Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia talk:MED)
Jump to: navigation, search
Announcements [edit]
Malta - St. Paul's Bay - Malta International Fireworks Festival 09 ies.jpg
Happy New Year!

Wikimania 2017 will be held August 9-13, 2017 in Montréal, Canada. Some scholarships are available.

List of archives



Featured article candidates[edit]

β-Hydroxy β-methylbutyric acid

HMB FAC[edit]

Round 2[edit]

The beta-hydroxy beta-methylbutyric acid article has been renominated for FA status. at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Beta-Hydroxy beta-methylbutyric acid/archive2. It still needs at least 1 more reviewer. Seppi333 (Insert )

November 2016 update: The article now has enough medical reviewers; the pharmacology content still needs reviewers though. Seppi333 (Insert )

Third time through the meat grinder[edit]

January 2017 nomination: See Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Beta-Hydroxy beta-methylbutyric acid/archive3. Seppi333 (Insert )

Acne vulgaris FAC[edit]

Acne vulgaris on a very oily skin

See Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Acne vulgaris/archive1. Seppi333 (Insert )

January 2017 nomination: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Acne vulgaris/archive2. Seppi333 (Insert )
  • need more opinions at above FA's,thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:59, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Exercise intolerance[edit]

Exercise intolerance says, "Exercise intolerance is not a disease or syndrome in and of itself, but a primary symptom of chronic diastolic heart failure."

What do you think this is meant in the latter half of the sentence?

  • "If you have exercise intolerance, then you have chronic diastolic heart failure." (This seems unlikely, but perhaps there's an element of "All true Scotsmen" here, in which the people who have The One True Form of Exercise Intolerance are differentiated from all other people who merely don't tolerate exercising very well.)
  • "If you have chronic diastolic heart failure, then you will have the symptom of exercise intolerance."
  • "Every time I see a patient with exercise intolerance, I investigate whether the patient has chronic diastolic heart failure."
  • Something else?

(I'm mostly looking for off-the-cuff POVs here, not sources.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:08, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

As the journal source for the quoted statement is Cardiology Clinics, I interpret the authors stating a relationship of exercise intolerance and heart failure is unique to that general clinical audience and the article's intent to clarify how "the mechanisms of exercise intolerance can lead to developing and testing rational treatments for heart failure." It is obviously misleading for the general WP user to have that understanding. The Exercise intolerance lede has it right: "a condition of inability or decreased ability to perform physical exercise at the expected level or duration of someone with a specific physical condition",i.e., intolerance can result from a number of disorders. The sentence under consideration is too specific to cardiology and is unnecessary to introduce the article. --Zefr (talk) 19:32, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Have just made a few edits to page - one was a change to the sentence that Zefr sees as OK. I couldn't understand the ref to someone with a specific physical condition - it did not seem to follow - am I missing something?--Iztwoz (talk) 19:48, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Moved the statement in question to the Causes section under "Heart conditions" as it had undue emphasis among numerous causes of intolerance to be highlighted in the lede. Reorganized content and added to the Causes section. This article needs a lot of work. --Zefr (talk) 21:32, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
[1]review, might help(I have access)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:30, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Influenza vaccine[edit]

We really need more eyes here. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 07:11, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Am working on it! Bondegezou (talk) 09:11, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 05:51, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Related: Influenza A virus subtype H3N2[edit]

Looks to be pertinent to the current season per WHO's latest update. It appears that their vaccine recommendation for 2016 included A/Hong Kong/4801/2014 which should be helpful. The article could use some attention to reflect updates. LeadSongDog come howl! 16:32, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

[2]could also be added...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:24, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikimedia Commons[edit]

Apparently, picture "widely in use" is a reason to continue promoting incorrect material. Idiots. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:00, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Need a painter at hand to overwrite the inaccurate image. Otherwise you'll run afoul of WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP - enwiki thing but as far as I know, same philosophy applies there. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:26, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Do we have any better picture that illustrates this? Preferably the same focus so we won't need to change captions... Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 11:13, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
If an article contains unsourced inaccuracies, we can delete them without deleting the article. But if an entire image is riddled with multiple inaccuracies...
The deletion discussion may be the most disappointing thing I've ever seen on a wiki. That three long-time Commons users, all with advanced permissions and one an administrator, could be so utterly unconcerned about the accuracy of a Featured Picture used in at least 26 wikis is extraordinary. Adrian J. Hunter(talkcontribs) 12:59, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I opened a new deletion request. Please post here next time you nominate anything for deletion of commons Axl. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 11:16, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I made my first post to commons. Roxy the dog. bark 13:07, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Commented there, but one of you should suggest one or more accurate images that can be used as a replacement, as the first closer suggested. I expect we have some, but will leave it others to decide which. Johnbod (talk) 13:13, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, everyone! At least I can rely on WPMED editors to take sensible action. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:38, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Gah image sucks agree. At least we have removed it from EN WP. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:28, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
"At least we have removed it from EN WP." That's because I deleted those images whenever they appeared in en.wikipedia. Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:35, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
If it matters, one could use MediaWiki:Bad image list to lock out problem images, although you'd need a consensus for this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:44, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Oh boy, I do not want to open any of the picture files on that list! Actually we may as well wait until the Wikimedia Commons deletion request (doesn't) resolve. Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:53, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Since the image in question is basically a traced copy of a diagram produced by the CDC (copying some of the CDC's inaccuracies, such as the wrong trachea:bronchi lengths, and adding a few inaccuracies that are both inapparent to non-healthcare folks and probably easy to correct, such as the right and left bronchial trees being exact mirror images), I think it's going to be hard to convince Commons to delete it. I think you have a much better chance of getting the image corrected, either by the original uploader or by Commons' graphics folks. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:32, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you @Axl. We have a number of shoddy and inaccurate anatomy images and there is nothing we can do about them. For example, these two images are considered as "some of our finest" despite attempts at delisting [3].--Tom (LT) (talk) 01:26, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

