Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
ย ย (Redirected from Wikipedia talk:MED)
Jump to: navigation, search


Turning on Feedback tool 5[edit]

I would like to get feedback tool 5 turned back on for medical articles (or at least some medical articles). I personally would find knowing what our readers think very useful and of research interest.


  • Support as proposer Doc James (talk ยท contribs ยท email) 14:44, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
  • support--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:47, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support and I also suggest it turned on for WP:ANATOMY & WP:PHYSIOLOGY -- CFCF ๐ŸŒ (email) 14:52, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support to my knowledge this is the only tool that allows us to understand how useful the reader finds the information we provide. Mrjohncummings (talk) 14:53, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support: reader feedback is potentially useful to improve content. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 15:36, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - How can we improve if we do not know the way readers feel/interact with articles? Peter.C โ€ข talk โ€ข contribs 15:50, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Please do this. Please. The only thing turning it off accomplished was to slow the pace of article improvement. And, in line with what CFCF said, turn it on for WP:PHARM as well if possible. Seppi333 (Insert 2ยข) 16:04, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Worth looking at this again. JFW | T@lk 21:17, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - on balance. See discussion. --RexxS (talk) 23:36, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - This makes a lot of sense. Keilana|Parlez ici 23:37, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support if there is a central place to view feedback put under a project (eg a 'recent feedback' page). With such a system small projects would benefit, such as our related project WP:ANATOMY. However if feedback is viewed on a page by page basis, as stated below, I do not think it will be very useful. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:51, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
LT910001, we can likely integrate it into WikiProject X, which is run by Harej. I haven't got to proposing using it at WP:ANAT yet, but I think it has great potential to create such useful dashboards. Harej do you think this is possible? -- CFCF ๐ŸŒ (email) 21:45, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Isn't AFTv5 basically deprecated? Harej (talk) 15:54, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support a tool of some sort where people who are not editors can be solicited to leave feedback about a specific medical related article. If the feedback tool 5 can be tailored for this use then I would support its use. If not, then we need to create a different tool to let us get feedback. There are specific types of information that we want to get from readers, both the general public and topic experts. And there are ideal ways for us to have the collected feedback disseminated to us. I suggest we be specific about what we want to see and how we want to see it, and ask for the tool to be modified for this use. Sydney Poore/FloNightโ™ฅโ™ฅโ™ฅโ™ฅ 16:00, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support under the condition proposed by Tom (LT), above. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 20:56, 21 July 2015 (UTC)


  • Strongly, strongly oppose. This may be the only time I ever post on this page. The AFT5 tool resulted in massive waste of time of editors. Almost zero "feedback" was useful and even the information classified as "useful" was usually at the level of "needs more photos" for pages that already had six images, or "needs more information about [completely off-topic information]." It was deliberately not added to medical articles because even the people who created it realised that what you would get is "so I have this funny lump here, does that mean I have Disease XXX?" We have few enough knowledgeable and wiki-skilled editors in this area; you should not be wasting your time in this way. Even having to take the time to point to the medical disclaimer is bad use of your time. There was never a benefit to this tool - it's why it isn't used anymore. The software is very dodgy and would require rewriting and then ongoing maintenance; it's just plain a bad investment of time and energy on the part of everyone. Risker (talk) 05:52, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
    @Risker:. We need more reader feedback. Given your opposition to AFT5, how would you propose we get it? โ€ข โ€ข โ€ข Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:23, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
    What do you want the feedback for? You need to really know the answer to that question before you know what type of tool is best suited. We know from the experience of the AFT5 tool that readers who wrote anything were (a) asking for information that was either inappropriate for Wikipedia to provide - a very serious risk for medical articles or (b) making suggestions for "improvement" that were heavily biased or were inappropriate for the particular article ("GMOs kill people, why are you supporting them?" or "Why doesn't the 7/7 article mention [name your favourite conspiracy theory]?") or (c) were personal stories (e.g., on the article about a certain city, "I was there last summer, and you should talk about the great restaurants!") Less than 1% of feedback was either actionable or an assessment of the value/quality of the information provided. Meanwhile, all of the feedback had to be reviewed because people posted really inappropriate information (BLP violations, personal information like phone numbers, personal attacks, editor abuse) that needed to be removed from public view, thus making a lot of work for almost no beneficial gain. Even if there was actionable feedback, that still required someone being able and willing to act upon it.

    Effective feedback tools, especially on a project that is deliberately intended to be highly transparent, are very difficult to design. They're also almost always very labour-intensive. Unless you have a very clear idea of exactly what kind of feedback you want to elicit, and you have an action plan on how you will address the feedback you get that does not impose additional workload or burden on editors outside of the project, I'd suggest that your statement that you "need" more reader feedback is perhaps premature at best. One of the groups significantly impacted when it was turned on before were the oversighters, who were hitting about 50-70 requests a month for this tool alone; it made up about 15-20% of the suppression workload. Risker (talk) 07:03, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

    For starters I would like a tool which is easily visible to the reader, with obvious function, which allows me to specify the type of feedback I want, will allow the reader to easily abort if/when they realise this is not where they need to be, and is only activated on demand, by the person/s who will get the notification, and who is/are looking for the specified feedback. i.e, a tool, not a spam generator. Ideally it would allow me to reply to the user, usually needed to clarify the feedback, as many people do not know how to explain what they want in the first attempt. Technically the talk page should do most of these things, but it does not. Partly, I suspect, because many if not most readers do not know it is there, or if they do, don't have a clue how to use it (our user-unfriendly software again), and partly because the talk page is not a good way to ask people for specific information when you are fairly sure they will never read it. This should impose no burden on people other than those voluntarily watching the feedback system for the specific article, other than creating it in the first place. I speak only for myself, but I think such a tool would serve the purposes of this project, and others, adequately. By the way, I made use of AFT5, and agree with most of your criticism. I suggested several improvements, but nothing happened. It was mostly a waste of time, but a small number of articles that I watch were significantly improved by using reader feedback. โ€ข โ€ข โ€ข Peter (Southwood) (talk): 10:28, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
    @Risker: Both Peter and I found the AFT useful for scuba-related articles where a significant proportion of the feedback indicated deficiencies in articles that we could address. In helping to expose issues in articles from a reader's perspective, such feedback helped prioritise our efforts and allowed us to "see the wood from the trees". Does that help illustrate what we would use feedback for? According to the report, "12% of posts were marked as useful". We may have been lucky at WPSCUBA, but my impression was that we had better results than that - this implies that a particular project, like WPMED, may achieve better results than average, if the tool is well-designed. I believe we have a strong and very active group of editors at WPMED and still maintain that we have sufficient resources to cope with feedback. This would be especially true if there were a mechanism for notifications of feedback to appear on a sub-page of this project, a little like how the recent changes feed appears, perhaps? I take your point about oversighters, but there are currently 52 users with that right. If a 25% increase in their numbers would have compensated for the extra workload over the entire project with 4,934,399 articles, I estimate that just 0.09 more oversighters would be needed to deal with work arising from feedback from the 33,596 articles in WPMED's scope. Heck, even I would volunteer to do that job, just one day per fortnight. --RexxS (talk) 16:27, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
    I think we already know what the (useful) feedback will be on most articles: Readers want to know the prognosis. That was the #1 request on all the disease-related articles that I followed when AFT5 was open. They also asked for pictures, but that was the suggested feedback, so that might be overrepresented. And they wanted articles written in plain old English, not in medicalese. I also found it useful on occasion (also more than the 12% average), but since the #1 request remains unfulfilled, I don't think that we really need it to be able to improve the articles.
    On a more practical level, I doubt that this wish will be fulfilled. There are some open questions about whether the code needs dev time before it could run again. There a sitewide RFC led to it being disabled here, and this is "local consensus" at best. Also, unless someone here is an oversighter and wants to volunteer to manage the inevitable problems โ€“ User:Fluffernutter's here occasionally, but I doubt that she wants to deal with this again โ€“ then I think that the opposition from oversighters should be taken seriously. It would not be kind or collegial of us to volunteer to increase their workload over their objections. And stuff that needs oversighting can't be left around for a fortnight: it needs to be killed as soon as it's noticed, ideally within minutes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:41, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
    Yes, sorry, that was my (unsuccessful) attempt to inject a little levity. I was not suggesting that we wait two weeks to perform oversight, only that the additional workload on oversighters would seem to be equivalent to a requirement for an extra oversighter one day every couple of weeks. Perhaps I should have made the analogy that one extra oversighter would likely be able to accommodate feedback from around a dozen projects the size of WPMED. --RexxS (talk) 19:56, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
    I'm an oversighter and I'm happy to help with this as needed. Emily Temple-Wood (NIOSH) (talk) 15:37, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
    More specifically I would like to get it activated on at least some medical articles for research purposes. It allows us as community members to ask specific questions of our readers. We need to do more of this. User:Risker would you reconsider if this was only on ~100 articles? We could also only have the results viewable by logged in users or even admins / people with the researcher tag if we so desired. I have a number of other researchers who are also requesting it. Doc James (talk ยท contribs ยท email) 18:08, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
    User:Risker would you be okay with its use for research purposes? And by research I do not mean research to improve the tool but research to determine what our readers think? Doc James (talk ยท contribs ยท email) 01:15, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Generally speaking, I think it is always a bad idea to activate software that is completely unsupported by anyone and was known to need significant rewriting even at the time that it was used. It is kind of the equivalent of restarting a car that hasn't been running for a couple of years and was taken off the road because it was belching smoke in order to test whether or not it improves air quality. I suggest if you want to start it up again, first it is necessary to have a (non-WMF) developer to carefully review the code, ensure that it meets the expectations for publicly visible user-created content, and then agree to remain available for any future issues. (Note: Expectations for user-created content are that it must be able to be deleted, it must be able to be edited by others, it must be able to be suppressed, and it must show up in checkuser, recent changes, and publicly-available logs specific to the content type. Any user-created content is essentially "community property", and it must be able to be curated by the community.) I specify a non-WMF developer because this is an extension that has consciously been de-activated by the WMF based on the results of the earlier trial (and let's be clear, the previous activation *was* a trial), and this isn't appropriate for even community tech because the community has already spoken on this issue. I remain gravely concerned that you will get a lot of personal stories and personal information from readers who do not understand that whatever they write will be publicly visible, or perhaps believe that a medical professional will contact them to provide them with advice or person-specific information, if the tool is tested on a page pertaining to a specific illness, condition, or treatment. Such posts should almost always be suppressed ("hiding" isn't nearly enough since almost everyone can see the hidden posts). And I'm still not seeing any evidence that there has been consideration of exactly what type of feedback is being sought, and what the action plan is to address both the desirable and the undesirable feedback. I will remind you that there is already a feedback mechanism - the talk page of the article - and that a first step may simply be to include a banner pointing to that, which can probably be done by a template rather than activating a disused extension with its heavy overhead. Risker (talk) 01:45, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes not sure what shape the peice of software is in. I agree it is not important enough to deserve either foundation or tech team resources. I only propose it if it is as simple as 10 to 20 minutes to turn it on again. Yes more or less the same thing can be done with templates. I was thinking it would work well as a format for people providing ratings for hotels and restaurants on Wikivoyage but that is another matter. Doc James (talk ยท contribs ยท email) 04:05, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Risker's argument is convincing. KateWishing (talk) 14:04, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Moderate oppose. I actually don't care all that much, because the feedback isn't hard to ignore. I wonder how many of the supporters actually tried to use it in its earlier incarnation? I certainly did. I was initially quite enthusiastic, and made a serious effort to look at the feedback and react to it. But after a month or so I ran out of steam -- I just wasn't getting enough value from it to motivate the effort it required. I can't see any reason why things would be different now. Looie496 (talk) 15:58, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Looie496 why don't we give it a chance and see, DocJames said about 100 articles (seems fair), and the result can only be positive--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:37, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
I thought I made it clear that I already gave it a chance and saw. As I said, it won't bother me much either way. I can always just ignore it. Looie496 (talk) 20:18, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:25, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Moderate oppose per Risker & Looie. My experiences were the same the last time. You got perhaps one comment per 500,000 views, & most were misplaced, missing the point & purpose of WP, if not just moronic. One or two were useful, but looking at them just wasn't a productive use of time. aren;t some of the old ones still acessible? Johnbod (talk) 04:20, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose pending defined boundaries I am in favor of experimentation but not in favor of establishing projects which can consume volunteer time without being documented or supported. One way that could make me change my oppose to support would be defining a limit to the number of articles which have this tool turned on, suggesting a time checkpoint for reconsidering this experiment, and promising some reporting of outcomes. Here are some boundaries which, if set, would make me feel encouraged to support - turn on for 100 articles, watch for 12 months, then if by 15 months there must be reporting and reconsideration of experiment status. If the feedback is not being considered or used and if otherwise there are not signs that this tool is having a positive effect then it should be turned off. I feel that the tool is a net harm if it results in volunteers committing labor to make suggestions but in return there is no one responding to feedback. Based on past usage, we should assume that Wikipedians will not respond to feedback and that there is no reason to believe that allowing users to give feedback results in a positive outcome. I am willing to reconsider but I would like this project framed as a question in some light community-managed research. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:39, 23 July 2015 (UTC)


