Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia talk:MED)
Skip to top
Skip to bottom

    Edit with VisualEditor

    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

    Belladelli et al. (2023)

    [edit]

    As suggested at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Belladelli et al. (2023): Reliable or unreliable?, I have reposted here. Please, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Belladelli et al. (2023): Reliable or unreliable? for further details:

    Way6t has claimed Belladelli et al. (2023) is not a reliable source. I have claimed that Belladelli et al. (2023) apparently is a reliable source. WP:RS and WP:MEDRS have both been brought up in the discussion. Relevant discussion may be found at: Talk:Human penis size#Discussion on the inclusion of Belladelli 2023. I have shared some relevant, summarized details below. Please, feel free to take a closer look at the source and share your thoughts.

    "Worldwide Temporal Trends in Penile Length: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis, authored by Federico Belladelli et al., and published in World Journal of Men's Health (from website: "Open Access, Peer-Reviewed", "Indexed in SCIE, SCOPUS, DOAJ, and More", "pISSN 2287-4208 eISSN 2287-4690") on Feb 15, 2023. Also, included in the National Institutes of Health/National Library of Medicine's PubMed Central and PubMed.
    "This is ultimately a medical/scientific article, and we should use medical/scientific sources that meet the de-facto standards here for sources in articles on medical topics. Given that we now have high-quality evidence in the form of several peer-reviewed studies on this topic published in reputable journals, including a systematic review of other studies, as sources for this article, we should not now be citing either crowdsourced user-generated data, or non-peer-reviewed analysis thereof, even if they been reported on in reliable sources such as the popular press."