*sigh* Axl ¤ [Talk] 03:05, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

CFCF just a heads-up that I already replaced all uses of File:Diagrama de los pulmones.svg with File:Illu bronchi lungs numerical labels.jpg several days ago (41 replacements). The only remaining uses of the former are in Picture of the Day archives, user pages, and the like. I'm curious, though – how did you overwrite an svg with a jpg? I'd tried to do that but kept getting error messages, even after selecting "ignore warnings". Adrian J. Hunter(talkcontribs) 04:24, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I don't belong to this WikiProject but writing here to say thanks to Adrian J. Hunter for taking time to replace all appearances of the inaccurate image with the correct one, because images should be accurate first, and pretty (as in smooth or vectorized) comes second. However, CFCF's reverting of Commons admin decision and overwriting of the SVG with a raster were not something I would be willing to let pass, and I've reverted them. (Rather, first, talk directly to the admin who closed it to appeal the decision. Also, if the better version is a raster, then upload it independently as a raster, not as a bad SVG!) To answer your question, Adrian, SVG is a vector format. It's like trying to draw in PowerPoint, rather than painting in Photoshop. SVGs consist of multiple objects independent from each other, and the object can be a raster graphic if you want it to (though not recommended). CFCF's overwrite consisted of a SVG file that has a huge raster object that covers the whole canvas. That is a terrible way to make SVG (defeats the whole purpose) and also a terrible overwrite. 朝彦 | Asahiko (talk) 05:32, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
朝彦 — I'm so tired of the stupidity of commons. This image should have been deleted and there is no reason to keep it — yet a bizarre overturn of a nearly 20 to 1 consensus was made. I overwrote the image with the raster because it is damaging to keep this image on commons. There is a similar concept to WP:IAR on commons, and by reverting the overwritten file you are being disruptive. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 10:29, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
It is my understanding that my actions were well within project rules. If you need to raise a complaint, I ask that you also respect the rules in doing so, and refrain from actions such as reverting an admin DR closure or performing actions that violate guidelines. --朝彦 | Asahiko (talk) 11:33, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Policy is never an excuse to prohibit actions that help the encyclopedia. This is the very spirit of WP:IAR, and it trumps guidelines in being one of the 5 central pillars. Neither do we run a bureaucracy, and unless you had a reason beyond following policy to revert my actions it was incorrect. Policy is never to be applied for its own sake, only when it may result in helping the project — this is a clear case of misuse of policy. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 11:49, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
The images were replaced with the more accurate JPEG, and since the image no longer appears in the main namespace i.e. the encyclopedia proper, the rules are not in the way of your improving the encyclopedia. This is not the right occasion to bring out IAR. 朝彦 | Asahiko (talk) 12:03, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

4th deletion nomination[edit]

I have for a fourth time nominated this image for deletion. I implore all previous commenters to comment on the discussion page, pinging all those who commented here: LT910001, Doc James, Axl, Adrian J. Hunter, Roxy the dog, Jo-Jo Eumerus, Johnbod. If I missed anyone it was unintentional, and I appreciate if others ping them as well.

This image is dangerous because it is reused over and over again despite the clear notices of inaccuracy. The Commons administrators are in clear violation of their own commons:Commons:EDUSE policy. Putting it on the image-blacklist on en-wiki will do nothing to stop it from being used on other Wikipedias. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 10:37, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

+ping Bluerasberry. Adrian J. Hunter(talkcontribs) 12:43, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Maybe it'd be a good idea to actually follow the commons:Commons:Deletion_requests#Appealing_decisions policy before filing another request. Doubly so if you are going to complain about admins ignoring policy. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:42, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Have added it to this list[4] The best we can likely do is to keep it from being used due to its non educational nature. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:52, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Rather than endlessly debate this one image, I think it would be more productive to address the root of the problem, which is that the culture and policies at Commons are overly tolerant of inaccuracy. RexxS made a valiant attempt here to argue that policy supports the deletion of inaccurate images, but this is apparently not how Commons admins interpret policy. Perhaps we could start a proposal at c:Commons:Village pump/Proposals that c:Commons:Project scope#Must be realistically useful for an educational purpose should make it clear that that very inaccurate images cannot be useful for an educational purpose. Adrian J. Hunter(talkcontribs) 13:13, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Adrian, I fixed (added a prefix) to two of your links to Commons so that it works. Also thanks for proposing a step in the constructive direction. 朝彦 | Asahiko (talk) 13:23, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

I just don't think you all are understanding the EDUSE policy. Here's the most relevant section:

A media file that is in use on one of the other projects of the Wikimedia Foundation is considered automatically to be useful for an educational purpose, as is a file in use for some operational reason such as within a template or the like. Such a file is not liable to deletion simply because it may be of poor quality: if it is in use, that is enough.

You're jumping up and down saying "it's poor quality! it's poor quality! it's poor quality!" And they keep telling you: Their policy directly says to completely ignore quality in these cases. As Adrian says, you would have to first get the policy changed, to say that inaccurate images aren't useful (except for all the times that they are, e.g., at photo manipulation and Wikiversity, etc.). WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:55, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