The pilot was run with the purpose of engaging readers, rather than as a tool to help editors, and was evaluated as such. Looking at the project report at mw:Article feedback/Version 5/Report, the two major obstacles were the editor time involved in moderating the feedback, and the opposition of the majority of editors on each site. If we are to have the tool turned back on for medical articles (+ anatomy, physiology & pharma, perhaps), we are going to have to make the case that (i) there is a benefit to our editors as well as readers; and that (ii) we have sufficient editor resources within our WikiProject to cope with the feedback without straining those resources. I believe we are capable of meeting those two requirements, but I still feel we will have to spend some time and effort in making the case. On balance, I think that's a net benefit and I support for that reason. --RexxS (talk) 23:36, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

I can't remember the details, but there are problems with the software and particularly the user interface, which is somewhat confusing to the reader and elicits a high percentage of useless responses. That aside, I found it (marginally) more useful than not. Getting it restored for a major project might get the coders to respond to requests for improvements, which would be a step towards getting it acceptable to more of the community. However it should be implemented as an opt-in, to be switched on for an article where someone will watch it, as it does not yet have any way to notify an interested user directly of a change. โ€ข โ€ข โ€ข Peter (Southwood) (talk): 05:34, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Maybe only activatable by an admin or researcher? Doc James (talk ยท contribs ยท email) 18:10, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
I'd have thought that if you want to gather useful data about the benefits (or otherwise) of the feedback tool, it would be better to try it out on a random selection of articles, rather than selecting specific ones. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:22, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
In an ideal world there would be the same amount of activity over all articles, but the fact is many of us have only a subset we work on. Activating the feedback tool randomly would garner the same useless responses as in a site-wide trial. If we focus activation we can analyze the reasons behind specific responses.
I find it interesting that the most vocal opposistion is from people who do not engage in our project. I would hope the members of WikiProject Medicine could be allowed to decide for themselves what is the best use of their time instead of having someone uninvolved dictate it for them. -- CFCF ๐ŸŒ (email) 20:46, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Would it be possible to include both a scale rating (as in version 4 of the tool) as well as a feedback form with specific comments? Currently there is no easy way for readers of Wikipedia to give feedback on how useful they found the article. Version 4's four ratings for trustworthiness, objectivity, completeness and writing quality does not cover this. Does anyone know if it would be difficult to change the questions? Mrjohncummings (talk) 00:30, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I would be happy to just have it work on a small set of article. Articles would be changed from time to time. Once people have collected data on those articles or no longer need the data it would be turned off on those article.
I am not proposing this tool for general use. Only as a tool for editors or researchers who want it and will use the data. Agree we do not need to collect unneeded data. Doc James (talk ยท contribs ยท email) 01:10, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
The last time it was in use there was absolutely nothing a user could do to mitigate the extremely poorly chosen features and customise it to ask more specific and useful questions of the reader (and stop it from encouraging useless input). I asked. If reactivated as it stands it will produce the same old streams of garbage input with the very rare bit of gold. โ€ข โ€ข โ€ข Peter (Southwood) (talk): 08:22, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I had this

Tell us what you think of this article.

in a quotebox at the top of Cancer pain (where the infobox usually goes) for about a year until last April. See permalink. It linked to an edit notice above the article's talk page "new section" edit box that said

Please add comments below. We're particularly interested in hearing what's missing or wrong and whether the article is clear and readable, but any ideas on improvement would be welcome. You can find your comment (and others' comments) and any replies by clicking the "talk" tab at the top of the article.

It generated no comments (but that's probably because the article is perfect Face-smile.svg). Maybe if you ask specifically for expert commentary, or ask for input on a specific aspect of the article people will be more likely to respond.

As someone above suggested, if you use this method, you can monitor the responses just by watchlisting the talk pages. --Anthonyhcole (talk ยท contribs ยท email) 12:20, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Anthonyhcole, I think we may be looking at the same solution. Could you comment on the proposal below for "Building a new tool"? โ€ข โ€ข โ€ข Peter (Southwood) (talk): 08:30, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Yep. It's effectively the same thing. --Anthonyhcole (talk ยท contribs ยท email) 11:07, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Building a new tool[edit]

Like...or not. Click here to tell us about it.

