Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine

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


Contents

Category:Infectious causes of cancer[edit]

Yesterday I wrote an article about a mouse oncovirus and put it in Category:Infectious causes of cancer, which I discovered is currently hosting an odd mix of articles: some are actually about infectious causes of cancer (human papillomavirus), some are more accurately described as "cancers at least sometimes caused by infectious agents" (cervical cancer), some are semi-related topics that I certainly hope are not infectious causes of cancer (cervical screening), and some are very general articles where the category only applies to some members of the group (virus, parasitism). The category page says it is intended to contain articles in which pathogens are "linked to increasing the risk of cancer in humans", which is not the same as an infectious cause, and is unnecessarily confined to humans when there are plenty of animal pathogens known to fit this description.

What's the intended scope of this category? At first glance I think the causes and the effects should be separated, moving the actual cancers to something like Category:Cancers with infectious causes, but that's a problem because most of them are only sometimes caused by pathogens, and there are plausible biological mechanisms for lots of cancer types to occasionally be caused by a pathogen. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:39, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

according to the history it was made on 14 April[1], and I do share your concern (causes and effects should be separate)...as far as its intention, that is a question that we might need more editor opinions on(I think its intended scope needs to be clarified)...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:07, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't really mind the cat containing information about both pathogens that (sometimes) cause cancer and cancers that are (often) caused by pathogens. I don't even truly mind including cervical screening, because probably 99% of cervical cancers are caused by viral infections, and the point behind it is very much about identifying cancers caused by said infectious agent. But the very general articles, e.g., Virus, don't seem like a good match. A person looking for information about infectious causes of cancer might also want information about cervical screening, but is probably not looking for general information about viruses. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:30, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
I removed the worst offenders from the category and made the text less anthropocentric. I still think this is terrible organization, but honestly, the software (non-)features for viewing, searching, and sorting categories are so bad that I think they're rarely worth fussing about. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:16, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
If I remember, I believe I was the one who created the category in question. It was not intended to cover cancers in animals. It was meant to simply connect the various causes, effects, links, associations, infections, symptoms, screenings, treatments, risks, diseases, organisms that can be linked to the category. An analogous category might be named: Environmental causes of cancer or Genetic causes of cancer if such information were contained in the article that is part of the category. The problem with a more accurate title of the category in question is that in some cases there is complete consensus that an infectious agent is the cause of cancer. In other articles, there is a strong link between the infectious agent and cancer. In other articles, there is an increased risk to develop cancer, In other articles, there is an association between the article topic and cancer. In other articles there is a synergistic association between one infectious agent and another, for example HPV and AIDS. Coming up with a better name for the category might be warranted but to include cancer in animals is not really helpful. That category probably needs to stand on its own.
  Bfpage |leave a message  01:29, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Sounds like you're going for something more like Category:Associations between infectious agents and human cancers? I entirely disagree that a category called "infectious causes of cancer" should only contain information about humans, which are not the only organisms to get cancer. A huge part of the history of oncovirus research involved animal models for obvious reasons, and species specificity in many of these agents is driven by cell-surface receptors, not by substantial differences in molecular mechanism. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:32, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Could you two accept, as a compromise, a sub cat specifically dedicated to infectious causes of cancer in (non-human) animals, including research models? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:59, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
The category we are discussing was intended to be anthropocentric. Animal cancers would be a better category for someone looking for information on the topic of cancers of animals. The purpose of creating this category was to tie together the very diverse articles that describe those cancers that are: 1. caused by infectious agents, 2. that are linked to infectious agents, 3. that are associated with infectious agents, 4. found consistently in cancerous growths, 5. found to have an increased risk of development when infectious agents are present. In addition this category should be including articles about the vaccines that protect against infections that prevent/reduce cancer by infectious agents. This category should also contain the history involved in the topic, which has been very controversial but has resulted in Nobel Prizes to at least three recipients who 'discovered' the link between certain infectious agents and cancer. I understand why other editors balk at the name of the category: Infectious causes of cancer, and I am certainly open to changing the name of the category, but change it to what? This is the shortest name I could come up with. Isn't Project Medicine anthropomorphic by definition? I am open to any and all suggestions. I am not sure what needs to be resolved, and have the tendency to only see individual trees rather than the forest. Nice discussion....Best Regards,
  Bfpage |leave a message  02:24, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I originally noticed this category because I put an article in it and was WP:ASTONISHed to find a category called "infectious causes of cancer" that did not contain the topics I expected from the name - e.g. avian sarcoma leukosis virus (the first oncovirus discovered), Rous sarcoma virus (which earned its discoverer a Nobel), or SV40 (which was suspected of causing cancer in humans and caused a huge debate when polio vaccines were found contaminated with it). I mentioned it here in part because it looks like an example of over-focus on thinking of the reader as looking for patient-oriented information rather than documentation of the relevant biology. The latter type of reader is not well served by splitting up human and animal infectious agents, since the underlying molecular mechanism of carcinogenesis is generally very similar between agents of the same family (and is often better understood in the animal case) - and in any event, species specificity may not be absolute.