This isn't a viable interpretation of policy. The only current use is on archaic pages for the 2008 picture of the year competition. If we go by this reading any image can be kept as long as there is any use on any project, even userspace usage. This flies in the face of other policies, and opens for people uploading thousands of images of their genitals which won't be deleted as long as they're on a userpage somewhere. This is inane. This shouldn't demands a change in policy, just a sane interpretation of it. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 18:23, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Userspace usage is explicitly excluded as EDUSE at c:Commons:Project scope#File in use on Commons only.
I guess it comes down to what we mean by "poor quality". I can understand that images that are in use should not be deleted just because the focus is slightly out, or the lighting is not quite right, or the subject is looking away from the camera; such images aren't actively harmful. But to me, an inaccurate image should be a far greater concern in a project that aims to be educational. Commons policy needs to explicitly distinguish inaccurate images from those that are simply suboptimal. Adrian J. Hunter(talkcontribs) 18:47, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Also, I don't know what Commons' usual policy is about "gaming" c:COM:INUSE by first blanking all the uses, and then declaring that it should be deleted because it's not used. It might be a problem; it might be standard and accepted behavior. I just don't know what their view is on that subject. Here, you'd probably have someone screaming at you (e.g., exactly what happens when someone does that for WP:TFD). I suppose that we're going to find out. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:59, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
It's hardly gaming, and WhatamIdoing I suggest you read the previous very lengthy deletion discussion before casting aspersions. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 08:15, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
"Gaming" is exactly what we call this behavior here, when someone removes templates from use and then nominates the template for deletion on the grounds that it's not being used. As I said, I have no idea whether Commons feels the same about this behavior. They have very different goals and standards.
I have already read the (three) previous deletion discussions. You may have noticed, for example, that I've left three comments in the deletion discussions so far. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:31, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Research on the effects of violence in mass media[edit]

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Research on the effects of violence in mass media#Latest edits. Permalink here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:20, 4 January 2017 (UTC)


Name that article[edit]

I ran across the term eminence-based medicine to describe Argument from authority in medical decisions (basically, "Dr Famous (or "my attending") said that this drug works, so I'm giving it to all my patients"). Surely we have an article, or at least a section, somewhere on this pre-evidence-based system? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:05, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

It's wordplay, a contrast with evidence-based medicine, so a nice joke, but I don't think we need an article of that name. It is just Argument from authority. The term could be mentioned in that article. Bondegezou (talk) 13:38, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
The term has been used by quite a number of MEDRS-level sources, so we could have an article about the concept if anybody wanted to go to the effort of writing one. But I agree that the need is not all that strong at the moment. Looie496 (talk) 15:35, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
The evidence-based medicine article could use some work, maybe this could be added under a section on non-evidence based medicine. It encapsulates one major reason for why EBM is important. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 15:54, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Redirected to "argument from authority" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:57, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
That's a start.
It seems to me that there should be a (probably less joke-like) name for this approach to medicine, and that we should have an article for it. We should be able to write things like, "In the history of medicine, medical thinking started off with religion and superstition, and then moved towards trust-the-famous-guy for about a millenium or two, and it's now moving towards an evidence-based approach" – with links for each of those. (Or "Homeopathy follows the trust-the-famous-guy model of medicine", since it does.) But if we haven't got an article about this model of (pseudo-)thinking specifically in medicine, then redirecting it to the general/non-medical subject is a good start. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:09, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
I recall a lengthy feud over the use of the term ipse dixit: [5]. Best that doesn't all get restarted, perhaps, but "his say-so" carries virtually the same meaning in common English. LeadSongDog come howl! 00:55, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
What about adding a section to the Argument from authority article about arguments from authority in medicine and criticisms of them arising from the EBM movement? Bondegezou (talk) 18:19, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Pseudobulbar affect =/= Emotional lability[edit]

Emotional lability redirects to Pseudobulbar affect (PBA), which lists multiple alternative names most of which are synonymous with "emotional lability", but not actually PBA.[6] I'm a little surprised we don't have an article on emotional lability. Labile mood redirects to Mood dysregulation, which seems more appropriate than PBA. Thoughts on changing these terms to redirect to mood dysregulation instead of to PBA?

  • Affective lability
  • Emotional incontinence
  • Emotional lability
  • Labile affect

PermStrump(talk) 05:53, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

[7]..seems to cover emotional incontinence and emotional lability per NIH--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:27, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
PBA can happen in the context of emotional lability, but emotional lability has a more common meaning, which is rapid changes in mood in short succession.[8] I've never heard any say emotional incontinence, so that might be the same thing. PermStrump(talk) 15:32, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
It looks like Labile mood redirects to Mood dysregulation, not Emotional dysregulation.
Emotional lability has changed over the last 10+ years: Mood disorder, Labile affect, and now PBA. I suspect a series of merge discussions, which could be reconsidered if someone is familiar with the subject area. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:31, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Mood/emotional/affect lability are terms I use on a regular basis in writing mental status exams (and I consider those to be more or less interchangeable). I never heard of Pseudobulbar affect or Emotional incontinence though. I pinged some editors that were active at Mood swing (which I didn't realize was also an article when I first posted this) to get some more input. None of these options for redirects are perfectly synonymous with "mood lability". Mood swings is the closest, but it has lay connotations that are misleading, so that's my main hesitation. PermStrump(talk) 22:17, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
facepalm. ok. Agree we should have something for the sign, which could either be labile affect or emotional lability. I see that labile affect got morphed into PBA (which is wrong as PBA is one cause and a minor one). Still digesting all this..Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:01, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I would propose expanding emotional lability rather than labile affect as it is potentially broader as it not only encompasses what a clinician sees but by virtue of its name allows some more in depth discussion of the conditions and situations that one sees it (bipolar, borderline, acute stress reaction, frontal disinhibition etc.) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:05, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Right, BAM let's go....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:13, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

BAM. I like it. :) PermStrump(talk) 03:36, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, Cas and Permstrump. If someone adds another few sentences, then we probably have a decent WP:DYK on our hands.
If anyone's got some free time, it'd be good to check the redirect situation and to see Special:WhatLinksHere, so that people end up at the most relevant pages for what they're reading about. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:16, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Mefenamic acid[edit]

have a new user very enthusiastic about its potential to treat AD. More eyes would be good thanks. Jytdog (talk) 02:15, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

will keep eye on--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:53, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

MDMA addiction[edit]

We are having a discussion here regarding if old sources from the 1980s and early 1990s should be used instead of a Oct 2016 statement by the NIH. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:15, 8 January 2017 (UTC)



  • more opinions, MEDRS(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:59, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Missing topics list[edit]

My list of missing topics about medicine (and related pages) are updated - Skysmith (talk) 15:04, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

