a little more work on the article. --RexxS (talk) 22:10, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I would love to help, but I do have some questions: what kind of reference would these links http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/condition/pontocerebellar-hypoplasia http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK9673/ and MedlinePlus be? Primary, secondary? Are they good enough so I can read them and start building the Diagnosis section? Should I add the sections suggested above me, adding the section needs work box? thanks Chibs007 (talk) 05:46, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

The first one is probably secondary, but might be tertiary (the lines are fuzzy between categories) but it's pretty much a FAQ. The second is great. MedlinePlus is generally okay for more basic material, but it occasionally contains some material that is seriously outdated or otherwise wrong. (I suppose, though, that's not too different from anything else.)

Here's a pre-formatted citation for the second one, to save you a little time:

Namavar, Yasmin; Eggens, Veerle RC; Barth, Peter G.; Baas, Frank (1993). TSEN54-Related Pontocerebellar Hypoplasia. Seattle (WA): University of Washington, Seattle. Retrieved 2014-09-26.

Just open this section (as if to add a comment) and copy it. Then you can paste it into the wikitext editor (with <ref>...</ref> tags) wherever you want.

If anyone's following along for the upcoming auto-filling citation system for WP:VisualEditor, it took just two clicks to make this from the URL: click once to choose the item in the Cite menu, paste the URL into the blank, and then click on the "Insert" button. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:31, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Perfect! thanks! I am still a rookie and code the old style. Hope I will learn fast. I will work on the diagnosis section and add the others the upcoming week. Chibs007 (talk) 03:47, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Traditional African medicine

I've initiated a reassessment, my reasons are described here: Talk:Traditional African medicine/GA2. Page was created as part of an educational assignment in 2010 and marked as GA two weeks afterwards. Would any other users like to contribute? --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:13, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

The references are not properly formatted in the Notes section. The WP:LEDE does not summarise the body. More sources are needed to update the article. The article easily fails GA. QuackGuru (talk) 07:44, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I've copied these to the reassessment page for posterity. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:26, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

There will be an effectiveness and safety section in the article and it will be summarised in the lede. QuackGuru (talk) 23:48, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:Good article criteria do not require "properly formatted" references.

Someday I should just make a template for this. Maybe getting spammed with the same template several times would help squash this persistent myth. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:14, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree, and coincidentally had opened an RfC on citation style template overuse a few days ago (Template_talk:Citation_style#Request_for_comment_on_use). I've delisted the article because of other concerns noted on the reassessment page. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:04, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

The refs are not formatted and it is impossible to verify any claim. QuackGuru (talk) 04:08, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Although I don't like the style of reference formatting used, the references certainly are formatted. A couple of the urls are dead, but otherwise, if you made the effort to get hold of the sources, you should be able to verify the content. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:13, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

QuackGuru, the only problem with the ref formatting is that you screwed it up by removing the heading that separates the short citations from the full ones. If you're not familiar with this system, then see WP:CITESHORT, or if you're like more details, Chicago Manual of Style or just about any other style book that would be recommended to students by any professor of English. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:38, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

See WP:CITESHORT: "Some Wikipedia articles use short citations, giving summary information about the source together with a page number,..."

The citeshort is used for when there are notes or a summary about the source for the reader. See Traditional Chinese medicine#Notes for how that is done.

This is not what was done at Traditional African medicine (TAM). The references for TAM are not "properly formatted". Any GA article that used malformed refs should be delisted. QuackGuru (talk) 22:02, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Nope. Could I encourage you to actually click through to WP:CITESHORT and read the example? You obviously haven't done so, or you'd not believe that an explanatory footnote like the one in the TCM article had anything at all to do with short citations. You're looking for the bit that begins with this paragraph: Some Wikipedia articles use short citations, giving summary information about the source together with a page number, as in <ref>Smith 2010, p. 1.</ref>. These are used together with full citations, which give full details of the sources, but without page numbers, and are listed in a separate "References" section.