Perhaps a template can be developed which will do what is needed (as Risker suggested above). Something that can be added to the bottom of an article, maybe with a big button with thumbs up/thumbs down icons and some text inviting feedback, that when clicked takes the user to a talk page subpage, opens an edit, fills in a feedback header, prompts a few responses if desired and instructs the user how to abort or save. Something like this would be customisable to suit a wide range of applications, and would be open to anyone to improve. If, of course, it is possible. I am no templating expert. โ€ข โ€ข โ€ข Peter (Southwood) (talk): 08:32, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

This approach has several advantages over AFT5. (not difficult to achieve)

  • You can watch the relevant pages
  • It can be customised easily
  • It can be used by anyone who takes on the responsibility of looking after the results
  • It can be removed from any place it causes problems. No admin burden involved - the project can manage it.
  • It is essentially a talk page, just with training wheels. Talk pages are standard and already covered by policy. No RfC should be required. It does have some MOS implications, but MEDMOS should be able to cover it within this project.
  • It could be portable to other projects (like Wikivoyage, as James suggested)

As a starter, I suggest interested parties make up a list of:

  • what they want the tool to look like on the article page
  • what information they want to get from the readers
  • how they propose to get useful information out of the reader
  • how they intend to prevent/minimise oversight burden, and how the burden which actually gets through in spite of everything should be handled โ€ข โ€ข โ€ข Peter (Southwood) (talk): 08:47, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Thanks User:Pbsouthwood. Agree that this will do the trick without needing to restore a controversial piece of software that is unmaintained. Doc James (talk ยท contribs ยท email) 22:02, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
I'd be curious to know how many of our 30,000 medical articles actually receive reader comments in an average month. I suspect it's a very, very tiny percentage. If so, to measure any effect from an invitation to comment, we should probably trial it on many, many articles.
If you're talking about a time-limited trial, I'd support trialling it on a very large random sample, assuming the invitation isn't hidious. I'd also support putting it at the top of the article where everyone will see it. --Anthonyhcole (talk ยท contribs ยท email) 11:03, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
I would say each person should trial it on as many articles as they are prepared to include in their own watchlist, and deal with the feedback. Start small, if it is slow, add more until you are getting a satisfactory rate. I see no point in going random. I would only do it for articles I would be prepared to work on myself on the principle that if you ask for feedback you deal with it and don't leave someone else to pick up the pieces, as that will probably bring down the rest of Wikipedia like a ton of bricks, half of them claiming they told you so, and the other half demanding you prove you had consensus.
As all comments are dated, it is relatively easy to keep track of changes. A suitably skilled person could probably write an app to give a monthly statistical report, but not me.

Top of the article may be a better place for visibility. We could try both, see if there is a difference. โ€ข โ€ข โ€ข Peter (Southwood) (talk): 14:45, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes agree with User:Pbsouthwood individual editors should only ask for feedback on articles they are willing to full up on. Doc James (talk ยท contribs ยท email) 09:55, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
The tool should contain a maintenance category tag to make it easier to find instances and to help get statistics. โ€ข โ€ข โ€ข Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:39, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

What next[edit]

Do we take this further or abandon the idea? I see three options at present:

  1. Abandon the whole thing as not worth the effort. (default option)
  2. Push for turning AFT5 back on against probable massive opposition.
  3. look further into the practicability and design of a new tool. โ€ข โ€ข โ€ข Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:39, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
I plan to abandon it. I think we can manage with templates. This may have been slightly easier but not worth the effort due to the oposition. Also agree it is not important enough to deserve tech time. Doc James (talk ยท contribs ยท email) 13:50, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Who will code the templates? Any volunteers? (I don't have the full skill set myself, but would like to help where I can) โ€ข โ€ข โ€ข Peter (Southwood) (talk): 10:08, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Miscategorization in Category:Organ systems vs. Category:Medical specialties[edit]

E.g., heart rate variability is under Category:Cardiology but heart rate is under Cardiovascular system. Any informal guidelines? I'm afraid the confusion in rampant, e.g., between Category:Nervous system and Category:Neurology. Thanks! Fgnievinski (talk) 21:00, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

best to look Wikipedia:Categorization--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:41, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
There's nothing specific to this subject. Fgnievinski (talk) 22:19, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
If I were you I'd forget about it and wait until Wikidata makes categorization obsolete.-- CFCF ๐ŸŒ (email) 22:23, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
CFCF please expand. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 00:16, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Well it might be a while, but using Wikidata for searches instead of categories will come. The category system is severely outdated, and I would suggest not spending more time on in than is absolutely necessary. If you want to really improve access to articles work at Wikidata, we need more people there. -- CFCF ๐ŸŒ (email) 07:41, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
So we have Category:Diseases of oral cavity, salivary glands and jaws, which is a mess. How could I use wikidata to sort this? Matthew Ferguson (talk) 08:44, 22 July 2015 (UTC) Ping CFCF not sure you saw this Q. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 07:01, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Fgnievinski, the informal guideline is that it's a known mess, and that anyone who knows the subject area, even slightly, is welcome to WP:Be bold. And if you figure out a good "rule", then please post it at WP:MEDMOS. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:31, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
@WhatamIdoing: How about making Category:Medical specialties a "childless category", i.e., merging its sub-categories into their respective ones in Category:Organ systems, leaving only member-articles at the base of Category:Medical specialties? E.g., merging Category:Cardiology into Category:Cardiovascular system but leaving article Cardiology under Category:Medical specialties? (Or the other way around.) Fgnievinski (talk) 02:47, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Maybe. Is there anything except Cardiology that belongs in a narrowly defined cat about cardiology? What would you do with subspecialties like Neurocardiology or various associations and institutes of cardiology? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:21, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Main article blood stream infection?[edit]

I wanted to link to hematogenous spread (Blood stream infection) by an amoeba in Genitourinary amoebosis, but couldn't do it convincingly as we don't have any overarching article on the topic.

Currently we have the following:

Not covered:

Do you think we should create an article on this, and if so under what title?-- -- CFCF ๐ŸŒ (email) 21:19, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

We also have these related:

LeadSongDog come howl! 21:53, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Given the context sepsis and septic shock do not seem appropriate. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 23:59, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, appropriate for what? I'm not suggesting merging any articles, just whether we should have an overbearing article. Also I agree with LeadSongDog, Blood-borne disease isn't a clear enough name. -- CFCF ๐ŸŒ (email) 15:43, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
It's possible that the title "Blood-borne disease" is appropriate for an article, I'm just suggesting that some scope clarification is needed: does it pertain to the relatively few diseases where the pathogen's life cycle depends on host-to-host transmission through blood (e.g. a viral hemorrhagic fever), is it more general, admitting any of the pathogens which can exploit opportunites for host-to-host transmission through blood (e.g. HIV), or is it any disease which infects the blood? LeadSongDog come howl! 15:57, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Blood-borne disease already exists, and it's about diseases transmitted through blood/body fluid contact, since that's what is expected by anyone who has been through bloodborne pathogen training or knows what the point of universal precautions is.
Blood poisoning redirects to Sepsis; Blood infection and Bloodstream infection both redirect to Bacteremia. I'm inclined to use bloodstream infection as the non-bacteria-specific new article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:18, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

An appropriate target for the term you are trying to link. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 16:36, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. Those are specific conditions and don't cover the general topic. I'll try to think of something and bring it by here once I've created it. -- CFCF ๐ŸŒ (email) 17:19, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

FDA bot[edit]

Hey All. Wondering what people think of an "FDA bot" that as soon as a new FDA "Drug Safety Communication" comes out the bot tags the medication article in question (side effect or adverse effect section if it exists) with {{Incomplete|section|reason=New FDA Drug Alert as of "Date" [url=X]}} if the url of the FDA alert is not already in the article?

List is here [1]. There are not that many. Bot will only work on stuff going forwards. Doc James (talk ยท contribs ยท email) 01:38, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

In theory, I like the idea. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 04:41, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
A very good idea, imo. --Anthonyhcole (talk ยท contribs ยท email) 06:14, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
sounds good--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:29, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Makes sense - post on Wikipedia:Bot requests maybe? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:50, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
A good way to look for information that needs to be updated. Sydney Poore/FloNightโ™ฅโ™ฅโ™ฅโ™ฅ 16:37, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
I like the idea of reflecting the information, but given the low volume, a bot task seems a bit much. At least for starters manual edits may be more appropriate and carry less risk of community backlash. Also it's a bit US-centric to use just the FDA. The UK equivalent appears to be here. We should, I think, tweak WP:MEDMOS, WP:PHARMMOS, and template:Infobox drug to clarify how to show this information. Once that's worked out we can start to think about automation.LeadSongDog come howl! 16:45, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Lead the bot is to notify both editors and readers (hopefully soon to be editors) to update the article in question. The problem is we have not done a good job keeping our content updated to the FDA releases per a previous study.
I would like to do the same with the UK list. That list however is more than just updates and thus not sure how to build a bot around it. For example what would one do with "Survey of medicines safety communications"? Additionally not sure if their is an API while the FDA has one. Will look into the technicalities of it. I hope that eventually this bot may also work on other sources like the EMA releases.
Doc James (talk ยท contribs ยท email) 21:58, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Makes sense to have a bot do this. High importance, low volume, repetitive work. Like airplane flying, except 'undo' is available. Good for a bot. There'll be pilot testing during the bot approval process. --Elvey(tโ€ขc) 05:33, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Before this work happens, we need to have a greater percentage of the medications in wikipedia coded by ATC and then back ported into wikidata. Right now it seems like there not that many actually in wikidata [2] At first glance, every medication that is listed in the WHO Essential list WHO_Model_List_of_Essential_Medicines has an ATC code. I will probably start with just making a collection of medications that have missing ATC codes. This bot will be driven nearly entirely by ATC (in order to handle internationalization automatically) so thats my current thinking. I am going to work on this "real soon". I also like the idea of doing this as report, rather than a bot, since making automated changes to pages or even talk pages is more drama than I am up for at this time. Ftrotter (talk) 13:02, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I can take care of the "allowing your bot to edit articles" bit. All we need is consensus here.
Is the issue with the ATC codes that they have not been moved over to Wikidata? Or is it that the ATC codes do not exist on En WP? User:Ftrotter Doc James (talk ยท contribs ยท email) 09:24, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Seems here [3] we have the ATC yet it is not on Wikidata [4]. We simply need a bot to move them over. These are the only articles with ATCs [5]. Do you want to try to build that? Doc James (talk ยท contribs ยท email) 09:32, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Article name change?[edit]

Hey guys, I was wondering about the name of this article:

Should it be:


I found that more literature has the name hypertrophic osteoarthropathy. What do you guys think? Does the name Pulmonary add much? Pulmonary problems are only seen with this disease in some types, not all. So I am not sure if it covers the disease correctly?