How did you figure this list? Some of these (and even more so on the hospitals list) seem like they would be better suited as a section of a larger article or just as a definition. Natureium (talk) 16:04, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I see it as a place to look for ideas, but many entries are simply poorly-composed or misspelled, e.g. "Fremitis" which should be "fremitus". If it's well-formed and -spelled, then one option is a redirect to the proper section of a larger article. — soupvector (talk) 18:36, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
I have collected my lists from various sources, including dictionaries and, in some cases, other wikipedia pages. Some of those in the list are no doubt suitable for redirects (but I don't know enough to make those) and there is bound to be mispellings as well. It would be fortunate if you could point them out. - Skysmith (talk) 18:47, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
How best to help with these lists? For example, your List of Missing Topics about Viruses includes "Human T-cell lymphotrophic virus type1", which should be Human T-lymphotropic virus 1; other terms are archaic so a link to an article would not be as helpful (e.g. "C-type virus"). Should we edit your list directly and if so what sort of edit would be most useful? Embedding suggestions for curation on your pages might encourage participation - they are very useful lists. It might also be nice if you included a link to your list of lists (if such exists) for those of us who find these interesting. — soupvector (talk) 19:57, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
For example "Dick test" is an easy redirect (done) to Gladys Dick, who, this being Wikipedia, has a far more detailed bio than her partner & husband George Frederick Dick. I suspect lots of these are rather outdated terms though. Johnbod (talk) 19:53, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
This being Wikipedia, we have data on the subject of whether men or women have more and/or longer bios, and it's the other way around. You've found a counter-example, not evidence of a trend. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:17, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
This ignores the question of whether this is appropriate, for example with historical figures like kings and queens. There are a number of husband and wife teams in science, publishing together, and the pattern there is consistent. Johnbod (talk) 17:22, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
  • a bunch of them are just alternative names for things we already have articles on. i created some (eg Urine flow test) Jytdog (talk) 02:27, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Acolasia is misspelt; it should be achalasia
Argyrosis is argyria
Desquamate could redirect to desquamation
Diverculitis is misspelt; it should be diverticulitis
Duodenus I think is misspelt; it should be duodenum
Encephaly is misspelt; perhaps it should be encephalopathy or anencephaly
Escahr is misspelt; it should be eschar
Extrophy is either a misspelling or an infrequently used alternative spelling; the common spelling is exstrophy
Fremitis is a misspelling – already noted by soupvector
Gillick competency is Gillick competence
That's it for now. I shall continue through the list when I have more time. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:44, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
As a non speller I am a big fan of redirecting spelling variations. At least until such time as someone fixes the English language. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:37, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Leocecal value is a random misspelling; it should be ileocecal valve
Loculation is the process of formation of a locule; I am unsure if that is a suitable redirect though – Wikipedia's "locule" article focuses on normal locules in plants
Ocreotide is misspelt; it should be octreotide
Pinealome is the French word for pinealoma; (James can confirm!)
Protodulia seems to be an Italian word describing a cult dedicated to St. Joseph
Psammona is misspelt; it should be psammoma
Rapadilino refers to Rapadilino syndrome
Recidication is misspelt; it should be recidivation; I am unsure if "Recidivation" should have a Wikipedia entry – it is essentially just a word with a dictionary definition
Rectorele is misspelt; it should be rectocele
Rectosigmoid refers to the rectosigmoid junction, which should probably have a stub article
Retiform is essentially a dictionary word meaning net-like; there are diseases that include the word such as retiform purpura
Axl ¤ [Talk] 15:03, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Then there's things that don't seem to need an article, like Twinge and Severe damage. What would you write the article about? Natureium (talk) 15:54, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
If you are sure it is just a typo (and there are lots of these in these lists), either correct it at the list, turning the link blue, or set it up as a redirect if you think it is likely to be a common mis-spelling. Johnbod (talk) 17:26, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Skysmith has asked us to point them out. That's what I'm doing. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:56, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
I hope User:Skysmith is watching - he does lots of these lists, & this page is hard to follow on watchlist. Johnbod (talk) 03:19, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Sacrolumbar is Lumbosacral, which redirects to vertebral column
Schizocele probably refers to schizocoely
Sorbefacient is essentially a dictionary word
Spermatocyst is the same as spermatocele
I don't think that statitis is a real word; perhaps it is a misspelling of statistics
Subacromial is just under the acromion and is the location of subacromial bursitis and impingement syndrome
Subdiaphragmatic is essentially a dictionary word, meaning below the diaphragm
Suborbital fenestra seems to be an anatomical feature of certain (extinct?) reptiles
Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:38, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
In the absence of any further comment from Skysmith, I am no longer going to look through the list. Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:01, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
I am fixing these with the next reupdate, among other things - Skysmith (talk) 18:37, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
"Statitis" is a hyphenation problem. It's meant to be prostatitis. See "statitis" in this awkwardly scanned book as a possible source of the confusion. There are two Chinese translation-type sites that seem to have picked up entries matching items in the index, e.g., "gonococcal pro statitis", as translatable terms. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:15, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
lol Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:15, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Holoclar[edit]

Limbal stem cells

keep and expand or redirect to Stem-cell_therapy#Blindness_and_vision_impairment? Jytdog (talk) 02:16, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

keep/expand[9]...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 08:57, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
For wiki articles on research findings, is referencing news articles reporting on a scientific publication/finding better than referencing the primary source? I noticed that a good number of the citations for this paragraph and from news sources. Thanks. JenOttawa (talk) 16:14, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
no. if it is actual WP:Biomedical information then MEDRS applies; if it is scientific information then WP:SCIRS should apply. We should never be sourcing science-based content to popular media. Something that is society culture (regulatory approvals or history or about business matters) then news articles are fine. Jytdog (talk) 16:57, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick response Jytdog! It seemed strange to me. I will replace the references later tonight. Should not take long to insert the original primary sources and remove the BBC etc!