    Daniel Power of God (talk) 04:36, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    That would be:
    which is a review in a weak (non-MEDLINE) journal, and which has gained some notoriety as a poster child for problematic peer-review and correction.[1]. I would avoid using it. Bon courage (talk) 06:58, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean theres a lot of different things to look at here. It does pass some checks (it's recent, peer reviwed, not a case study etc.) but theres also some red flags such as the journal it's in, and controvery surrounding it. Ultimately it comes down to "is this the best possible source we could be using here". If there are better sources out there then I wouldn't personally include it but I could maybe make an arguement for it if it truly was the best resource we have on the topic. IntentionallyDense (talk) 14:49, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It may be a crazy idea but if there aren't great sources, maybe Wikipedia isn't absolutely obliged to say something about trends in penis length? Bon courage (talk) 14:51, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    While I do agree with this, the point I was trying to get across was "is there better sources?" as I'm a bit confused why this source specefically needs to be used. However I may not have gotten my point accross effectively. IntentionallyDense (talk) 22:47, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    https://www.scopus.com/sourceid/21100943924 gives that journal a good rating.
    PMID 38792302 (in an MDPI journal) is the only paper that appears to have cited it.
    Since WP:RSCONTEXT matters, I think it's worth taking a look at the proposed text, which is this (three paragraphs, three different parts of the article):
    ----
    More recently, the meta-analysis and systematic review by Belladelli et al. (2023) of 55,761 men from 75 studies, done between 1942 and 2021, and based on estimations of pooled mean length, indicated that the average erect penis length was 13.93 cm (5.48 in), average stretched penis length was 12.93 cm (5.09 in), and average flaccid penis length was 8.70 cm (3.43 in).[1] Belladelli (2023) indicated that "all measurements showed variation by geographic region. Erect length increased significantly over time in several regions of the world and across all age groups, while no trends were identified in other penile size measurements. After adjusting for geographic region, subject age, and subject population; erect penile length increased 24% over the past 29 years."[1] Belladelli (2023) also indicated that "importantly, when the current analyses were adjusted for the technique to achieve erection, the point estimates remained similar."[1]
    The meta-analysis and systematic review by Belladelli et al. (2023) of 55,761 men from 75 studies, done between 1942 and 2021, and based on estimations of pooled mean length, indicated that the average erect penis length was 13.93 cm (5.48 in), average stretched penis length was 12.93 cm (5.09 in), and average flaccid penis length was 8.70 cm (3.43 in).[2] Belladelli (2023) indicated that "all measurements showed variation by geographic region. Erect length increased significantly over time in several regions of the world and across all age groups, while no trends were identified in other penile size measurements. After adjusting for geographic region, subject age, and subject population; erect penile length increased 24% over the past 29 years."[2] Belladelli (2023) also indicated that "importantly, when the current analyses were adjusted for the technique to achieve erection, the point estimates remained similar."[2]
    The meta-analysis and systematic review by Belladelli et al. (2023) of 55,761 men from 75 studies, done between 1942 and 2021, and based on estimations of pooled mean length, indicated that the "current report identified a significant difference in penile measurements across different geographical regions."[3] The average flaccid penile length was 8.09 cm (3.19 in) in Africa, 7.23 cm (2.85 in) in Asia, 9.44 cm (3.72 in) in Europe, 9.82 cm (3.87 in) in North America, and 11.00 cm (4.33 in) in South America.[4] The average stretched penile length was 12.53 cm (4.93 in) in Africa, 11.60 cm (4.57 in) in Asia, 13.40 cm (5.28 in) in Europe, 13.75 cm (5.41 in) in North America, 15.60 cm (6.14 in) in South America, and 12.13 cm (4.78 in) in multiple regions.[4] The average erect penile length was 14.88 cm (5.86 in) in Africa, 11.74 cm (4.62 in) in Asia, 14.12 cm (5.56 in) in Europe, 14.58 cm (5.74 in) in North America, 15.71 cm (6.19 in) in Oceania, 14.50 cm (5.71 in) in South America, and 15.33 cm (6.04 in) in multiple regions.[4] Belladelli (2023) indicated that "importantly, when the current analyses were adjusted for the technique to achieve erection, the point estimates remained similar."[3] Belladelli (2023) also found that "after adjusting for geographic region, subject age, and subject population; erect penile length increased 24% over the past 29 years."[3]
    ----
    This does not comply with the rule to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles#Cite sources, don't describe them. Compliant text for the first paragraph would sound approximately like this:
    "The average erect penis length was 13.93 cm (5.48 in), average stretched penis length was 12.93 cm (5.09 in), and average flaccid penis length was 8.70 cm (3.43 in), with more recent studies showing longer erect penis length."
    That's it.
    Also, we probably shouldn't be reporting "the average" (Median? Geometric mean? Arithmetic mean? Weighted arithmetic mean?) down to a tenth of a millimeter. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:00, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I want to add: Given how bad the rest of the article is, it would not be surprising if someone thought that the verbose version above was actually preferred. I've just cut bunch of text out from one section, and far more of that work needs to be done.
    It's also in need of a lot of WP:MEDDATE. One of the sources cited was from 1988 – 36 years old, and 31 years older than what WP:MEDDATE recommends. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:12, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ a b c Cite error: The named reference Belladelli was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
    2. ^ a b c Belladelli, Federico; et al. (Feb 15, 2023). "Worldwide Temporal Trends in Penile Length: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis". World Journal of Men's Health. 41 (4): 848–860. doi:10.5534/wjmh.220203. ISSN 2287-4208. OCLC 10168435334. PMC 10523114. PMID 36792094. S2CID 263309386.
    3. ^ a b c Cite error: The named reference Belladelli3 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
    4. ^ a b c Belladelli, Federico; et al. (Feb 15, 2023). "Table 2: Worldwide Temporal Trends in Penile Length: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis". World Journal of Men's Health. 41 (4): 848–860. doi:10.5534/wjmh.220203. ISSN 2287-4208. OCLC 10168435334. PMC 10523114. PMID 36792094. S2CID 263309386.

    Bon courage, IntentionallyDense, and WhatamIdoing, thanks for sharing your thoughts, findings, and observations.

    Bon courage has pointed out that Belladelli et al. (2023) is a review in a non-MEDLINE journal (World Journal of Men's Health). Bon courage has also shared the source from PubPeer, which shows: Guillaume Cabanac shared two excerpts (accepted by PubPeer in August) from the Times Higher Education's "Peer review will only do its job if referees are named and rated", which was authored on August 14, 2024 by Randy Robertson. Per Susquehanna University, Randy Robertson is an Associate Professor of English and Creative Writing. Robertson does not appear to be a subject-matter expert in a relevant field, which seems to make the claims made in the article, including the cited excerpts from PubPeer, questionable in terms of weight as it relates to this present discussion.