EllenvanderVeen (talk) 19:30, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I would support the change if you added the alternative name in the heading. Normally this type of uncontroversial move can be done at discretion. -- CFCF ๐ŸŒ (email) 20:01, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Feel free to move. Doc James (talk ยท contribs ยท email) 21:54, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Doc James, requires admin. :s -- CFCF ๐ŸŒ (email) 22:14, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
There are articles at both. Do they need a merge or should they be separate? Doc James (talk ยท contribs ยท email) 22:17, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
If you guys decide that the content of Hypertrophic pulmonary osteoarthropathy should be merged into Hypertrophic osteoarthropathy, then according to Step 2 of Wikipedia:Merging (This discussion is step one), you should advertise this by adding merge tags on the two pages to point to this discussion. I will be happy to close the discussion, since I have no opinion about this. If the merger is agreed upon, you can either move the material yourself, leaving the edit summaries as noted in the "How to merge" section, or you can ask me to do the merge and the attribution tags if you prefer. Then one of you can copyedit to arrange the two parts and remove any duplication. The other page becomes a redirect and is not deleted, so no admin action is needed there.โ€”Anne Delong (talk) 23:47, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Ohw alright. Do you know where can I change the name? I am not familiair with the protocol. The redirection is also incorrect I believe, it leads to a disease for dogs, that is called hypertrophic osteopathy, so without the 'arthro'. How do I change that? EllenvanderVeen (talk) 11:43, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Which redirect is wrong? Doc James (talk ยท contribs ยท email) 12:24, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Hypertrophic osteoarthropathy >> redirects to >> Hypertrophic osteopathy = incorrect EllenvanderVeen (talk) 09:40, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
How do I fix that too? EllenvanderVeen (talk) 09:42, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Moved :) No merge was needed; I suspect that Anne Delong didn't notice the 'Hypertrophic osteoarthropathy' redirect to 'Hypertrophic osteopathy', which confused me at first too! Sam Walton (talk) 09:57, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
thank you very much! It is all good now! :-) EllenvanderVeen (talk) 10:04, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

FA review of Ketogenic diet[edit]

I believe I have followed the guidelines for requesting a FA review. I have done this on the talk page of the article. The major editor/contributor initially wrote that he would address my concerns regarding the references in the article. No progress has been done to address my concerns and I, with no malice, want to proceed with the process of a review of its FA status. The major problems are: the references are quite outdated. I have posted other references and left this information on the talk page. I would have edited and inserted the updated references myself but I do not feel as if I have the expertise or familiarity with the topic to do so or I would have fixed it myself. Another significant problem is that the references do not meet the requirements of WP:MEDRS. The references in medical articles should be academic journal review articles, systematic review articles, governmental websites and policies and medical textbooks. I could find none of these as sources (there might one and I might have missed it). My review is not perfect but in good faith, I am optimistic that with the right sources, this article can retain its FA status. Best Regards,

  Bfpage |leave a message  10:59, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Nine of the first ten references are secondary sources in reliable journals, aren't they? I haven't looked beyond that. --Anthonyhcole (talk ยท contribs ยท email) 11:32, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
I have found only one that links to web page of a non-governmental source but I haven't read all the sources yet. I only found one reference so far that used undue weight and did not use the information to the contrary contained in the review.
  Bfpage |leave a message  04:51, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
concur--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:11, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
It's a rare treatment of an uncommon medical condition, so MEDDATE's provision for relaxing the date requirement applies. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:47, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Not so rare any more and is now being identified as having anti-inflamatory properties, as an adjuvant in the treatment of cancer, [6], reversal of gene expression, alteration of brain metabolism, a possible link to the pharamological medication resistance for the treatment of epilepsy and probably other conditions.
  Bfpage |leave a message  04:51, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Bfpage, you've posted this notice in various places but did not, as far as I can tell, notify the original FA nominator and primary author of the article. Your statement that you could find none of the typical preferred medical references as sources in this article made me think I was looking at the wrong tab, because it does not seem at all to be the case, and because you have already had the sourcing in this article explained to you in some detail on its talk page after you posted a similar thread there in May. What specific content are you concerned about and what newer sources have you read that led you to that concern? Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:58, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
I have contacted the editor who nominated the article for FA status.
  Bfpage |leave a message  09:47, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
I thought the original author was the major contributor and did not know that notifying the nominator was required. I am carefully going over the references and have found that many of them really ARE reviews though it is not always apparent in the text of the reference. I did locate more recent content and references that appear to be updates to those references that are older than five years. I left these links on the talk page. I also realize that some of the references support historical content so of course I don't have a problem with that. I had the sourcing explained to me as you have pointed out and yet the major contributor stated that he would look into my concerns. You understand that reviewing FA is a good thing and my assessment that a lot, if not most, of the content is older than the five yeas recommended by MEDRS. It was the dates of the references that caught my attention. Please assume good faith on my part. I thought identifying what I considered to be outdated references was a good thing and would benefit the encyclopedia. I detected some ownership, and it confused me. I would think that the existence of more up-to-date references would be helpful to those who maintain that article. If there is consensus that the sources are fine and don't need to be updated, I will withdraw my request for review. Why wouldn't we want the article updated? And much of the historical content is available in more recent review articles. I did not realize that this would be contentious. Best Regards and appreciative of all who have commented on this topic.
  Bfpage |leave a message  04:42, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I'll comment on the article talk page. -- ColinยฐTalk 10:12, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Don't feel like you need to do this I am withdrawing my request. Best Regards,
  Bfpage |leave a message  13:23, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
I wonder if it would be helpful to add |department=Review to those not-so-obvious review articles (especially since you've just gone to all the time and trouble of checking them). WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:49, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Orphanet on Infobox medical condition[edit]

Cerebellum and basal ganglia
Classification and external resources
ICD-10 G23.0
OMIM 606159
MeSH C548080
Orphanet 157846

I added a new field to Template:Infobox medical condition/sandbox that can be used on rare diseases to link to Orphanet. I also used it to link to the Swedish Rare disease db, but I'm not as sure about including that in the infobox, maybe EL is better (P.S. it's all in English). Anyway, I'm not really getting it to work properly, could someone pop over and take a look at the code?

-- CFCF ๐ŸŒ (email) 11:43, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
great idea to include orphanet EllenvanderVeen (talk) 11:51, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
seems reasonable--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:12, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Then if noone objects I'm moving it into the main infobox later today. I'll create and EL-template for the Rare disease db.-- CFCF ๐ŸŒ (email) 17:16, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good. Orphanet would make a good reference aswell for these articles. Doc James (talk ยท contribs ยท email) 01:45, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

WP:WikiProject First aid[edit]

Currently Wikipedia:WikiProject First aid (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) is inactive. I've proposed it to be merged into WPMED as a taskforce, similar to how the EMS task force under WPMED is currently set up. For the discussion, see WT:WikiProject First aid -- (talk) 05:46, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

please give opinion(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:54, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Thought about this the other day vaguely. Is there even a difference between the content in the EMS/Emergency Medicine task force and first aid? Looking at the articles they have listed on the bottom of their page, a lot of these already are under the purview of the EMSTF. Peter.C โ€ข talk โ€ข contribs 13:14, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

WP:MED main page needs updating[edit]

I know we're all to busy to ever take a good look over at the main page, but I rewrote some of it today. It still needs a lot of work, and hopefully we will be able to upgrade it with WikiProject X in a few months. I think it's important though that all the information is easy to read and up to date. If you're involved with the UCSF collaboration Bluerasberryยฟ or Wikiversity Journal of Medicine Mikael Hรคggstrรถmยฟ maybe you could update the sections on that? I think it's very important that potential new members get a good idea of what we're doing when they drop by.

Best, -- CFCF ๐ŸŒ (email) 17:14, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Note: This is the proper link to Wikiproject X. The other one links you to the Christianity Wikiproject. Also, I do very much agree we should try to update the content on the main page. Peter.C โ€ข talk โ€ข contribs 17:34, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Wikiproject X is looking at coming out with moduels of tasks that need doing for Wikiprojects. Doc James (talk ยท contribs ยท email) 22:50, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Acknowledged but give me time. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:01, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
I'll gladly update the section on a Wikimedia-based peer-reviewed journal. Mikael Hรคggstrรถm (talk) 19:52, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Fast Mimicking Diet[edit]

The new article Fast Mimicking Diet could probably use review from experts from this WikiProject. Thank you. Deli nk (talk) 18:41, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

references #3 and 4 are non-MEDRS compliant , while #1 is repeated twice,(it uses a clinical trial/primary source it is always preferred that a secondary source be used per Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine) thank you (have added inline citations)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:56, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
My overview issue with the article is the fact that it reads like a press release meant to entice people to try the diet. Is it just me or does anyone else get that vibe from the wording? Peter.C โ€ข talk โ€ข contribs 19:00, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
your correct, however if we can mold it,,,1 appropriate references,,,2.non-advertisement (academic text ( or layman))...3.MOS...then we might have something useful "knowledge-wise".(we also might need consensus to keep the article,even after all the trimming)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:10, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Resistant starch[edit]