As a summary, my understanding of how wikimedical pages work is as follows, please correct me if I am wrong! -Systematic reviews are best, other high quality reviews accepted for medical content. In the "Research" sections of the medical pages, primary research articles from peer reviewed publications appropriate if a systematic review has not been published or conducted. Is this correct? Thanks again!! JenOttawa (talk) 18:03, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

No we should very very rarely, if ever, site primary literature in biology and medicine. It is very unreliable. If something isn't discussed in a review it is best just to say nothing until it is. Even in a research section. Very importantly there. and as to your restatement of MEDRS, please don't forget statements by major medical/scientific bodies, which includes regulatory authorities. in the case of the cell therapy that this section is named for it has apparently been through the EMA so there should be an EMA dossier on it. Jytdog (talk) 18:50, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback and for making note of the regulatory authorities and scientific bodies Jytdog. I appreciate you correcting me re: primary sources in the Research Sections. All the best,JenOttawa (talk) 19:01, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
sure. the research section should really be broad, describing trends and not pinpointing specific experiments or clinical trials. Encyclopedic, not news. We find those trends described in reviews. Lots of people want to load specific experiments into the research section and it is a constant effort to keep it high level. Jytdog (talk) 19:30, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. I will do my best to help out!JenOttawa (talk) 22:18, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Already redirected it to Limbal stem cell. May be a good idea to simply continue the merging. Very little evidence for the stuff. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:09, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Hysterectomy[edit]

I posted a comment on the bottom of the talk page for hysterectomy re removing a paragraph with primary data. No feedback recieved yet. If you have a chance, I would appreciate a second opinion before I delete the information! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hysterectomy#Primary_research_eVal_studyJenOttawa (talk) 18:39, 10 January 2017 (UTC)


  • more opinions(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:45, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm coming out of my hole[edit]

Hello everyone! I hope you are all doing well. Happy New Year!

Tyler could use some help improving the acne vulgaris article so he can achieve FA status. I made an initial comment over at the Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Acne vulgaris/archive2, posing several questions that need input from the whole med community.

The article also needs a good copy editor to clean it up too (not my strength).

Perhaps you call could help by commenting at the FA candidate link above? --My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 16:58, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

for a good CEWikipedia:WikiProject_Guild_of_Copy_Editors(I put GA's thru there its worth the time...IMO) BTW [10]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:09, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Just for the record, it has undergone peer review by a prominent member of GOCE. Granted, more material has been added since then but not huge amounts so I'd be surprised if there were a lot of additional fixes to make but it never hurts to have a few extra eyes on an article. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 21:43, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
More opinions at the FAC would really be appreciated. Thanks everyone! TylerDurden8823 (talk) 03:29, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
User:My Core Competency is Competency good to see you back :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:45, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Bipolar disorder research[edit]

Should I nominate Bipolar disorder research for deletion? As it's currently written, it doesn't add anything of value to the existing bipolar articles (Bipolar disorder, Bipolar I, Bipolar II, Cyclothymia, Treatment of bipolar disorder, History of bipolar disorder, Bipolar disorder in children). I'm not sure if it has potential or if it would be redundant in any case. Thoughts? PermStrump(talk)

yes please! Jytdog (talk) 04:53, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
You can probably just redirect it to Bipolar disorder or a relevant section within it. Do an AfD if anyone disputes it then. Sizeofint (talk) 17:24, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Ok. I did what Sizeofint said. Hopefully no one will have an issue. PermStrump(talk) 18:51, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
If someone does, then I wouldn't be surprised to hear that the motivation was WP:SIZE. We used to recommend that a Wikipedia article be no larger than one-third the current size of Bipolar disorder. With the rise of readers on mobile devices, it would not be unreasonable to start thinking about that limit again. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:21, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

How and whether to discuss NoFap in the context of Masturbation[edit]

Greetings. I included a short paragraph that was intended to introduce readers of the Masturbation article to the NoFap article. I thought this would be an interesting contribution, particularly since the article on masturbation does not have a lot of information about abstaining from masturbation (apart from some limited treatment of old-fashioned anti-masturbation attitudes). For me, the NoFap community is the obvious centre of discussion about such abstention nowadays.

This did not go over especially well. Firstly, the NoFap community was founded in response to a somewhat dubious research article. One critic put the {{medrs}} template into the NoFap article in the relevant place. To that I say: fair enough. I'm interested in the community not primarily from a medical standpoint, but from a cultural and phenomenological standpoint. Of course, the medical and scientific aspects of the issue are also interesting and I think these should be reflected on Wikipedia when possible too. (E.g., research debunking the claims of the above mentioned dubious article might be included in the NoFap article itself.)

Subsequent discussion focused less on the {{medrs}} issue, and more on the idea that NoFap is a "fringe" group. WP:ONEWAY was mentioned (although I don't actually think that it applies). At the moment the conversation seems to have stagnated, without movement towards any consensus. I'd appreciate if people here who take an interest in the various related themes might weigh in on the discussion at Talk:Masturbation#MEDRS. Thanks! Arided (talk) 02:52, 10 January 2017 (UTC)


At a glance, I think we've handled this poorly, and I'd like to talk about it because it's the kind of mess that's pretty typical for us. The basic facts seem to be these:

  1. A single primary research paper said if you are male and don't orgasm for a week, then your testosterone levels go up.
  2. There's this internet group, started by someone who thought it would be interesting to see if he could use this "all natural" technique to get higher testosterone levels.
  3. It's kind of, if you squint a bit, maybe a small social movement against masturbation.

An accurate description of these facts is: Someone started an internet forum whose purpose is to encourage members not to masturbate, because he heard about a research paper that said not masturbating makes your testosterone go up.

The response from medical editors seems to focus on the "not masturbating makes your testosterone go up" part (hereinafter "the irrelevant part"). The actual story is: there might be a small social movement against masturbation. The irrelevant part is everything about the contents of the journal article. We could write the entire thing without talking about science at all.