As for your belief that malformed citations are a cause for de-listing or failing an article, you can take up your proposal at WT:GACR. Just be prepared to lose that particular debate. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:14, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

By the way, this system is used to FAs moderately often. Conatus and Royal_Maundy#Notes use it in slightly different ways. See Throffer#Notes for an FA that features all three elements: one explanatory footnote, 59 short citations, and an alphabetized list of full citations (including some WP:General references). It would be silly to prohibit at GA what is commonly and automatically accepted at FA. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:33, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Are you sure about that? The notes section is for "Some Wikipedia articles use short citations, giving summary information about the source together with a page number,..." This is one example for a notes section. A notes section can be used for a summary or to give the reader addtional information such as I did at TCM and Acupuncture. See Traditional Chinese medicine#Notes. See Acupuncture#Notes.

Another use for a notes section is for notes like Conatus#Notes and Royal Maundy#Notes that is used for a very different purpose such as when different page numbers are used for a single source.

There are only specific circumstances for when to use a notes sections. The notes at Traditional African_medicine#Notes are not used together with the full citations. They are separated. At Royal Maundy#Notes a reader can click on a short citation to read the full citation to verify the text. See Royal Maundy#CITEREFRobinson1977. QuackGuru (talk) 07:44, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure about that. There are dozens of acceptable ways to format citations. "Onwuanibe, pp. 27", which is one of the ones you're talking about, is definitely one of those acceptable styles. Some of the sources cited in that article are too short for page numbers to matter, like the Gale Encyclopedia entry. You don't include page numbers if they're not necessary.

I have no idea why you say that Conatus' "Traupman 1966, p. 52" and Royal Maundy's "Robinson 1977, pp. 23–24." are serving a different purpose than Traditional African medicine's "Onwuanibe, pp. 27". They use different technoogy, but the purpose (telling the reader where to verify the material) is obviously identical. We always assume that our readers are smart enough to read an author's last name in the short citations and find that author's last name in the immediately following alphabetical list of full citations (just like readers have done on paper for the last century). There is no requirement that any sources whatsoever be clickable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:31, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

A short citation must be linked together to the full citation. You can see how this was done at Conatus#Notes and Royal Maundy#Notes. If the citations are not linked then the reader won't know which short citation belongs to which full citations. Only in some circumstance there is a benefit for using a short citation with a full citation. If the benefit has not been met then the references should be formatted the usually way. At Traditional African medicine, no reason has been given for using a shortcite which is not linked to the full citation. QuackGuru (talk) 16:05, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

QG i don't think you have a leg to stand on there. but more importantly, QG if your point is that the article is not GA on the basis of ref formatting alone, that would a losing argument. my sense is that your argument is not hung from that one peg, so what is the point? you can put the ax down on this issue. hardly any Med articles use Chicago style in any case (and my sense is that the African article is going to get its refs reformatted soon anyway) Jytdog (talk) 17:14, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

"A short citation must be linked together to the full citation." This is not true, if by "linked" you mean using a clickable wikilink (or similar technology). So long as the reader is capable of reading one and finding the other, then it's sufficient.

Please feel free to read the entire WP:CITE guideline, or just ask at WT:CITE. If you find anything that says that they must be linked, then please advise. NB that the current, non-linking style used at Traditional African medicine is exactly what the CITE guideline gives as an example of how to do this. WP:CITESHORT contains no clickable links. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:45, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Maundy#cite_note-FOOTNOTERobinson197727-16

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Maundy#CITEREFRobinson1977

The short and full citations are obviously liked together at Royal Maundy. This is done at Royal Maundy because a single reference is sourced to more than one page. At Traditional African medicine the references are not linked together and there is no point to having a short and long citation when a single reference is not linked to cited different pages. The "non-linking style" is wrong and should be discouraged. How is the reader to know which source is the full citation? Only if it is needed there should be a short and full citation with a linking style at Traditional African medicine. A "properly formatted" shortcite used the "linking style" like Royal Maundy#Notes. QuackGuru (talk) 18:44, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

This seems to be otq: Template:Harvard_citation/doc#Wikilink_to_citation_does_not_work LeadSongDog come howl! 20:05, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

At Traditional African medicine there is no linking whereas at Royal Maundy there is a "linking style". Of course there are several possible solutions for fixing the malformed citations according to Template:Harvard citation/doc#Wikilink to citation does not work. QuackGuru (talk) 20:27, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

"How is the reader to know which source is the full citation" when the reader is given the name of an author, the year of publication, and a page number, and immediately underneath that short citation, he reader is given a full bibliographic citation, one of which also contains a matching author's name and publication date?