This article has been a bad state for a while. I have recently tried to improve it but this has caused some dispute. More eyes would be welcome. Alexbrn (talk) 13:24, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

will look ...irrespective of primary or secondary source , references #1,12,23 and 24 are dated and therefore should be replaced with newer references per Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine) thank you (marked inline citation)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:22, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
I think people will want to look at Talk:Resistant starch#Poor sourcing. Given the amount of blanking in the history, the discussion may be more useful than the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:58, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

WP:Lead sentence at the Estrogen article[edit]

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Estrogen#WP:Lead sentence. A WP:Permalink for that discussion is here. Flyer22 (talk) 13:24, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

give opinion(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:34, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Primary sources[edit]

We have an IP that continues to add a bunch of primary sources here [7] when the article already covers the content in question with recent secondary sources in the paragraph above. Doc James (talk ยท contribs ยท email) 23:56, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine) is clear on this, the IP should be adding high quality secondary sources, if at all (which are preferable to primary sources)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:25, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
I fixedit here Jytdog (talk) 00:47, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
When I see someone adding primary sources to decent-quality articles, I find that I'm often safe assuming that the person is trying to do the right thing โ€“ according to academic journal standards, which often prohibit citing secondary sources. Thus I tend to explain that quirk of Wikipedia's sourcing rules and share the link to Wikipedia:Ten Simple Rules for Editing Wikipedia. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:14, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Goldmann perimeter[edit]

Dear medical experts: another one of those drafts about to be deleted as stale. Is this a good topic?โ€”Anne Delong (talk) 01:45, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

apparently it says,05:13, 26 July 2015 Tokyogirl79 -deleted--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:04, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, Ozzie10aaaa, I guess I didn't see it soon enough. It was nominated for deletion by the HasteurBot. It's a long, detailed article with illustrations. If you or anyone else tdhink this is an appropriate topic and want to have a look at it, I can undelete it temporarily.โ€”Anne Delong (talk) 09:02, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
no problem...the reviewer probably came to the conclusion it didn't meet the necessary criteria--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:24, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

1st PCSK9 inhibitor approved...[edit]

Now that Alirocumab is approved, I expanded this into a regular drug article from a stub. I'd appreciate it if folks would have a look and fix anything that needs it. While doing that, I also created this bit: PCSK9#History. Pretty amazing story - from discovery of the gene to a drug on the market in 10 years. Jytdog (talk) 02:01, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

will look --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:12, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Human nutrition is a travesty[edit]

Healthy eating, healthy diet etc. all redirect to Human nutrition. That article is a travesty with over half of it lacking sources completely. I'm currently working on a number of other topics but plan to dive into it shortly. If anyone else would like to take a look I would be very happy.

Best, -- CFCF ๐ŸŒ (email) 02:29, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

will look--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:13, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Writing simply[edit]

a writing guide produced by the CDC

I've been looking into the ledes of some of our major articles, and even the lede of a much read article such as abortion has been very difficult. I managed to decrease the reading grade from 11.8 to 9.3 according to , but I think this is something we need to look at generally. All of the edits I've done might not be perfect here but I've found a number of good guides on how to write health information for the general public.

I know this has been brought up before, but I think it's time to really try and do something about it. If anyone else has anything to add or maybe any suggestions on how to improve WP:MEDMOS feel free to add it here.

Best, -- CFCF ๐ŸŒ (email) 02:33, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Careful though with this guidance, Wikipedia is not a patient information leaflet. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 05:33, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Well yes, and I wouldn't go about following these slavishly, but they are good resources. Especially the third one from the CDC seems to be very useful. -- CFCF ๐ŸŒ (email)
Nevertheless, Wikipedia's biggest failing compared to other encyclopedias has been shown to be the relatively high level of reading comprehension needed for many articles. Any increase in the readability of our articles benefits not just younger readers but also readers whose first language is not English and who have no article available in their mother tongue. WPMED (James and CF in particular) have made great efforts in translations, but there will always exist a need for our articles to be understood by people who find reading English difficult. Perhaps the needs of that audience are even more pertinent to medical articles and MEDMOS might be updated to make that point? --RexxS (talk) 08:43, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
What do people think of this revert [8]? Yes work to make our content simpler is important. Our MOS says "The leads of articles, if not the entire article, should be written as simply as possible without introducing errors." Doc James (talk ยท contribs ยท email) 09:25, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
In this the colloquialism might be regional and not used in some parts. It's difficult. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 09:33, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Agree simplification is difficult. Doc James (talk ยท contribs ยท email) 09:44, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

โ”Œโ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”˜ The problem is that we say what we want, but we don't explain how to do it. I'll try and read up on the sources and see if there are any general rules that could be useful for us. (WP:MEDSIMPLE to be written once I have time) -- CFCF ๐ŸŒ (email) 12:12, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

yet, a necessary "article element" to help the common reader--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:07, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Regarding Doc Jame's specific reversion, there are two issues. 1) An editor had changed the wording of cited quotations, and this needs to be reverted regardless of understandability. 2) While "pee", or "piss" may be more commonly used than "urine" or "urinate", "urine" is widely understood. "Voiding" is probably not understood much outside the medical community, and "void" also has other meanings, so it probably should be explained at first use.--Wikimedes (talk) 17:43, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • We should definitely encourage simplicity, but not at the cost of discouraging editors from writing at all. Writing simply is actually harder than writing technically. Also it frequently happens when unskilled writers try to write simply that they end up writing inaccurately -- that's worse than complexity. Wikipedia depends on encouraging editors to do as much as they are capable of doing -- not more. Looie496 (talk) 12:43, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
A few rules of simple include: use short sentences, try to have only one idea per sentence, use simpler words. Some rules of simplification make our content too "how to" and thus I do not follow them. Doc James (talk ยท contribs ยท email) 01:41, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
I find that using a subject-verb-object pattern, avoiding the passive voice, and using shorter, more common words makes for writing that is more pointful and powerful. More people fully grasp the meaning of a direct statement like "Most babies with Scary Genetic Disease die in less than one year" than from "The median patient with Scary Genetic Disease has a survival time of less than one year".
I've been reading a lot recently about oncologists being afraid to tell people that they're going to die, and I've noticed a parallel in Wikipedia's writing. We're not trying to be optimistic (or to postpone a long and probably tearful session until a more convenient time, because I've got another sick patient in the next room who also needs me right now), but we do mimic the detached, passive, emotion-avoiding style that these people use. One example of this is that we talk about survival times rather than death. We also tend to ignore questions of quality of life and practical prognosis. Another example: We tend not to mention the practical burden of chronic diseases or life-long treatment. Diabetics need to plan every meal and every drug for the rest of their lives. If dinner is served late at a party, or if your friends at work take too long to get out the door for a group lunch, then it can cause immediate problems. People with fatigue or pain issues often need part-time jobs. People with kidney or liver problems may not be able to take the most effective drugs for other conditions. I find that when I try to write in simple language, that I think more clearly about a condition; when I think more clearly about a condition, then these practical realities become more obvious to me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:39, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

While it can take some skill and even artistry to write for a lay audience without losing accuracy, I think this is something to strive for. Wikipedia is, after all, an encyclopedia, not a journal for medical professionals. I occasionally try to make medical articles more understandable while maintaining the technical rigor and jargon. Sometimes this is as simple as including a synonym or short description for the technical terms (e.g. swelling for edema, or "swelling caused by edema"). Another technique is to have a lead paragraph or sentence in layman's terms to get the general idea across, and then have following paragraphs or sentences fill in the technical details. Sometimes the opposite order is useful, with the concept expressed succinctly in technical terms followed by a longer explanation in less technical terms. Other times things are more complicated and artistry comes into play.

I don't think we should discourage editors from writing in either technical or layman's terms, but should continually try to improve articles by adding the missing parts. -Wikimedes (talk) 17:26, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Agree strongly with what is written above by several users - it's important for lay readers to be able to understand what we write, not just technically skilled ones. Some specific advice for anatomy articles which can cross over to medicine is provided in the essay WP:ANATSIMPLIFY. I find the main problem is that whilst we are in agreement here, there are lot of users who lurk who disagree with this, and a gradual trend by IP users passing by to slowly reintroduce removed technical language. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:00, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I also agree with user CFCF that the difficult and complexity of articles on many topics is somewhat excessive. Could we address this within WikiProject Medicine somehow? Perhaps a targeted effort to simplify the "top-importance" articles, with a view to removing medical jargon and unnecessary detail, and relegating such content to the appropriate sub-pages. Many of the contributors are researchers and medical professionals, so I don't think we can avoid having many users writing in highly technical ways, but periodically revising articles with a view to simplifying them might be a step in the right direction. Nren4237 (talk) 10:19, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I think this is an excellent idea User:Nren4237. I have been working on simplifying for years. Am specifically concentrating my efforts on the leads of key articles. I do occationally get push back. But the more of us who feel this is important the more success we will have. Doc James (talk ยท contribs ยท email) 13:47, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Proposed article: List of incurable diseases[edit]

Hi everybody,

I want to ask a question: Does anything think I should make this article? I intend to have the article organized by disease type such as communication disorders, genetic disorders, and have a "notes" section for each describing possible improvements to control and/or manage symptoms. Please respond on my talk page if you you respond to this.Robert4565 (talk) 15:24, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

this Cure is the redirect for incurable diseases , believe it is best this way(placed at tp )--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:34, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
I fear that it would be a gigantic list that would never approach completion and would be only very sporadically maintained and updated. (I suspect it would actually be much easier and briefer to list curable diseases.)
You have to start with practically every genetic, degenerative, and chronic ailment in the book, and it gets worse from there. (And then there will be the quibbles and quarrels over what constitutes 'incurability'. We can cure HIV infection in some patients using a stem cell transplant from a suitable donor, but we don't really consider HIV infection 'curable' because the stem cell transplant has such a high risk of morbidity and mortality. Are various cancers 'curable' because they have a 5% 5-year survival rate? 50%? 90%? And so forth.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:00, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
I do not think it is a good idea. Curability is not a good way to view either life, disease or death Doc James (talk ยท contribs ยท email) 01:39, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject Medicine Collaboration of the Month[edit]

Hello all,

I just wanted to announce my plan to relaunch the WikiProject Medicine Collaboration of the Month. The collaboration has contributed a lot to the Wikiproject - and in fact tomorrow, July 27th will mark the 10th year anniversary since the collaboration started. It really is a good project idea, but it needs more people to come together and help make it work. What I would like is for people to visit the collaboration page and vote on the current nominations (or make your own) for next months project. In addition, I hope people will dedicate some of their editing time to the future selected articles.