But we're (not just one of us) leaping on the irrelevant part and saying that the irrelevant part needs a MEDRS-style source, even though that's neither relevant nor even factual. (Imagine that we actually had a gold-plated review on the effects of sexual continence on testosterone. Would the existence of that review change the fact that this guy was inspired to start an internet forum by the 2003 primary study?)

I know that this is a bit of a soapbox, but I'm asking again: when you are trying to decide whether something is WP:Biomedical information, please read the whole paragraph first. "Intervention X has biological effect Y" is potentially biomedical information. "This guy read a paper that claimed that intervention X had biological effect Y" is historical information (also BLP).

Arided, IMO the main problem with your proposed addition is that it gives too much attention to one small[1] internet forum. If it were a simple case of WP:Build the web – if your proposal had said something like "Some people choose not to masturbate for perceived health or personal benefits; for example, NoFap is a non-religious online community whose members avoid masturbation" under one of the multiple society/culture sections – then I think you might have had a small chance. But even that could be difficult at a large article. "There's this small online community, see?" is a lot less obviously relevant than things like "Multiple large religious organizations say that it's immoral".

(Also, someone mentioned the number of times that NoFap is linked in Wikipedia. It's presently linked in three navboxes: {{addiction}}, {{masturbation}}, and {{pornography}}. Those templates presumably account for all, or almost all, of the incoming links.)

[1] Yes, small. 200,000 people is a lot if you're comparing it to, say, your high school, but for every account that subscribed to that internet forum around the world, over the space of years, there are two people in England and Wales alone alone who claimed to be Jedis on a single day. If your worldwide group is smaller than the Jedis in England and Wales, it's still small.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:16, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

I commented briefly on the RfC - looking at that MEDRS doesn't even seem to be mentioned. This was primarily a case of undue weight wasn't it? Alexbrn (talk) 07:29, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
WhatamIdoing, thanks, you've said much more eloquently what I was nattering on about on the talk page (Talk:Masturbation), as I realised after the fact that I'd put my foot in my mouth. Not sure where we go from here. Deleting the Masturbate-a-thon-referencing section on Masturbation was a good start, getting the page back to some sort of NPOV. Perhaps one way to proceed would be with some text similar to what you put in the brief doublequote summary, to be added on the Sexual abstinence wiki page. Cheers! Arided (talk) 18:16, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Neurodevelopmentalist - help from psych/neurology folks?[edit]

upon the request of another editor I created this disambig page, with supporting content in each of the targeted articles. Not confident i captured it correctly so please review. thx. Jytdog (talk) 04:50, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

per Wikipedia:Disambiguation seems ok...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:23, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
thanks for looking! Jytdog (talk) 15:47, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Analeptic and psychoanaleptic[edit]

We have separate articles for analeptic and psychoanaleptic. Are these two topics distinct enough to warrant separate articles, or can the two be merged? -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:34, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Psycholeptic has one(an article) as well...in regards to the above post Wikipedia:Notability#Whether to create standalone pages applies to Psychoanaleptic[11]...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:32, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Same thing so redirected on to the other. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:37, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Long term care[edit]

Hi. I would like to edit some evidence-based information about long-term care interventions for older adults, but I am not sure in what wiki article I should include it.

The existing Long-term care wiki page describes it from an organizational point of view, not focusing on the benefits of the available interventions. Would it make sense to create new sections in this article focusing on evidence-based care for older adults? Or, are there other more suitable articles to include this sort of information? What are your thoughts about it? Thank you very much in advance. --MonWiki (talk) 21:15, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Nursing home care --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:27, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
MonWiki, it would make sense for us to grab anyone who is interested in that subject and chain him or her to a computer, with a steady supply of doughnuts and your caffeinated beverage of choice. If I could give advice on creating another medically savvy Wikipedian-in-Residence, this might be the subject at the top of my list.
Those articles need a lot of work. Just trying to figure out what they are and what they should be called could take a few weeks. My impression is that most of the work in the field isn't really evidence-focused. It's more about trying to find out what people actually want (e.g., more days or more happiness?). There's been some fun work around dementia patients, though, with things like black flooring (which looks like a dangerous hole) to keep them from crossing certain boundaries. I also saw some reports a few years ago about the beneficial effects of bringing in an optometrist to update the prescriptions for eyeglasses. If memory serves, residents with proper glasses were not just happier but also ate better. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:28, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Cochrane... captured?[edit]

In my work on alt med stuff, i sometimes look at cochrane reviews on this stuff and have been really surprised by what Cochrane folk have actually taken the time to look at, and some of their conclusions.

I also frequently come across people trying to add citations to University of Maryland's CAM website which is a woo-fest.

This just clicked and made sense to me. (from here): "The Cochrane Complementary Medicine Field, based at the University of Maryland Center for Integrative Medicine, coordinates all of the CAM-related activities of the Cochrane Collaboration, including the development of a database with information on more than 7,000 controlled trials of CAM therapies and modalities, and facilitates the preparation of CAM reviews and the promotion of these reviews, especially among the members of the CAM community."

Similar thing with Tom Jefferson doing Cochrane reviews on vaccines and anti-virals.

So, oy. The inmates are running the asylum in some places at Cochrane. Jytdog (talk) 22:41, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Seem some of that umm stuff. This one says "there is no evidence that it works. In fact, there is very little scientific evidence that goldenseal works to treat any condition."[12]
At Cochrane their are a few more checks and balances. Most Cochrane reviews like most of the high quality literature come out negative on alt med. And is much more conservative than the primary sources and blogs I often see used. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:27, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
The Cochrane alt med reviews often have the "promising... needs more study" crap in their conclusions. I would like to see Tom Jefferson take over the alt med branch and see how conclusions come out then. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by jytdog (talkcontribs) 11:44, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
I think the answer may lie in tightening MOS:MED to advise caution in how weasel words & equivocal wordings an EBM publication are transposed into lay language for Wikpedia. We already effectively outlaw "more research is needed" and I'd like to see us warning against wording like "may be effective, but ...", "shows promise" etc. Alexbrn (talk) 13:06, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
It's been a long time since I looked at that section of MEDMOS, but I suspect that the "shows promise" line could be trivially added, in parallel to "more research is needed". "May be effective, but..." is a less promising approach, because the sentence might reasonably be completed with "May be effective, but not safe" or "May be effective, but it costs a jillion dollars, and there's a ten-cent treatment that's effective, too." WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:32, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Concerning the misuse of evidence in high quality sources we should keep a lookout for the next surgeon-general appointment. If this is anything to go by [13], we could really do with a tightening of MEDRS, pending an onslaught of inanity.