Maybe because the reader spent several years of high school writing reports using this exact style of footnoting? Maybe because the reader will use just a tiny bit of common sense? Maybe because the reader is not actually a complete idiot and therefore does not look at "Smith (2010) page 15" followed by a mere inch lower on the screen by an entry that says, "Smith, Bob (2010) The Sun is Really Big New York:Random House" and jump to the idiotic conclusion that there could not possibly be any connection between these two references to someone named Smith who published a book in 2010?

This isn't "wrong". This isn't even difficult. This is a system that is widely recommended by real-world experts and used in millions of papers and books. It is used, without any hint of links, as a normal and acceptable method in the example at WP:CITESHORT. This is 100% "correct". WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:17, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

No matter what you say the links are not properly formatted and don't work without the link to the full citations. The citation style can be fixed according to Template:Harvard citation/doc#Wikilink to citation does not work. I prefer the links to help the reader. Is there any reason not to link the short citations to the full citations? QuackGuru (talk) 22:49, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

They are not formatted the way you like them, but it has been abundantly demonstrated above that this is not a GA requirement, nor one of Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles#Citing_medical_sources. It is inappropriate to talk of them being "malformed", "not properly" formatted, or not "working". If it bothers you that much, you might ask on the talk page if people object to you changing them, but they are well within their rights to do so. I don't think WP:CITEVAR has been mentioned above, but it is highly relevant here. If people want more examples of FAs using similar systems, most of mine do (all the ones where I was the primary writer). The system has many advantages templates lack, though they aren't really used here. Having said all that, I can't see the article as GA standard, on a very tricky subject. I'll comment there. Johnbod (talk) 23:46, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I added some text to the page. Please review. QuackGuru (talk) 05:42, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:PULSE August/September double issue soon out!

I'm currently fleshing out the content on the Pulse newsletter. If anyone would like to help please feel free to polish upon it up until it is released. I've provided much of what is there, and am working on the medical translation parts, but if anyone want to add anything else, please do! Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Newsletter/August_2014
Ping LT910001, Bluerasberry
-- CFCF 🍌 (email) 16:23, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Ping, Wiki CRUK John, maybe you'd like to leaf over it and add something? Thanks!

I really want to get this out in the next few days, and it desperately needs varied content. I've done my best, but some of it is outdated, and could use input from others here! -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 13:56, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposal that User:Protonk's removal of my (Flyer22's) WP:Rollback rights be overturned

Opinions are needed on the above linked discussion. A WP:Permalink regarding it is here. It concerns this WikiProject because I revert a lot of WP:Vandalism and other unconstructive edits at medical articles. Flyer22 (talk) 23:04, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

With this edit, Chillum removed the above notification from our talk page. I am appalled that someone who is not an active member of this project should have the nerve to attempt to dictate what is seen on this page and what is not. I have therefore restored the notification in the firm belief that members of WPMED are perfectly capable of making their own minds up on an issue such as the one that Flyer22 has tried to bring to our attention. --RexxS (talk) 01:52, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Please read WP:CANVAS before getting all appalled. Also please reduce your sense of ownership of this page. Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 02:08, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

What arrogance. You come here, removing posts in direct contravention of WP:TPO and then are rude enough to assume that just because I don't agree with your ridiculous interpretation of WP:CANVAS that I haven't read it. This page is for discussing issues of interest to WPMED; get some clue before you turn up here trying to throw your weight around. --RexxS (talk) 02:37, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Ownership of a page? This page is for the benefit of the people involved in the project! It is ridiculous to assume a non-member could make the distinction of what is important for the project and what is not. The exact same thing happened over at WT:ANAT, and someone else had to restore the message. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 14:00, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

interesting points regarding ownership of page. appears many articles suffer from this. however i don't think this aggressive tone in some comments here is helpful to anyone. can someone instead perhaps outline clearly and calmly what the main issues are.Docsim (talk) 14:27, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Maybe User:Chillum was just trying to bring more attention to Flyers post by removing it and generating further interest from this community? Anyway would strongly recommend they NOT do this again. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:34, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

The removal of the canvasing what brought to the attention of ANI where it is agreed the canvassing was inappropriate. I have already explained that canvas allows posts to place directly related to the dispute. I don't see how this page was directly related to someone losing their rollback rights. Recommendations that fly in the fact of policy cannot really be taken by me.