Any thoughts, questions, and concerns are valued. Peter.C โ€ข talk โ€ข contribs 18:51, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

great idea...I think it should 1. be an article that needs a lot of attention not an article that's fine (articles that need expert attention page [9])...2. there should be a list or award each month for the top 3 collaborations (to motivate editors)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:54, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
1. I agree as long as it is not an article "too far in the weeds" (ie. very technical and niche) 2. In the past this has not been done because I believe the reward was to have another GA under your belt at the end of it. How would the "top three" be chosen? Edit count? - Also of note, depending on the amount of people we have editing, we might need to use IRC to communicate to prevent edit conflicts. Peter.C โ€ข talk โ€ข contribs 19:22, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
If you only edit sections then edit conflicts tend to happen as much. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 19:24, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

โ”Œโ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”˜ I think IRC could be a good idea, but not because we run risk of edit conflicts. If we make it a monthly collaboration it won't really be a problem unless everyone starts editing the first day and then doesn't do anything more. I don't really think we need motivators either, all we need is for someone to take the lead and organize it each month. I'm more than willing to help out. -- CFCF ๐ŸŒ (email) 19:33, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Human nutrition could be a good candidate, since that was just mentioned above as needing a lot of work. Sunrise (talk) 01:06, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
I think we should work on engaging users more throughout the month to try to motivate them to do work with the other community members. In the past few weeks Ozzie and I have started something like this where they will help me with something, in turn I help them, and this has led to a lot of great work on myasthenia gravis over the course of a week, and various smaller articles for brief periods. This whole collaboration is meant to engage the entire wikiproject to work improve an article - how can we do so if everyone works independently? Perhaps we should make a to do list for each article in the first day or two and then people can sign up for tasks and ask for assistance from others? Any thoughts, questions or concerns about this or have any other specific ideas? Peter.C โ€ข talk โ€ข contribs 01:09, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Naturally if someone were to organize things better there would be a better result, yes . Matthew Ferguson (talk) 05:51, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

"Attention deficit disorder" as the article name we should use?[edit]

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder predominantly inattentive#Requested move: Move back to Attention deficit disorder?. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 (talk) 02:35, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

give opinion(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:28, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
I gave my opinion. EllenvanderVeen (talk) 12:30, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Flyer22 (talk) 02:24, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Have dug up some references on the situation. Our article was previously incorrect but what is being proposed IMO does not fix the issue. Doc James (talk ยท contribs ยท email) 11:27, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Metabolic disorder etc. -- poor quality articles about an important topic[edit]

I've re-merged the metabolic disorders article into metabolic disorder. During the process, I noticed that both articles were of very poor quality, and have laced the article with {{fact}} tags to make that clear. Given the prevalence of metabolic disorders, this article seems in great need of urgent attention from experts. Metabolic disease (also redirected to by metabolic diseases) is a mere stub, and should probably be redirected to the same article. -- The Anome (talk) 11:37, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

will look--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:33, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
The merge was clearly the right way to go. Flyer22 (talk) 02:23, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Autosomal recessive polycystic kidney[edit]

this article needs attention ( I could use any assistance)thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:25, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I can spare one hour and help you out :-) EllenvanderVeen (talk) 10:23, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
thanks--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:33, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Alright, I added a new section about genetics. Please do check my spelling hehe EllenvanderVeen (talk) 11:17, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

AXL kinase[edit]

My new favourite journal article. Now to find a Wikipedia article to shoehorn it into.... Axl ยค [Talk] 10:36, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

awesome--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:46, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
AXL (gene) โ†’ AXL receptor tyrosine kinase โ€“ your new favorite Wikipedia article ;-) Boghog (talk) 12:45, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Interesting factoid: the gene was initially designated UFO in allusion to its unidentified function. Boghog (talk) 13:02, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Excellent! Axl ยค [Talk] 13:52, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Get it to 4k and you can submit it to DYK, and have it on the main-page. AXL, written by Axl. -- CFCF ๐ŸŒ (email) 22:00, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
That would be cool. You already have a natural, or should I say, extraterrestrial hook ;-) Boghog (talk) 22:50, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Haha! Axl ยค [Talk] 11:27, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Trouble adding book citation[edit]

So I often use Harrison's principles of internal medicine as a reference. But I can never seem to be able to add the ISBN number and get all the info about the book when I click the little magnifying glass. I often use the 19th edition of this book. These are the numbers, but they don't work.

Does anyone know how to make it work? EllenvanderVeen (talk) 12:55, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

try visual editor[10] its easier--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:08, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
One slight problem. Visual editor does not support ISBN autofill. Boghog (talk) 13:21, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
I used it for the #2 ref here Childhood_blindness and it worked--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:36, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Sometimes you need to fill it in manually. Doc James (talk ยท contribs ยท email) 13:39, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
As helpful as it is to suggest VisualEditor when someone is reporting a reproducible bug in existing tools, maybe we could try to solve the actual problem?
Looks like reftoolbar isn't indexing this particular book correctly, and it's not clear why. The API call the backend does comes back totally empty. We tried several different formats of ISBN, to no effect.
Eventually I just wrote the {{cite hpim}} template which will call {{cite book}} for you with the appropriate data, and takes the page=, pages=, and chapter= parameters.
If this is ever fixed, we can remove the template, but for now it's a handy shortcut to work around a bug in the software. I'll carry on to attempt to find a way to fix the bug upstream in the meantime. --MarkTraceur (talk) 13:53, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Wait a second Ellen, to what "little magnifying glass" are you referring?LeadSongDog come howl! 18:11, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
The "little magnifying glass" is the icon that appears next to the ISBN field in the reftoolbar cite/book graphical user interface. If one enters the ISBN in the box and then presses the magnifying glass icon, the rest of the fields should be autofilled from an on-line database. Very handy when it works. Boghog (talk) 19:21, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Visual Temporal Integration[edit]

Dear medical experts: Here's an old draft about a topic that seems to be referred to in a lot of studies and articles. I tried to add some as references, but I may have messed it up. Is this a notable topic, and if so is it ready for mainspace?โ€”Anne Delong (talk) 03:11, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

the #6 references is MEDRS compliant, and there is this [11] review...therefore save...and thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:46, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Okay, Ozzie10aaaa, it's in mainspace now, at Visual temporal integration.โ€”Anne Delong (talk) 11:15, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
thanks --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:10, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

mass deworming[edit]

Just a heads-up, we decided to begin a new page on mass deworming to split from Helminthiasis and to keep deworming for animals, as the existing editors there had expressed a preference for that. The whole topic is difficult as there is a lot of controversy about recent trials, data re-analysis and a Cochrane review. My view is that the page should be covered by WP:MEDRS but it is likely to be edited by those who want to talk about particular trials (which were not included in the Cochrane review) and which give different results. I am not totally sure how to write the controversial parts of the page without giving weight to individual studies, which appears to be in violation of MEDRS, so would appreciate any other input from WP medics. JMWt (talk) 09:35, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

will look--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:49, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

CRISPR/ systematic[edit]

[12] I deem this a good MEDRS compliant source which can be read (or used) thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:51, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

What is the context and relevance of this post to this project? Systematic analysis โ‰  systemic review. PMID: 26189696 is a primary source and therefore is clearly not MEDRS compliant. It is also outside the scope of WP:MED therefore WP:MEDRS does not apply. Boghog (talk) 13:09, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
CRISPR this article seems to have medical text were it could be useful specifically "Applications" section (therapeutics) subsection... (it did not say review) ...I hope that answers your question , thanks--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:29, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
The citation is to an experimental method, not an application and therefore not relevant to an applications section nor to this project. Boghog (talk) 13:36, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
I really wish somebody who understands the topic would improve that article on a more basic level. This has become such an important technique that it really sucks for our article to be so unreadable. Unfortunately I don't understand the topic well enough to make improvements -- I only realized how poor our article is by trying to read it in order to learn how the technique works. Looie496 (talk) 13:44, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
I would offer the prior answer given (if however for any reason you have a different opinion about this or any reference that's fine)...however I would point out the article in question CRISPR does contain medical information (references) in the sections mentioned above and therefore all articles with medical information are subject to MEDRS...also as Looie496 has indicated the article could also benefit from simpler language for the average reader..IMO. thanks--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:03, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
MEDRS only applies if medical claims are being made. The citation that you mention makes no medical claims and is a primary source. One relatively small part of the CRISPR article (application/therapeutics section) is within the scope of MEDRS, the rest is not. And it is not true that if one section contains medical information, then MEDRS applies to the whole article. You need to be more discriminate in how you apply MEDRS. Finally I agree with Looie that the article needs improvement. Boghog (talk) 15:15, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
And it is not true that if one section contains medical information, then MEDRS applies to the whole article. this statement was not indicated, what was to be clear is the section (in this case Applications-subsection (therapeutics),.. logic dictates MEDRS would not apply to the whole article--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:29, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