    WhatamIdoing has shared the source from Scopus and pointed out that Scopus gives the World Journal of Men's Health a good rating (CiteScore rank 2023: 7.6, #11/120, 91st percentile) as well as pointed out that Belladelli et al. (2023) has been cited by Bene et al. (2024) via Journal of Clinical Medicine (an MDPI journal). World Journal of Men's Health indicates that, via Crossref, Belladelli et al. (2023) is cited by Bene et al. (2024), Hanson et al. (2024) via Archives of Sexual Behavior (a Springer Science+Business Media journal), and Seranio et al. (2023) via International Journal of Impotence Research (a Springer Nature journal).

    If the observation made about the cited excerpts from PubPeer being questionable is accepted and PubPeer, in this particular case, is accepted as not ultimately bearing weight in the discussion about Belladelli et al. (2023), then what has apparently been established is that the World Journal of Men's Health is a non-MEDLINE journal with a good rating from Scopus, and that Belladelli et al. (2023) – an article in the World Journal of Men's Health – is cited by three articles, one from an MDPI journal, one from a Springer journal, and one from a Springer Nature journal. What do you all think? Daniel Power of God (talk) 20:06, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Avoid. Bon courage (talk) 20:13, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Daniel Power of God, I think that "is this reliable?" is not the question that needs to be asked right now. The article has much bigger problems.
    Would you please read the Talk:Human penis size#WP:MEDSAY copyediting and try to implement that for a couple of sections? After you learn how to apply WP:MEDSAY to this subject, then I think you'll be in a better position for talking about this particular source.
    @Ozzie10aaaa, if you have some time available in the next couple of weeks, would you mind dropping {{primary-source-inline}} and {{outdated source}} on that article? I think the contributors there are trying their best, but they seem to be creating a comprehensive bibliography instead of an encyclopedia article. I'm pretty lenient about the five-year recommendation in WP:MEDDATE, but about 20% of the cited sources are from the previous century, meaning that a whole generation has been born and finished university since they were published. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:33, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WAID. will do tomorrow, no problem, Ozzie--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:44, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Articles for deletion.

    [edit]

    There is a couple medical pages up for deletion that I would appreciate some opinions on.

    Acral arteriolar ectasia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Keratin implantation cyst (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Stippled nails (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Tumor alopecia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    There is also some PROD pages if anyone wants to take a look at those:

    Dysplastic nail (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Hypertrichosis simplex of the scalp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Any input or opinions are welcomed and appreciated! IntentionallyDense (talk) 17:31, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Since I pulled the page views numbers above, I checked these for fun. They're approximately in the top third of all Wikipedia articles for popularity.
    These all look like the kinds of things that someone might see in a lab report or a doctor's note and ask Dr. Google to explain what the terms mean. I'm not sure that we need a separate article for any of them, but I believe that we need to have the information somewhere. Consequently, I think I would make a very general recommendation that you spend more time in Wikipedia:Proposed article mergers than in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion or Wikipedia:Proposed deletion, especially for diseases and variations on diseases (e.g., Hypertrichosis simplex of the scalp, which is a specific monogeneic type of Hypertrichosis – a viable merge target – and also about which you might be interested in the table of genetic mutations here, and its place in a broader classification scheme here [in German]). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:49, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Some of these I was on the fence about and some (such as the tumor alopecia page) I wouldn't choose to put up for deletion now (I would have instead redirected to alopecia). However I have redirected a lot of these smaller pages and the ones I chose to put up for deletion are pages that I didn't see a clear page to redirect to (although I do miss things). I do prefer to redirect when possible but some of these pages don't really have a page where I feel like they could be merged/redirected to. For example the page Acral arteriolar ectasia doesn't seem to have a page that it could be redirected to. As for Hypertrichosis simplex of the scalp there is no evidence that said disease exists. I could not find it in the source given and the only other mention of it described it as a type of alopecia and cites an article about HYPOtrichosis simplex of the scalp which leads me to believe it may have been a typo hence why I opted for deletion over a redirect. As always I really appreciate your feedback and knowledge. (I also for some reason could not access the two links you provided). IntentionallyDense (talk) 18:00, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, that's fascinating. The table says that hyPERtrichosis simplex is autosomal dominant, MIM 146520 in gene CDSN at locus 6p21.  But https://omim.org/entry/146520 names the same gene and the same locus and says it's about hyPOtrichosis. Perhaps different mutations in the same gene have opposite effects?
    The book says:

    Michelson unterschied bei der Hypertrichosis folgende Formen:

    1. Hypertrichosis indoles hereditaria
      A. Hypertrichosis universalis
      a) die exzessive Behaarung der Haarmenschen,
      b) die allgemeine starke Behaarung des männlichen Körpers,
      B. Hypertrichosis localis:
      a) Hypertrichosis simplex, die zu starke Behaarung einer Stelle bei unveränderter Haut
      b) Hypertrichosis hypertrophica, die exzessive Behaarung der sog. Naevi auf überpigmentierter und pathologisch veränderter Haut.
    2. Hypertrichosis acquisata transitoria (Klebs) als im extrauterinen Leben erworben:
      a) Hypertrichosis neurotica, infolge neurotischer Ursachen,
      b) Hypertrichosis irritativa, als Folge von Hautreizungen
    with the relevant bit being 1.B.a): 1. says that it's hereditary, B. says that it's localized, and a) says that it's too much hair in one place on otherwise normal skin.
    BTW, Google Books gave the publication date as 2013, but it's a reprint of a 1932 book. Perhaps this is an older name and rarely used now? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:40, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Interesting. I’m at a loss with this one. IntentionallyDense (talk) 20:10, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    How to cite Dorland's medical dictionary?

    [edit]

    Hello, can someone please explain how to cite Dorland's medical dictionary like this format.[1] I found this format in this article, yet I am unable to access other definitions. I'm looking for the definition of pericapillary end foot on Dorland's, but every time I try accessing it, I get directed to this page instead. Can someone help me find it? PecMo (talk) 06:48, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @PecMo:.... Could try Dorland's Illustrated Medical Dictionary (33rd ed.). Philadelphia: Elsevier. 2020. p. 117. ISBN 978-1-4557-5643-8.. Whispyhistory (talk) 07:29, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ "Podocyte" at Dorland's Medical Dictionary

    Requested move at Talk:Hospital-acquired infection#Requested move 8 September 2024

    [edit]

    There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Hospital-acquired infection#Requested move 8 September 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 04:52, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Requesting input at Teahouse on a draft

    [edit]

    Please comment at Wikipedia:Teahouse#How should I move Draft:Childhood dementia to the mainspace?, not here. Moving the draft itself [over an existing redirect] when ready is trivial, so the main question I am seeking additional viewpoints to is if Draft:Childhood dementia is indeed ready for mainspace or suggestions for improvement. Thank you, Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 18:29, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    did a few edits[3]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:56, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Calculators

    [edit]

    We at Wiki Med have been working on developing medical calculators which you can see here on EN WP User:Doc_James#Calculator or at mdwiki:Body mass index or mdwiki:CHA2DS2–VASc score. Not sure if there is interest here. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:11, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    very useful[4] to add to some articles, IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:51, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Requested move at Talk:Perspiration#Requested move 21 September 2024

    [edit]

    There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Perspiration#Requested move 21 September 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – robertsky (talk) 08:02, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Post herniorraphy pain syndrome

    [edit]

    I have been asked to relay a request for an update to post herniorraphy pain syndrome; the cites are all more than a decade old, and it seems to be an area of active R&D, where expertise would be really useful. Many thanks in advance to anyone who takes this on, or recruits someone who does. HLHJ (talk) 01:28, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks like there isn’t a whole lot of literature on the topic but I’ll see what I can do! IntentionallyDense (talk) 02:41, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you very much, IntentionallyDense! HLHJ (talk) 19:59, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Improving + Translating APBD article

    [edit]

    My name is Jeff Levenson and I am a volunteer co-president of the Adult Polyglucosan Body Disease Research Foundation (APBD RF). APBD is a genetic neurodegenerative, glycogen storage disease type IV which often mimics MS. Because of that, most of our patients are misdiagnosed and take on average seven years to be properly diagnosed. I have been working on the APBD Wiki page in hopes of improving awareness about this disease. There is an English and German versions of the APBD page, but we desperately need help on other translations. i.e. Spanish, Portuguese, Polish, etc.