Membership is not a requirement to edit here. When someone is spamming many posts all over it is appropriate for an admin to reverse those, even if it is a page where people don't like outsiders doing things. Again, I acted appropriately. I don't get what all of the fuss from you people is all about. Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 15:59, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• No, you didn't. But I'm not surprised that a few other members of Team Wikipedia Project Police at ANI have been willing to pretend you did, and that you believe them. Your (and their) gross misapplication of WP:CANVASS to prevent wider scrutiny of Protonk's bad removal of Flyer22's rollback flag fortunately failed. LHM^{ask me a question} 16:14, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

While consensus here is that your edits were inappropriate. That flyers comment was related as it effects the function of our project and thus his comment was within policy. Thus recommend you not persist. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:17, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

hi im new

I've been helping on the talk page and with other editors for the,, "Ebola virus west Africa outbreak" article, is that within the scope of what the wikiproject medicine does?,,or is there something else I should do?,,,,--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:05, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to WikiProject Medicine! The article "Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa" is indeed in the scope of this WikiProject. If you look at the top of the article's talk page, you should see a list of WikiProjects that have an interest in the article. As an aside, if you see an article that you think should be tagged for this WikiProject but isn't, you can add this yourself on the article's talk page. You don't need any special permission to do this. If in doubt, you are welcome to ask on this page. Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:34, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

thank you,,,--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:28, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Comparison of bipolar disorder and schizophrenia

Just came across this...am in two minds about it but leaning towards deleting it - none of the sources are about comparison and not much crops up on google scholar that would apply. Doesn't mention schizoaffective disorder either...what do folks think? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:54, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Some well-sourced compare-and-contrast material could be very interesting to some readers and help educate them about the differences. Should it be its own page, or small part of each article? Hmm, I could go either way with that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:21, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I support merging any decent content with the other articles. Noone is going to read this article as its title is too unusual. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 07:09, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

If it gets a {{Main}} link and a short summary in the related articles, then people will read it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:40, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm against using these too much, because when the main article is updated the summary won't be (most of the time). Thus we end up with up to date content in one place, and old content somewhere else. It isn't immediately obvious either even to an experience editor where the best/most up to date content is. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 18:02, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

If you haven't already, go have a look at Bipolar disorder § Differential diagnosis and Schizophrenia § Differential. Each mentions the other as one of a handful of conditions (most wikilinked) that should be considered in a differential diagnosis. It's not the sort of content that tends to change quickly. I'm more concerned that moving content into these articles would give undue weight to these conditions in those sections. —Shelley V. Adams ‹blame
credit› 01:50, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

The existing content has a lot of rough edges, but I think it could be developed into a useful article. The four journal sources are comparisons of brain structure between the two. but they're all primary sources. Gonna see if I can mine any useful secondary sources from the intro/background sections. Let me tinker a couple days before proposing merges or anything, okay? —Shelley V. Adams ‹blame
credit› 15:05, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Good luck, Shelley. Please let us all know how it goes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:40, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Cordocytes

Dear medical experts: The above old AfC submission needs more independent sources, but is the topic notable? Should the draft be kept and improved? —Anne Delong (talk) 21:23, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I found only one paper in Pubmed, and it isn't a secondary source. (This source is listed in the draft article.) All of the sources listed in the draft (including the PubMed paper) are by the same two authors.

Curiously, the top hit on a Google search is for the Wikipedia editor Cordocyte. The Google search also found another paper (Edelstein) listed in Pubmed. Although this paper was not written by Pais & Danaila, it directly refers to those authors. Edelstein's paper seems to imply that interstitial cell of Cajal is an old name. However this is not implied by the draft.

Overall, I am inclined to think that the term is a neologism invented and promulgated by Pais & Danaila. Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:27, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, User:Axl. I have deleted it under db-g13. It can always be refunded if the term becomes notable in the future. —Anne Delong (talk) 20:20, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Corneal Inlay

Dear medical experts: I'm pretty sure this is a notable topic. Is the content appropriate, and are the references reliable? —Anne Delong (talk) 21:29, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Since no-one else has looked into it (pun intended), I have done so. There are 44 papers in Pubmed that mention "corneal inlay". Although only two of these papers (Lindstrom and Sweeney) are review papers, I think that overall, there is enough third-party coverage to support notability of the topic.