This post would have been more relevant on the talk page of the article jnquestion. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 15:21, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

This is a molecular biology technique and should therefore be discussed on WT:MCB or the article's own talk page. JFW | T@lk 16:24, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Agree this isn't the place for the discussion, but @Boghog:, please note what the policy has to say: WP:PSTS is not just about biomedical topics. LeadSongDog come howl! 17:06, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
@LeadSongDog: Agreed that WP:PSTS applies to all articles and one of the things that I pointed out above is that source mentioned at the start of this thread is primary and not secondary. Concerning CRISPR, this article is more within the scope of WP:MCB where WP:SCIRS applies. I just get a little irritated when MEDRS is indiscriminately invoked. Boghog (talk) 22:47, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine) --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:04, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Dafaq? Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 03:06, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
An attempt at humor perhaps. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 19:19, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

RfC on appropriate title for medical specialty[edit]

I have opened an RfC regarding the appropriate title of the article discussing the specialty "infectious disease" here. Input would be appreciated. Yobol (talk) 17:25, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

give opinion/gave mine--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:20, 30 July 2015 (UTC)


Hey everybody! I've just started a GAR on dyslexia due to some concerns I have about the article. More comments and help with the article would be welcome! Best, Keilana|Parlez ici 01:28, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Polycystic kidney disease[edit]


have done some editing on this article, any help would be appreciated, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:06, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Tweaked the refs, but they're almost all too old per wp:MEDDATE. The German WP article is even further out of date, though it's FA-class, and the French one looks like it might be helpful to compare too. LeadSongDog come howl! 17:12, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
It seems to me that if constructive editing is valued, you could go to Pubmed and quickly find many recent significant impact secondary reviews [PMID 26088074], [PMID 25015577], [PMID 26090645], [PMID 25786098] with some maybe even reaching the exalted WP:MEDRS standard! I am too busy with other matters to help and too naive but I would hope others are not. Jrfw51 (talk) โ€” Preceding undated comment added 18:05, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Jrfw51, thank you for the references, LeadSongDog thank you as always!--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:16, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Post orgasmic illness syndrome[edit]

Postorgasmic illness syndrome (POIS) is a rare condition characterized by debilitating symptoms following orgasm that last for a few hours to several days. The phenomenon was first described in 2002. POIS is listed on the "Rare Diseases" website of the NIH: . There are a few (literally, just a few) papers about it on PubMed: .

  • If you have any more information about POIS, please add it to the article.
  • Please insert relevant information about POIS into relevant articles. --POIS22 (talk) 15:25, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

[13] this might help (there aren't many Google books available)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:56, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

This source is good though [14] Doc James (talk ยท contribs ยท email) 15:58, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. POIS22 (talk) 15:37, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I am very happy this article now exists and appears to be in such a well-developed state, but I do have a quibble. Am I the only one that thinks all the [s 2] or [n 1] or [w 1] citations contribute to the related concept of wp:citation clutter and distract readers away from the actual content? I find that it decreases readability and that it is quite distracting. I am an experienced editor, but I have never seen this system used and I have no idea what it means. Would a normal encyclopedia go to such length? It seems like it is simply unencyclopedic and distracting overkill. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 15:27, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
yes, sourcing is getting problematic. i was going to work on that this weekend but got distracted with old drugs. i hope to get to it soon. Jytdog (talk) 15:32, 3 August 2015 (UTC)


Last year, an IP user left this message on the page for our image of how the nervous system is affected in Horner's syndrome. I have no idea whether the complaint is correct.

Is it correct? If so, is anyone able to edit the .svg ? DS (talk) 19:59, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

To be clear: I don't have medical training. I can't really parse the content in either the complaint or in the cited textbook. In fact, because of the IP user's weak grammar, I'm not sure if the complaint is (X should be portrayed as Y) or (X is portrayed as Y). You might say that I should just look at the image, but when I do, I can't follow the legend. I look at the page you've linked to, and I don't understand it very much. Is the image correct, or is the complaint valid? If the complaint is valid, is there anyone participating in the Medicine wikiproject who's able to edit .svg files? And if the complaint is not valid, is anyone here willing to remove it from the image? DS (talk) 12:52, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
The reference provided by Ozzie shows that the initial complaint is valid. The image in "Ciliospinal center" shows the locations of both synapses. Axl ยค [Talk] 16:20, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

"Midwifery" and "Obstetrics (midwifery)"[edit]

The usage of Midwifery and the naming of Obstetrics (Midwifery) is under discussion, see talk:Obstetrics (Midwifery) -- (talk) 05:17, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

give opinion(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:14, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

"Sanity check" for a new article please[edit]

Please look over Antiadherence activity of proanthocyanidins from cranberry, I've tagged several issues but as I'm not a medical or pharmacology specialist I might (probably?) have missed something significant. I couldn't figure out even one category for it. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:37, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Running my non-medical eyes over it I'll only note that it seems to be somewhat at odds with our cranberry article, which states that "Two comprehensive reviews of available research concluded that there is no evidence that cranberry compounds are effective in treating urinary tract infections". As to which (if either) article is correct, I'll leave that to the experts. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:45, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
If one checks the relevant paragraph in the new article it appears that the cranberry article statement is simply outdatd, the new article emphasizes prophylaxis rather than treatment, but as you said, leave it for the expert opinions of others. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:55, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Whatever the evidence, this doesn't need a whole article and should be merged to cranberry. Alexbrn (talk) 13:01, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
The reveal came in the last paragraph - was there to promote a dietary supplement product called Cysticlean and there were arguments throughout the article that something just like that product is what the world needs. I condensed the content, then put the content here: Proanthocyanidin#Urinary_tract_infections and redirected. Maybe adding to the Cranberries would be better, or in addition to that. Jytdog (talk) 13:12, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
concur--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:22, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
forgot to say thanks, Dodger67 - so thanks! Jytdog (talk) 13:35, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Pleasure! BTW it would really help if some of you med-experts would occasionally trawl through the pending AFC submissions and review relevant ones. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:50, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
@Jytdog: Thanks for pinging me, and everybody else with a link to our userpage on User:Dodger67. ;) Took me a few minutes to figure out why I was pinged... :P (tJosve05a (c) 16:12, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
My apologies for my clumsiness. oy Jytdog (talk) 16:53, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
@Dodger67: Did anything ever come of the idea to tag drafts with topic categories or wikiproject tags? Awhile back I set up the MCB tag to accommodate drafts, and MED could do the same if it hasn't been done already, but I haven't seen any topic sorting on the AfC end, beyond having individual reviewers ping relevant projects. But I'm not involved in AfC otherwise, so maybe I missed it. Opabinia regalis (talk) 17:00, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
@Opabinia regalis: some of us are doing it sporadically, but there is a script function under development to include such tagging in the semi-automated reviewing tool, so it's bound to become more systematic soon. (We're also a bit burnt out after reducing the biggest backlog we've ever had - it peaked at well over 4000 submissions - down to around 200.) But clever tools and workflow redesigns will only go so far, we really need a sustained "buy-in" and participation from "subject" WikiProjects. Generalist Wikignomes such as myself can only do so much without subject specialists - on any given day I might review drafts on topics ranging from architecture to zoology via weapons technology, soccer and linguistics, but still the vast majority of submissions are simply crap. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:54, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

New Wikipedia study[edit]

The study is Analysis of reference sources used in drug-related Wikipedia articles. Apparently "Wikipedia articles for the evaluated drugs tended to cite a wide variety of sources, with journal articles, commercial websites, news articles, and government websites being the most common sources cited." It seems about half the references are to peer-reviewed journal articles, which is good. However, the same study says that "Wikipedia articles rarely cited evidence-based guidelines, which are generally considered to be important sources of drug information for clinical practitioners." Everymorning talk 14:13, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

An important limitation that is inherent to this type of research is that Internet-based information resources are constantly changing and being updated; thus, the types of sources used and the speed or frequency of information update may change as time goes on[15]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:41, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Most scientific journals are paywalled, the other sources (news, companies and government) are not. So if as many as half the cites in pharmaceutical articles are from journals we're actually doing pretty well. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:03, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Most of us I believe have access to paywalled content, and for those who don't you can always ask here for journal articles. As for news and company pages we shouldn't be using them for anything medical related and it's a shame they don't break those up into more detailed stats. -- CFCF ๐ŸŒ (email) 21:12, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Many editors likely have institutional affiliations that come with good journal access, while readers mostly don't. I always try to use OA papers where possible, but that's easier in basic than in clinical research. They don't seem to have done much to break down what the sources were used for - obviously an article that discusses the marketing of a particular drug, or the history of its discovery, or its chemical properties, etc. will have a different mix of sources than the subsections specifically about medical information. This is a recurrent problem with research intended to compare "medical information" on Wikipedia to traditional sources, and IMO making too much effort to do better in these sorts of comparisons worsens the already detectable skew toward assuming the reader is looking for patient information rather than other encyclopedic content. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:18, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Most editors don't have paywalled access, which is why WP:The Wikipedia Library is so important.
Our articles about drugs ought to cite news and other types of sources. That's because they're encyclopedia articles, not drug articles, and therefore should contain a wide variety of information, including non-medical information. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:02, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

In the news nomination[edit]

I nominated the VSV-EBOV Ebola รงa Suffit phase III trial interim results for the front page. Please comment, and improve the related articles (especially ring vaccination, a terrible stub I just made). HLHJ (talk) 16:53, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

will look (ring vaccination)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:08, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
oh hell no. argh. Jytdog (talk) 17:33, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
well...efficacy and safety? (I think I know what you mean)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:47, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia readers demand pancakes[edit]

highly demanded

There is something very strange about the pancake article.