    Can someone tell me if there a red link index and if it is recommended to use Wikidata platform and/or Wiki Project: medicine to grapple with the challenges of spreading the word about APBD and allied diseases? BabaJuly1982 (talk) 15:49, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Welcome to Wikipedia, @BabaJuly1982. Before you request translations, I suggest that you look for some more sources. The main goal is to have the facts be up to date, but also to make it easy for editors to see at a glance that the facts are probably up to date, just by looking at how old the cited sources are. The ideal is to get high-quality sources within the last five years; for rare diseases, it's often necessary to stretch that a bit. Here is a list of newer medical journal articles that might be useful, if you'd like to have a look.
    When you feel like it's in good shape, then I suggest that you go to m:Talk:Wiki Project Med and click the "Add topic" button at the top of the page, and leave a note to ask if anyone is coordinating translations at the moment. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:24, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    User:BabaJuly1982 yes we at Wiki Project Med have an ongoing translation project. We generally are only translating the leads of articles and for a lead of an article to be deemed ready for translation every sentence must be referenced to a high quality secondary source. Our translation dashboard is here and we have had more than 3,500 translations created by volunteers as a result of this initiative since 2021. Reach out when the lead of this article is ready and we can discuss next steps. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:18, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Priority rating maintenance

    [edit]

    We seem to have some creep in Category:High-importance medicine articles. Here are a few that I thought should be removed (presumably to Mid-importance, but let me know):

    The rules are: You tell me what rating you want, and it's okay with me. I've picked these out by scrolling through the first half of the category, and it would actually be extremely helpful and desirable for you to tell me that I'm wrong about any of these that you think should be kept at this level. If you don't have a good feeling for how we usually rate things, then click on the category and scroll around for a few seconds (or read the documentation, but scrolling through the cat will be faster and may be more helpful).

    WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:28, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The only ones I could even see an arguement for being high priority are benzo dependance and GI cocktail however I have no issues with these being rated mid importance. IntentionallyDense (talk) 13:49, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Requested move at Talk:Oracle Cerner#Requested move 19 September 2024

    [edit]

    There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Oracle Cerner#Requested move 19 September 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 [𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺] 03:18, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    thanks for posting--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:21, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Marburg outbreak

    [edit]

    have started Rwanda Marburg disease outbreak , it should be noted this is the first time this occurs in Rwanda (and in recent years in other countries) please feel free to add/delete, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:32, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Added stuff on the socioeconomic/legal reasons that we don't have a vaccine in production yet. See also economics of vaccines.
    I should like to see an analysis of whether the existence of legal monopolies in the biomedical field is a net benefit to taxpayers, because it clearly has enormous negative externalities. This is doubly important because, outside the chemical and pharma sector, patents seem not to be a net benefit even to their owners (in the US, as of 2008;[1] from a Refdesk query). So the onus is rather on patents to show that they should exist. HLHJ (talk) 02:56, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ Bessen, James; Meurer, Michael J. (2008). "1". Patent failure : how judges, bureaucrats, and lawyers put innovators at risk. Princeton: Princeton University Press. ISBN 9780691143217. Retrieved 28 January 2021. (from fulltext of chapter one available at URL as a free sample)}}
    Also started Marburg vaccine, just by copy-pasting from existing articles, because we have Ebola vaccine and did before one was in production, and because organizationally, a central place for that information would be good. HLHJ (talk) 04:00, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Requested move at Talk:Sexual disorder#Requested move 30 September 2024

    [edit]

    There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Sexual disorder#Requested move 30 September 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Web-julio (talk) 03:26, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Second Opinion on the page Tumor necrosis factor

    [edit]

    I've decided to officially ask for a second opinion on the Tumor necrosis factor GA review (page:Talk:Tumor necrosis factor/GA1 and nominator:@AdeptLearner123) I'm mostly looking for second opinions regarding prose, readability, and broadness. Feel free to jump in wherever and offer what suggestions you have! IntentionallyDense (talk) 14:50, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Supraventricular ectopy

    [edit]

    We have no entry for Supraventricular ectopy. Should we, or should it be a redirect? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:20, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Is it the same as Ectopic Supraventricular Arrhythmias? I'm not sure that it has to be a page persay but I'm not sure where you would redirect it to either. Did you have any ideas? IntentionallyDense (talk) 14:38, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no medical knowledge; I was looking for the topic as I know someone who was recently diagnosed with SEV. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:32, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's possible that it could be redirected to Ectopic beat. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:33, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Potentially innacurate/outdated sentence in Childhood Dementia

    [edit]

    I raised some concerns over a sentence in Childhood dementia saying: "Neuronal ceroid lipofuscinoses, a group of lysosomal storage disorders, are thought to be its most common subtype."

    Is anyone interested in joining the discussion?

    My hope is that we can reach a consensus on whether the sentence is accurate or not. And if not, then what the best course of action is.