15 references are provided in the draft article:-

1. The first paper (Chang, "Novel Approaches to Treating Presbyopia", Review of Cornea & Contact Lenses) is not listed in Pubmed.
2. Seyeddain (1) is said to be a cohort study but is really a case series—a primary study.
3. Dexl (1) is another case series by the same group in Salzburg.
4. Yilmaz is a larger case series (39 patients).
5. Tabernero (1) is a small case series in Murcia, Spain.
6. Waring is a larger study of 507 patients.
7. Dexl (2) is another case series from the Salzburg group (24 patients). [The draft misidentifies and misspells the first author as "Taberno".]
8. Tabernero (2) is a primary source describing a series of 16 models (Murcia group).
9. Dexl (3) is another case series from Salzburg. (The draft misidentifies the primary author as Seyeddain.)
10. Dexl (4) is more of the same, again with the primary author misidentified.
11. Gatinel is a case series of two patients.
12. Seyeddain (2) is a letter.
13. Tomita is a bigger study of 180 patients.
14. Ocular Surgery News seems to be a news website. There are several relevant articles on that website. The reference used looks suitable.
15. The journal named "Cataract and Refractive Surgery" is not listed in Pubmed, although it is unclear if this should be the "Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery". Either way, the article title given is not listed in Pubmed, although Waring has similar papers listed. The most similar paper is Corneal inlays for the treatment of presbyopia. This is a "historical article".

In summary, all but one of the references are inappropriate. The draft needs to be re-written from scratch with carefully chosen references and in-line citations. Axl ¤ [Talk] 15:24, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Wow! Axl, you really looked into that! Okay; I have removed all of those sources except for the one you liked, and found book and article sources for replacement. I also rewrote the first part to be more readable by non-scientists (for example, people like me with bad eyesight). However, having no previous knowledge of this topic except for one lecture at my local computer and technology club, I may have mangled it, so I hope that you or anyone else who is more knowledgeable will adjust as necessary. It'd be good to get this into mainspace at some point. —Anne Delong (talk) 12:00, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Your re-write is a big improvement over the previous draft. Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:24, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Template:Axl, (or anyone else?) should it move to mainspace now to be improved there? Or are there still policy problems? —Anne Delong (talk) 12:48, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Images of sick and dying people

People here have previously discussed images of people who are visibly sick before. I've opened a new discussion here that may interest some of you: Wikipedia talk:Image use policy#Vulnerable people. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:52, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Patellofemoral pain syndrome

The above article will be undergoing expansion over the coming weeks. Any help would be much appreciated. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 21:35, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

The issue as to whether Chondromalacia patellae is the same condition as PFPS was already discussed recently in this forum by searching the archives [6]; and in the chondromalacia talk page [7] This source [8] treats them as one and the same. Currently the Chondromalacia patellae article states it is the same as PFPS. Another source states:

"In the literature there is some agreement that PFPS is a term to be applied only to people with retropatellar pain in which no cartilage damage is evident (Arroll 1997; Cutbill 1997; Holmes 1998; Juhn 1999; Thomee 1999; Wilk 1998; ). However, retropatellar pain is generally thought of as a self-limiting condition with a good prognosis, especially for people who are young (Kannus 1994), people who have unilateral complaints, and people in which crepitation is absent (Natri 1998). This means that people are usually managed in primary care and are rarely referred to specialist care (Bourne 1988). Therefore reliable diagnostic techniques for determining cartilage damage such as computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) or arthroscopy (Cutbill 1997; Nissen 1998) are seldom applied. In fact a diagnosis based solely on symptoms and physical examination of the knee is not uncommon. Furthermore, Natri showed that neither the radiologic nor the MRI changes seen in affected knees showed a clear association with persistent symptoms seven years later (Natri 1998). This makes the distinction between chondromalacia patellae and PFPS theoretical rather than practical, so people with either chondromalacia patellae or PFPS will be included in this review." (source= [9]). Matthew Ferguson (talk) 22:04, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Need an admin

Could someone move the sub-stub Pleura-pneumonia to Pleuropneumonia? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:43, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

 In progress Doing... Zad68 02:51, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

 Done If you need anything else I'll be in the mechanical room behind the elevator, make sure you knock LOUD! Zad68 02:55, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Don't forget to wear ear protection in loud workplaces. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:32, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Atkins diet