The traffic to this article has been 5000/views per day for some months. This puts it among the top 0.01% of Wikipedia articles by popularity, which makes it much more popular than any other food or beverage. The only food concepts which are more popular than the pancake article are McDonald's, Coca-Cola, absinthe, and cannabis. Pi is more popular but is not pie and dog is more popular but probably not for food, just as cricket is a food but not popular for that reason.

I checked the top 3000 articles by traffic, which are updated weekly. Occasionally something will sneak in for news coverage for a short period of time, but pancakes have been consistently popular for the last year. Banana is the only other food in the top 3000, and it ranks around 2800 to pancake at 2500.

I was looking at this to think about nutrition. I was wondering if people were searching for some diet or something, but pancake seems to be the major entry to Wikipedia for food information. Are people searching for a recipe? I note also that 10% of people searching for pancake do so from a mobile device, while 50% of the traffic to banana are people using mobile devices.

Are pancakes really the food of universal interest? Why are people so crazy for encyclopedic information on pancakes? I searched PubMed for pancakes. There are a lot of doctors named Dr. Pancake plus also I made pancake syndrome so that we have some presence in this popular article. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:11, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

That pancake syndrome factor... See, that's why my pancakes are usually store-bought (in other words...already made, not homemade). Flyer22 (talk) 19:18, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
A low viewership on either client indicates an attack. As to why there is a sustained attack on pancakes I don't know... -- CFCF ๐ŸŒ (email) 19:21, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for making me laugh with that section header. this is a head-scratcher. i will do some head-scratching and look forward to seeing what others think is up with this. we humans are so strange. Jytdog (talk) 19:28, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
See Pancakes, Waffles and French Toast (American Eating Trends Report) - Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC).
โ€”Wavelength (talk) 19:29, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
interesting--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:32, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
How reliable is this data? The bottom of the percent-mobile list contains some junk, and some other oddball outliers - e.g. the disambiguation page Ddd apparently gets 290,000 views, but with 0.14% from mobile. Or the #2 ranked article overall, with some 5 million views, 100% of which are from mobile, is... Angelsberg? A two-sentence stub about a town of 300 people in Luxembourg, which says has been viewed about 400 times in the last month?
I could go for pancakes right now, though. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:00, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Traffic of the English Wikipedia article for pancake over a 90-day period. It is strangely high and consistent.
Traffic of the English Wikipedia article for coffee over a 90-day period. Coffee is a very popular Wikipedia article, but much lower traffic than "pancake". The fluctuation in readership by day and weekday versus weekend is typical for Wikipedia articles.
Opabinia regalis The data is suspect generally. I live in New York and meet a lot of people who work in the field of web traffic reporting, and have come to believe that the entire field is screwball with a lot of people making a lot of things up no matter where they work, what academic or respectable publication they use to publish, or who endorses the work. Still, the data can mean something sometimes, and I really do think something unusual is happening with the pancake article.
CFCF used the word attack and I think that it is possible that the pancake article is being attacked. Other popular food articles are coffee, wine, and chocolate, and all of them get less traffic despite them all having a major web presence and large communities which discuss them continually. There are no pancake social groups that discuss pancakes endlessly like those things are discussed. It could be that since pancakes are one of the easiest things to cook at home then people are looking for a recipe, but I am not sure.
The other odd thing here is that the traffic is so consistent. Most Wikipedia articles have traffic that fluctuates weekends versus weekdays, or in summer versus winter. The traffic to pancake is steady every day, which makes me think that perhaps a bot is involved somehow. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:30, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
With no detectable periodicity, it's definitely strange. (Maybe someone thinks it's funny for the pancake traffic to be flat? ;) But I'm not convinced this is real traffic of unknown origin, as opposed to some kind of data collection glitch. Traffic to Ddd looks the same - high and flat. And this is the same dataset that tells us there were five million hits from people looking up Angelsberg, Luxembourg on their phones last week - for anyone who believes that, I have a bridge in Angelsberg to sell you. Today's update says six million views for nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy, almost all on desktop - well, that's one of my favorite topics and I'd love to see that much interest in it, but there is no goddamn way that's true. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:42, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

[[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] I'm sure this is people looking for recipes and either the browser preloads the Wikipedia page or people think that there might be a good pancake recipe on Wikipedia. JFW | T@lk 11:33, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

The WikiProject Medicine Collaboration of the Month for August[edit]

Hello all,

As I announced earlier this month, I am trying to reboot the MCOTM and as it is now August in the majority of the world, I have gone ahead and updated the article of the month to be transverse myelitis. In its current state it is very dismal. At the very least, I think with the combined effort of everyone here we will be able to get it up to B at the least. As I know not everyone has access to sources I have shared some via Dropbox which anyone is free to use. Some goals I think we will be able to accomplish by September are: i) Expand epidemiology section ii) Add information for treatments, iii) Improve citations, and iv) Better Wikification of the article to comply with MEDMOS.

Hopefully we will be able to make a marginal impact on the quality of this article. Peter.C โ€ข talk โ€ข contribs 00:24, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

For your sake I've removed the dropbox link as you could get into trouble for copyvio (unlikely yes, but it's also in the WP rules). You can however have this link available on request for anyone who mails you. -- CFCF ๐ŸŒ (email) 00:35, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
P.S. Great initiative, I plan to help out. -- CFCF ๐ŸŒ (email) 00:40, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Yea, I realized that a few moments after I posted it. Anyone can contact me via Wiki mail and I will send them the link. Also of note, the summer semester is wrapping up over the next few days so I am being inundated with due papers and finals so if I go a few days without posting or checking up on the MCOTM, I have not jumped ship, I am just up to my eyeballs in work. Peter.C โ€ข talk โ€ข contribs 00:52, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
great working w/ you Peter--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:23, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Improving infobox drug[edit]

I have made two proposals to improve infobox drug here [16]. One is to move the identifying info lower in the article. The other is to add pricing info. Doc James (talk ยท contribs ยท email) 07:38, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

give opinion(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:31, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Doc James has turned up a really good source for global pricing. I'm very pleased with it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:28, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
That got me all excited! Responding at Doc James link. Jytdog (talk) 00:44, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Redirect request[edit]

News items like "Students targeted in MenW vaccination programme" [17] make me think that users are likely to be searching for terms such as MenW or Men W (or Men A, etc, etc...) Potential targets for redirects might be Meningitis#Vaccination or Meningococcal vaccine. I see there is also a little content on the strains themselves at Neisseria meningitidis#Subtypes. Cheers, (talk) 12:15, 1 August 2015 (UTC) You can do this yourself by adding #REDIRECT [[page name]] to the red link. I will do it for now, but till next time. -- CFCF ๐ŸŒ (email) 14:10, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Ah yes, I remember now. Thanks CFCF. (talk) 15:24, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
IP editors can't create new articles -- even redirects. Looie496 (talk) 20:23, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Global Alliance for Self Management Support for deletion[edit]

This article seems to be promotional material, and there was some editing to insert links in other articles such as Birth control. I don't see any ill intent per say, maybe we should reach out to the editor? -- CFCF ๐ŸŒ (email) 14:08, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Forgot to link Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global Alliance for Self Management Support. -- CFCF ๐ŸŒ (email) 14:21, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Disturbing image on Behcets disease[edit]

An editor has expressedc concern that an image is disturbing and should be removed to improve readability. Thoughts? Matthew Ferguson (talk) 06:36, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with any of the images(it is what it is, they have to be representative of the article)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 08:11, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Added my thoughts on the talk page. Peter.C โ€ข talk โ€ข contribs 16:50, 2 August 2015 (UTC)


have not had time to edit this important article, would appreciate any help, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:10, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/CAM (Controlled Ankle Motion) walking boot[edit]

Hello medical experts. [19] Is there already an article about this under another title? If not, it seems to me there should be. Is this one okay?โ€”Anne Delong (talk) 15:31, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh, it seems that I have reported this before, so I guess it should be moved to mainspace. What should the title be?โ€”Anne Delong (talk) 15:35, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
I am supportive of one at walking boot Doc James (talk ยท contribs ยท email) 15:35, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Orthotics#Lower-limb orthoses seems to cover the general area, have a look and see if a specific article is still warranted. LeadSongDog come howl! 16:24, 3 August 2015 (UTC)