Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Neuroscience

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Looie496 (talk | contribs) at 22:30, 22 July 2018 (→‎Eyes on Biological neuron model: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/WikiProject used

Trigger zone

This article was recently created.

The cited sources either aren't reliable (i.e., the wiki reference) or don't cover what a "trigger zone" is (i.e., the first reference – full text URL: http://sci-hub.tw/10.1177/1073858409341973 – makes no mention of a "trigger zone" at all; the textbook reference is about the chemoreceptor trigger zone). Based upon https://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/trigger+zone - a "trigger zone" is a region where stimulation can cause pain. That definition seems to be consistent with what most of the articles in this pubmed search are about, but that's not what our trigger zone article describes; the only exception in those search results is PMID 24847046, which doesn't actually use the word "trigger zone" anywhere in the text, but does state "This implies that APs are initially triggered at the AIS, and then propagate back to the soma in the neurons" (full text URL: http://sci-hub.tw/10.1177/1073858414535986).

In any event, I figured I should pose this question here: should this page be deleted or revised? At the moment, all of the content in this article constitutes WP:OR given what it says relative to the references it cites. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 04:52, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:21, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. I would be tempted to tag it instead, because this looks like a case where a Wikipedia article could actually be useful -- the term has been widely used but never comprehensively discussed as far as I can tell. A bit of research indicates that the term was coined around 1915 by Hugh T Patrick, who introduced it in the context of trigeminal neuralgia [1]. For an RS for that assertion, see PMC 1426385. The term continued to be used mainly for trigeminal neuralgia through the 1920s, but then broadened to encompass areas of the body that trigger other types of responses, including pain, seizures, calcium waves, and nausea, and has also sometimes been used to encompass the axon initial segment. Looie496 (talk) 21:25, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's reasonable. Maybe I got triggered too easily. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:31, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hit you right in the trigger zone, huh?
On a more serious note, what reliable sources should we use to cover and cite what you mentioned Looie? The article currently needs revision; I can do that myself if I have relevant source material. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 03:25, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, my "research" consisted of time-range-limited Google Scholar searches. But as I said above, it looks like PMC 1426385 should be a reliable source for the initial coining. Looie496 (talk) 15:40, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Is wikipedia the right place to discuss the term? Shouldn't that happen elsewhere? It seems that at the moment the term does not describe one single subject, but is used sporadically in various contexts. I see no harm in deleting the article for now. It can be recreated easily when it gains more notability.VENIVIDIVICIPEDIAtalk 13:16, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you are saying, but I don't quite agree with it. I think it is a big win for Wikipedia if we have an article that is a better source of information than anything else available, even if it requires a bit more synthesis than usual.Synthesis is not necessarily a bad thing, if it is disciplined and neutral. Looie496 (talk) 15:40, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is certainly an option of, for now, aggressively stubifying the page, by adding a little bit of reliably sourced content and getting rid of the rest. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:39, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I might be able to do some work on this tomorrow. I was bombed today, and am brain-dead at the moment. Looie496 (talk) 01:08, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've done some work on it -- maybe it's good enough to survive now? Looie496 (talk) 20:30, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I took a quick look and I think that it's much better and probably should be kept. If I look for things that are wrong with it: (1) it strings together some disparate things that get a little coat rack-y, and (2) it gets a little close to not-dictionary. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:46, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you're using "coat rack-y" in the sense of WP:COATRACK, then I'm very puzzled. Looie496 (talk) 21:25, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I meant, but it's probably not really a problem. I was just observing how there are multiple examples in multiple systems, as opposed to a single unifying process within the nervous system. Basically, it's that the page is sort of like "trigger zone means this, and this, and this, and this". It's probably an exaggeration to call it a coat rack, and I was just trying to cover all bases (because the question was whether someone might propose to delete the page), but personally I'm not bothered by it. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:56, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Um, I basically agree with all that, but, um, I also think that maybe you should go back and re-read WP:COATRACK. I think you are talking about something more like WP:DISCRIMINATE or WP:EXAMPLES. (In wikislang, a "coatrack" is an article that purports to be about one thing but is actually about something else.) Looie496 (talk) 22:58, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that was clumsy of me, so please don't worry about it. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:04, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Tryptofish: Re: Basically, it's that the page is sort of like "trigger zone means this, and this, and this, and this" – I think trigger zone is likely going to end up being written as a WP:Broad-concept article. If so, that sort of topical coverage (i.e., "X is A, B, and C") is perfectly normal for that class of articles. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 05:41, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's true. I feel like I said what I said yesterday rather badly, so please let me make clear that I was thinking about it in terms of whether or not there was still a risk of someone taking the page to AfD, so I was trying to anticipate potential reasons such a person might have, as opposed to expressing my own concerns. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:45, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Facto Post – Issue 9 – 5 February 2018

Issue 9 – 5 February 2018
Facto Post – Issue 9 – 5 February 2018
m:Grants:Project/ScienceSource is the new ContentMine proposal: please take a look.