I think Atkins diet needs some attention and Medical research related to low-carbohydrate diets needs some attention to discuss what the actual current consensus or major viewpoint is, if there is one. Second Quantization (talk) 09:42, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd say the "softening" mentioned in the lead of the 2nd has continued, & the rough consensus is that a general low-carb approach to weight loss is the most successful, but not actual Atkins. Eg Richard Lehman remarked along these lines in a recent BMJ blog (he being my personal proxy for "actual current consensus or major viewpoint" on such things). Most of the refs used now seem 2008-9, as so often. But the matter can't I think be called settled. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 11:33, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Presenting potentially alarming prognosis information

Some of you will remember we discussed this at CRUK before Wikimania. Just as a matter of presentation (I haven't edited the actual content yet), what do people think of the approach I've tried at Pancreatic_cancer#Prognosis? Again the wording probably needs work. Does anyone object to this approach as such? The idea would be to have overall survival rate information elsewhere, but to treat prognosis stats by stage this way. Can people comment at this section on the talk page, perhaps also noting the one called "Thank you" two above it. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 17:24, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Commented. --Tom (LT) (talk) 21:10, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

npp for category tool

Please comment. Gryllida (talk) 23:38, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Introducing new editor

Hi, I'm new to Wiki and plan to edit 'pregnancy' related content to incorporate evidence from Cochrane reviews. I would appreciate any advice/help that you can offer.Dogboxer (talk) 03:57, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

It is not possible for you to break anything so do whatever comes naturally. I see that you already edited the morning sickness article and you did great. Do that anywhere else. Pregnancy articles are watched by a lot of people so you are surrounded by friends. If you ever have a question post it here or on the talk page of a pregnancy article and people will respond.

I have been looking at pregnancy and caesarean section lately so if you want to look at those together then do anything there and I will meet you. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:00, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

@Dogboxer: Welcome! And if you have any questions or need help or a second opinion, please feel free to drop me a note on my talk page. Happy editing... MastCell ^Talk 15:54, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Suggestions for very short article

Hello all. I've found Visual processing, which doesn't seem problematic but it's very short and (probably?) covered elsewhere. However I'm not a subject matter expert and as such I'm unwilling to redirect it (and don't know a good merge target to propose or do one). Is this ok by itself? Should it be expanded? Or is it better merged into a more appropriate target. Alternately is there an extant article which better covers this topic but exists under a different name? Thanks. Protonk (talk) 17:02, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I think you can go ahead and redirect it to Visual perception. They are essentially the same thing, and visual perception even has a section on artificial visual perception. As there are no references in the article I don't know if you would even need to merge, as there are no references for the name. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 18:03, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

It might be better as some sort of disambiguation page. Visual processing in a biological systems is covered at a high level in Visual system and at lower level in some of the daughter articles. Visual processing in a computer context is covered at a high level in Computer vision and in lower levels in various image processing articles. While there is some overlap between the computer and biological vision communities (one notable interface may be neuromorphic engineering), its not clear that an article uniting the two fields is the best approach. --Mark viking (talk) 18:06, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Infection control

Article is in need of some TLC. Mostly dated refs, very US-centric, preoccupied with HIV and HBV to the neglect of others. Needs a section to address major outbreaks. LeadSongDog come howl! 17:39, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

will try and improve this. also it seems so many articles suffer from this US-centric flaw you mentioned. may be worth actively defining this by saying US research.Docsim (talk) 23:27, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

DynaMed as a source

DynaMed may be interesting in collaborating with us. Ie they may be willing to give us a fixed number of accounts. What are peoples though of using DynaMed as a reference? They are a review of decent high quality even though they are a little hard to access. Anyone can get a 30 day free trial which will make follow up fairly easy. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:19, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't see a traditional peer review as part of their process on their webpage. I think this is very important, as peer review helps ensure that mistakes are not made and that the conclusions published are at least within a stone's throw of mainstream. Is this something that we can check on? found it. https://dynamed.ebscohost.com/about/reviewers Formerly 98 (talk) 15:14, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I accessed it through the medical school library out of curiosity. I searched for "the use of vitamin D in the prevention of falls in older adults". It actually worked well - interface slightly different from others but clearly navigable. I believe it is recommended to the medical students by library staff. I think editors would find it useful. It would be an intermediate step - the original literature would have to be accessed but links are present and easy to use. Mdscottis (talk) 15:22, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes , the main benefit is that it gives a good idea of the framework and comprehensiveness of a subject, and links to key articles. I've used it a bit at work and I liked how accessible it is/was. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:29, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Medical records and cybersecurity

It seems to me that this deserves mention by Wikipedia.