I've been contemplating some work on defining how we weigh grey literature, both within and between reports. E.g. just because acupuncture is mentioned as part of a 400-page report on back pain doesn't mean it merits a whole section (or even inclusion at all) in a 100,000 byte article. Strengthening the guideline and creating stricter criteria for WP:MEDWEASEL and WP:MEDDUE could be a start. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 15:30, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Please let's keep bare-link politics out of WTMED. I'd like for our credibility to hinge on MEDRS (as you're really suggesting), and not have even the appearance of political bias. Let's not give critics easy traction. — soupvector (talk) 21:59, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Cysteamine - convert chembox to drugbox?[edit]

Cysteamine

I completely rewrote this article - it went from this to what it is now - a typical drug article. Don't know how to convert the chembox to a drugbox.... Jytdog (talk) 15:45, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

commented article/talk--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:14, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Done. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:16, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Hyperthermia therapy, highly problematic[edit]

The article on Hyperthermia therapy is not at all in line with quality sources. Hyperthermia is a fringe practice akin to chronic lyme disease and the sort — yet our article currently states is can be used for chronic lyme disease, depression and cancer and has the image of a smiling lady sitting in a heat-suit. It reads as a shill piece and the article is in terrible shape and could use some more eyes and some extensive pruning. Basically everything in the lede is either wrong or a vast overstatement. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 17:13, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I've taken an axe to the Mechanism and Effectiveness sections, removing unsupported claims and those sourced just to primary studies. I'm not sure about the use of the following sources as I haven't access to the books without a visit to a library, and the journal is not one I'm familiar with, but I obviously have some scepticism about what is being claimed:
  • Carolyn Freeman; Halperin, Edward C.; Brady, Luther W.; David E. Wazer (2008). Perez and Brady's Principles and Practice of Radiation Oncology. Philadelphia: Wolters Kluwer Health/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. pp. 637–644. ISBN 0-7817-6369-X. 
  • Dollinger, Malin (2008). Everyone's Guide to Cancer Therapy; Revised 5th Edition: How Cancer Is Diagnosed, Treated, and Managed Day to Day. Kansas City, MO: Andrews McMeel Publishing. pp. 98–100. ISBN 0-7407-6857-3. 
  • Mallory M, Gogineni E, Jones GC, Greer L, Simone CB 2nd (August 2015). "Therapeutic hyperthermia: The old, the new, and the upcoming". Crit Reviews Oncol Hematol. S1040-8428 (15): 30018–4. doi:10.1016/j.critrevonc.2015.08.003. PMID 26315383. 
More thoughts and eyes on the article welcome. --RexxS (talk) 19:39, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Speaking of hyperthermia and majorly problematic: Magnetic hyperthermia being described as "the ever-promising "fourth leg" of cancer treatment" in the first sentence[14]. I'll do what I can, but I think this article is really in need of review. Natureium (talk) 22:56, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
I looked into that article a few years ago. My impression was that it was a real-but-not-common mainstream medical treatment for a few types of cancer. However, I don't remember seeing anything about Lyme or depression. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:34, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
It's one of those cases where evidence hardly exists, but the treatment is offered anyway. This however is not expressed in our article at all. One of very few systematic reviews on the topic, PMID 27134130 says:

The review underscores the limited nature of the evidence; definitive conclusions are elusive. However, the promising results of RHT in the setting of intravesical chemotherapy, chemotherapy and radiotherapy show a trend towards legitimate efficacy.

This is just in line with what is discussed in the section above here — wildly overstating benefits, ignoring that the evidence is horrible, or even ignoring when there is proven lack of benefit, and promoting things just the same. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 11:29, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
CFCF, I support your suggestion to merge magnetic hyperthermia in and I tried to simplify the thesis-level physics. I think the physics part could be merged into magnetic nanoparticles and the supposed clinical benefit into hyperthermia therapy.Natureium (talk) 16:31, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Also, I have this half-remembered sense that there might have been two articles once upon a time: one for cancer and one for everything else. (That could explain why I don't remember seeing Lyme in it.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:41, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Curcumin is a pan-assay interference compound[edit]

Great thing in Nature News recently....

-- Jytdog (talk) 17:06, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Likely the acronym for this new term, "pan-assay interference compound", PAINS, is meant to infer curcumin is a "pain in the ass" to study because of its propensity for various false signals in screening for biological activity, as discussed here PMID 26900761 and in the J. Med. Chem. report: "curcumin is an unstable, reactive, nonbioavailable compound and, therefore, a highly improbable lead". We need pharmacology editors to work on the stub for PAINS into which there would be justified discussion of the numerous similar compounds used in phytotherapy and traditional medicine that (stated for curcumin) there is "no evidence it has any specific therapeutic benefits, despite thousands of research papers and more than 120 clinical trials. The scientists hope that their report will prevent further wasted research and alert the unwary to the possibility that chemicals may often show up as ‘hits’ in drug screens, but be unlikely to yield a drug." --Zefr (talk) 17:43, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

List of drugs granted breakthrough therapy designation[edit]

Is this list really necessary when there's also Category:Breakthrough therapy? The list isn't up to date, and I don't want to bother if it's superfluous. Natureium (talk) 17:33, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Officially, Wikipedia believes that categories and lists are almost never redundant. The pages views are 5x for the list, so if you wanted to focus on what's getting used more, the it's the list. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:45, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. I went through it and updated it. Natureium (talk) 21:01, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