Wikidata as Hub

One way of looking at Wikidata relates it to the semantic web concept, around for about as long as Wikipedia, and realised in dozens of distributed Web institutions. It sees Wikidata as supplying central, encyclopedic coverage of linked structured data, and looks ahead to greater support for "federated queries" that draw together information from all parts of the emerging network of websites.

Another perspective might be likened to a photographic negative of that one: Wikidata as an already-functioning Web hub. Over half of its properties are identifiers on other websites. These are Wikidata's "external links", to use Wikipedia terminology: one type for the DOI of a publication, another for the VIAF page of an author, with thousands more such. Wikidata links out to sites that are not nominally part of the semantic web, effectively drawing them into a larger system. The crosswalk possibilities of the systematic construction of these links was covered in Issue 8.

Wikipedia:External links speaks of them as kept "minimal, meritable, and directly relevant to the article." Here Wikidata finds more of a function. On viaf.org one can type a VIAF author identifier into the search box, and find the author page. The Wikidata Resolver tool, these days including Open Street Map, Scholia etc., allows this kind of lookup. The hub tool by maxlath takes a major step further, allowing both lookup and crosswalk to be encoded in a single URL.

Links

To subscribe to Facto Post go to Wikipedia:Facto Post mailing list. For the ways to unsubscribe, see below.
Editor Charles Matthews, for ContentMine. Please leave feedback for him. Back numbers are here.
Reminder: WikiFactMine pages on Wikidata are at WD:WFM.
If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page.
Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:50, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neuroanatomy

Hi, I am not a member of your project but do most of my work at Wikiproject Anatomy. At the anatomy project we recently finished classifying our articles and we have more than 2000 articles and redirects related to neuroanatomy (central nervous system including the spinal cord, cranial nerves not includeed).

  • Would you like to have these articles tagged within your project?
  • How about cranial nerves and their associated ganglia and branches?
  • How about the perifial nerveous systems; things like individual nerves, their ganglia, branches and so on?

If you could discuss among yourself what should fall under the scope of your project, I will gladely add your project banner to the articles (in the hope that your project members can find and will work on some of the articles of interest to both wikiprojects). Kind regards JakobSteenberg (talk) 20:35, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking for myself, I would say that if it is any of those bulleted points it does indeed fit here. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:07, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Adding: anything that is neuroanatomy is by definition a subset of neuroscience. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:08, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject collaboration notice from the Portals WikiProject

The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{Transclude lead excerpt}}.

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.

Background

On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

So far, 84 editors have joined.

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.

Thank you.    — The Transhumanist   07:49, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Visual Antipriming

Input invited about this draft. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:32, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've commented there. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:43, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Memory

As I don't like to do multiple reverts, I wonder if interested editors might take a look at recent edits to this article? Looie496 (talk) 14:20, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've revised it, relocated it, and tagged it for a non-primary source. I figure that's a reasonable alternative. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:05, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. Looie496 (talk) 19:38, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request for nootropic

I'm requesting feedback on article content in nootropic. The issue is described at Talk:Nootropic#Coverage of CNS stimulants. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 07:52, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request for Template:Infobox GPCR

See WT:PHARM#Infobox GPCR examples; I'd like to have additional input on this infobox before it goes live in articles on GPCRs. This infobox is intended for articles about non-olfactory rhodopsin-like receptors and is intended to supplement {{Infobox gene}} by providing pharmacology-specific data with minimal overlap/redundancy with the information provided in the gene infobox. The discussion is obviously relevant to this WikiProject given the number and significance of the GPCRs in this class that are expressed in the brain (e.g., every monoamine/trace amine receptor except 5-HT3 receptors, among many other neurotransmitter/neuromodulator receptors). Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 03:02, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eyes on Saltatory conduction

It looks like someone, editing as an IP, is repeatedly spamming the page to promote their own (insignificant) work. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:24, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've watchlisted it. Looie496 (talk) 22:58, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eyes on Biological neuron model

... would be helpful. Looie496 (talk) 22:30, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Neuroscience&oldid=851526002"