• Your medical record is worth more to hackers than your credit card—Reuters (September 24, 2014)

—21:24, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

RS

Can we consider this as reliable source? - Rahat (Talk * Contributions) 06:06, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

It was written 13 years ago, so it's very likely outdated. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:39, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Trip database gives numerous secondary hits for "diet and arthritis", including a Cochrane review from 2009. You would be much better off, in my humble opinion, basing any new content on the newer sources that are available. --RexxS (talk) 08:23, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Accuracy and Completeness of Drug Information in Wikipedia: A Comparison with Standard Textbooks of Pharmacology

Reading the morning news I came across a news article about a new paper published in PLOS:Accuracy and Completeness of Drug Information in Wikipedia: A Comparison with Standard Textbooks of Pharmacology

Their research found we have something like 99.7%±0.2% accuracy when it comes to drug information, and 83.8±1.5% completeness.

Looking at the abstract they also did some review of readability. Indication was most complete and pharmacokinetics the least - which is understandable. Their conclusion is very promising (my emphasis):

Drug articles in Wikipedia had an average of 14.6±1.6 references and 262.8±37.4 edits performed by 142.7±17.6 editors. Both Wikipedia and textbooks samples had comparable, low readability. Our study suggests that Wikipedia is an accurate and comprehensive source of drug-related information for undergraduate medical education.

For me these are astounding numbers if they are true. I haven't dived into the paper yet, but will as soon as I have time. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 08:36, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Wow. Their position is a lot more positive than mine. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:43, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Should Female genital mutilation be categorized in Category:Traditional African medicine?

• See Talk:Traditional_African_medicine#Modern_period The article does not mention it at all at present. Johnbod (talk) 11:06, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Dont see the need to mention it. what is your grounds for possible inclusion.Docsim (talk) 05:14, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Spammy or not

This person is adding lot of links to OIE User:Zszabo81. Wonder peoples thoughts? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:39, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

This user is adding external links to World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE). The organization is as reputable as can be presented. Some of the links are directly relevant, and others are to general disease information. I might prefer that only the single most relevant link to this organization be added, because the tendency on Wikipedia is to try to minimize the number of external links especially if multiple links go to one organization's content. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:40, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Many of them take you to a page with no information on the disease in question. I agree one link is fine if it goes to the right page. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:00, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

i had some interaction with the new user on her talk page - seems well intentioned and teachable.Jytdog (talk) 20:18, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Contagion (film) -- need comment

Is this the place to request a medically-literate person to comment on a discussion on Talk: Contagion (film) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Contagion_%28film%29#Plot_summary_too_long.3F

This film is more than just entertainment; a scientists refer to it in discussing epidemics today, like the Ebola epidemic (which probably also has a bat reservoir). It was extensively reviewed in the scientific literature. The plot summary here is useful because people who may not have seen the film may want a detailed summary so they know what's going on.

One editor wants to cut the plot summary down, and he's rounding up other editors who agree with him.

Some editors are treating this as if they're looking for is a quick synopsis so they can decide what to watch on TV tonight.

Could you look it over? Or is there another place to make this request? --Nbauman (talk) 20:31, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Electrostatic Spray Ionization

Dear medical experts: I am not sure if this is a medical topic or not. In any case, is it notable, and should it be kept and improved? —Anne Delong (talk) 22:34, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Anne,

I think this is a chemistry thing. It's notable, though. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:17, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Definitely a chemistry topic. I'm not sure it is notable though. There are only 27 GScholar hits for "Electrostatic Spray Ionization" and in this recent review of mass spec ionization technologies, the method gets only a sentence. --Mark viking (talk) 23:40, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Maybe not, then. Electrospray ionization (the non-AFC article that the AFC version would have to be merged into) cites 68 sources, though, so I doubt that would get deleted at AFD. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:57, 27 September 2014 (UTC)