    Thank you. Irina Rainbow (talk) 18:37, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    What's the consensus on MOS with regard to conventional vs "person first language" ?

    [edit]

    There's a disagreement over conventionally wording vs "person first language" phrasing regarding this edit. What's the general consensus on this and is there something in MOS that addresses this?

    The long standing phrasing was: A needle and syringe programme (NSP), also known as needle exchange program (NEP), is a social service that allows injecting drug users (IDUs) to obtain clean and unused...

    One user came along and keeps putting their preferred version: A needle and syringe programme (NSP), also known as needle exchange program (NEP), is a social service that allows people who inject drugs to obtain clean and unused...

    I personally prefer the long-standing version, although I was wondering what the consensus of the project prefers. Graywalls (talk) 02:07, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Graywalls, have you found WP:SUFFER?
    You could also address the problem in a different way, e.g., "...allows people to obtain clean and unused... This is intended to reduce the risks associated with injection of recreational drugs" (or something like that). WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:36, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, and I see "Many patient groups, particularly those that have been stigmatised, prefer person-first terminology", but no definitive guidance on which should, or shall be used in Wikipedia articles. Graywalls (talk) 02:46, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Non-stigmatizing language is preferable, of course, as is a writing style that is clear, direct, and concise. It is not always possible to achieve all of these desirable things in the same sentence. As for which to prefer in a tradeoff, we have not found it necessary to have a hard and fast rule, and of course one of the fundamental policies is that there are WP:No firm rules anyway.
    Personally, if I were going to try to improve that article, I think it would be more productive to focus on the outdated facts instead of the wording of the one sentence. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:01, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @WhatamIdoing:, any objection to restoring the original phrasing alongside addressing outdated info? I think it's more concise and gets the point across. Graywalls (talk) 13:42, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Introduction and Hello

    [edit]

    Hello everyone

    I have been advised to come to this page and introduce myself. I am part of a team of instructors guiding undergrad students in creating articles on medical topics. These students are from the pharmacy and biomedical science disciplines at the faculty of medicine in our Uni. For various reasons, last semester I was involved in moving articles to the main space. Going forward this part will be handled by a more experienced editor in my location. How this space will be hugely beneficial is in helping us guide our students in writing quality articles.

    To give you some background about our process, we begin by showing our students the requested medical article list. There are issues with this list and thanks to some helpful members of this community, I have already been given some suggestions on how to handle this list and ideas for modifying this element of our guidance. Any other suggestions regarding this list or suggestions on how to get our medical students started are welcome! The suggested ideas so far will require some substantial restructuring in our syllabus from assignment design to modification of the assessment rubric which may not be possible for the next cohort. Students go through a 3-month period from topic selection to drafting, peer reviewing to final submission before we move the articles to the main space. We make students submit a downloaded PDF version of their sandbox drafts to Turnitin for plagiarism checking. Their submissions come at the end of the semester, and students tend not to engage in continuous edits once they have completed the course with us despite us encouraging them to do so. We understand well that not all articles will be accepted and we tell students that the best ones will go through.

    I have a lot of questions regarding general Wikipedia protocols as well as questions specific to medical articles. Now that I have found this space, I will use it to check our alignments when the course gets going in January and students submit drafts. Nice to meet you here and I look forward to engaging with you. G.J.ThomThom (talk) 02:14, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for this note. But first I want you to show off some of the work done by your previous students. Nobody expects a perfect article from any new editor, but yours seem to have done pretty well so far, and you've done a good job of teaching them that material needs citations from the beginning.
    If you've got a list of those still in Draft: space, that would also be useful to have. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:50, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Here you go:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorsal_pancreatic_agenesis
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_saliva
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-linked_genetic_disease
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dermatologic_surgical_procedure
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acquired_hand_deformity
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_light_spectrum
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_and_drugs
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Face_washing
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microneedles
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pregnancy_hormones
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catatonic_depression
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_chimera
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virus_crystallisation
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tissue_transplantation
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congenital_pseudarthrosis_of_the_tibia
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-dose_chemotherapy G.J.ThomThom (talk) 03:57, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your comments @WhatamIdoing G.J.ThomThom (talk) 04:09, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    With the next cohort, I will share excerpts during the drafting phase for comments and suggestions if I need them (very likely!). G.J.ThomThom (talk) 04:19, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine&oldid=1251056811"