App discussion at the Village Pump[edit]

Be aware Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Use_of_Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine.2FApp.2FBanner_on_articles.
Best, Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 21:01, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

CF, thanks(commented, as should others here)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:40, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Brand names typically redirected to generic names[edit]

A redirect is up for discussion here.[15]

Basically the question is should we redirect brands to generics. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:46, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Who else's would you give? Natureium (talk) 15:50, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
I know you meant that purely as a joke, but you'd be surprised how often we see people reverting something because some other person might object to an edit. It's one of the frustrations for editors who want to engage in a classic WP:BRD process: You boldly edit, someone reverts, you start a discussion, and the response is, "Well, I don't really have an opinion; I just reverted it because I figured that someone would object, so why not revert it now and get it over with?"
One of the great things about this group is that people do respond to requests for feedback. It's nice and reinforcing when we can see that it's happening. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:54, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

This discussion specifically concerns whether Tylenol should redirect to Paracetamol or the Tylenol (brand) article. Extremely few readers will be looking for the article about the brand and additional comments would be very helpful. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 10:03, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Really, how can you be so certain? Readers are interested in other things besides medicine like economics, marketing, crisis management, etc. Boghog (talk) 10:28, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Neither Tylenol nor Aspirin should not redirect to a page about a brand rather than a medicine. And than Cochin will want an article out their brand. We need to do this in part to hold the masses trying to use WP to market at bay. You can find the article about the brand easily from the one about the medication if you so chose. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:30, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm not buying the slippery slope argument. I've never yet heard someone claim that they've created an article about their particular brand on the grounds that Tylenol (brand) exists.
OTOH, Tylenol (brand) is widely studied in business schools as part of marketing, communications, crisis management, and branding classes. If some other brand of drug can make a similar claim, then we probably do want an article about their brand. This probably explains why one thousand people are reading the article about the brand, rather than the drug, every day.
(Cochin appears to be a city in India; I think you've got a typo.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:21, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Tylenol is a brand that is independently notable from the paracetamol medication. Tylenol (brand) is an unnecessary disambiguation that was made in this edit without consensus with the edit summary the main topic is the medicine. The main topic is the brand which contains the active ingredient paracetamol. Boghog (talk) 19:46, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
That view may be just a regional thing. I doubt that most folks outside of the USA would even know what Tylenol was, unless they've visited the states. In the UK, if you want paracetamol, you ask for paracetamol; asking for Tylenol will draw a blank stare from the pharmacist's assistant. --RexxS (talk) 03:13, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Indeed - so if someone outside the USA were to type "Tylenol" they're very likely to be searching for "Tylenol (brand)" and not "paracetamol". It's not so obvious if they're in the USA, but finding themselves on "Tylenol (brand)" they'll quickly be able to jump to "paracetamol" if that was their intent. — soupvector (talk) 04:29, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I actually remember the time I entered "tylenol" into the search box. I'm from Australia and had never heard the word. All I needed to learn was that it's a brand name for paracetamol. The leads of Paracetamol and Tylenol (brand) both make this clear, though the latter does so earlier. Adrian J. Hunter(talkcontribs) 19:34, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

User:WhatamIdoing per "I've never yet heard someone claim that they've created an article about their particular brand on the grounds that Tylenol (brand) exists" Here is someone from Jan 11th, 2017 using just that justification in an attempt to create an article on Crocin.[16] And not the first time I have heard the arguement either. If someone from the N. America is searching for Tylenol they are most likely looking for acetaminophen. As most of our readers are from N. America we should take that into account. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:41, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Images[edit]

Please see Talk:Deep_brain_stimulation#Do_these_images_bring_value.3F. thx Jytdog (talk) 17:12, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

commented(there are alternatives[17])--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:50, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Muse (headband)[edit]

It would be helpful if someone could look and verify the claims in this article. A lot of the sources seem to be newspaper/techblog articles which have a low bar for fact checking. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:52, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

watchlisted. i have been working on the very simillar Consumer brain–computer interfaces article. Jytdog (talk) 05:14, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Hangover[edit]

we have a dual-IP using spammer edit warring at this article; some more eyes would be great. thx Jytdog (talk) 05:14, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

will keep eye on--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:41, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
The article was WP:SEMI'd. I assume that the question of whether to mention an Asian folk remedy is still open. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:16, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Orphan pricing with some crazy background[edit]

just worked this over tonight. crazy, crazy story.

If you want to play, first read the version that was there when I started: this.

Then look at this: Amifampridine#History. I knew nothing about this before I started and got to piece that story together tonight. But the old version was just bizarro marketing speak. Jytdog (talk) 08:44, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Cleaned up some of whatever that was at Lambert–Eaton myasthenic syndrome. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:23, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
thanks that was next on my list! Jytdog (talk) 18:32, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Spastic cerebral palsy article - can TNT be applied?[edit]

The Spastic cerebral palsy article has only one source. My understanding is that spastic cerebral palsy is the most common type of cerebral palsy when you break CP down by 'type of damage incurred'. The main CP article says it's at 70% (with a source from 2000), the spastic CP page says it's at 90% (apparently unsourced). If it's the most common subtype-by-type-of-damage, spastic CP is clearly going to be a notable topic to cover. However... one source. I've been lightly updating parts of the main CP article for a while now, but this is beyond my skills. What should this article even contain, in comparison to the main CP article? Should WP:TNT be applied to the spastic CP article? --122.108.141.214 (talk) 03:12, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

will look--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:35, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, that's already at least three times better. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 20:06, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Help needed with article formatting to MEDMOS[edit]

Barotrauma lacks some sections recommended in MEDMOS. Would someone familiar with articles on trauma take a look and add the applicable headers? Cheers • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 14:22, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response Ozzie. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 15:10, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
anytime--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:12, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Thoughts on a source[edit]

Here [18] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:19, 15 January 2017 (UTC)