As for names, Category:Infectious agents and human cancers isn't so long and is agnostic as to the nature of the association, leaving Category:Infectious causes of cancer (or maybe Category:Infectious causes of carcinogenesis?) for the actual causative agents for all species. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:58, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that will work under the category guidelines. It doesn't matter what name you put on it: "all the stuff that is associated with cancer, infection, and people, however vaguely or tangentially" isn't going to meet the category guidelines. I think this needs to be a list or an article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:30, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
It already is an article: Infectious causes of cancer. There are also two relevant lists: List of human diseases associated with infectious pathogens* and list of oncogenic bacteria (but strangely not list of oncoviruses, though the oncovirus article has a table). I don't quite follow your comments, though, WhatamIdoing - previously you seemed to want to keep the general health-related information together (i.e., a common category for human papillomavirus, cervical cancer, cervical screening, etc.)? That's not very far off from "stuff associated with cancer, infection, and people". I have no particular objections to such a category restricted to Bfpage's items 1 and 5. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:28, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
*Wow, there is a lot of strange stuff in here. I see Bfpage has made some headway but there's plenty left to muck out. I am usually against the 'banish all old/primary sources' meme but: 13 mostly mental illnesses 'associated with' Borrelia!
Having read the comments by Opabinia, I have changed my mind about including animal topics in the category since I am familiar with the work of Rous and have found a systematic review article that has clearly demonstrated the value of animal cancers and the application of those animal studies to the study of infectious causes of cancers in humans. How about Category:Infectious agents associated with cancer? And you are right about the connection between infection with Borrelia and mental illness!Best Regards,
  Bfpage |leave a message  11:38, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Opabinia, I don't object to including information with a clear and obvious relationship. But I would omit all vague or unproven relationships (e.g., general articles about infection, or "one study said there might be a connection of unknown importance"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:57, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree w/ WAID--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:16, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
The general articles were already removed. Bfpage, "Infectious agents associated with cancer" still sounds like it would contain only the agents, not the cancers. "Infectious agents and carcinogenesis"?
I may just AfD the list as a WP:TNT case. The primary author also spent a lot of his time POV-pushing about Morgellons. Opabinia regalis (talk) 02:43, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
I disagree with many of the changes that are proposed, especially the AfD. I don't think that there would be any problem with categories such as Genetic causes of cancers or Environmental causes of cancer. Please remember that the assertions that there are associations, links, increased risk between infectious agents are largely supported by systematic reviews and meta-analyses and are not vague or unproven relationships, or based upon one study. I don't have a point of view on this topic. The assertion that there is a connection between an infectious agent and cancer are conclusions of researchers. I would be quite pleased with the renaming to "Infectious agents and carcinogenesis". As for POV-pushing by Morgellons, I have no idea what you are talking about. I was under the impression that I was the primary author and (I'm not sure due to a lazy memory).
  Bfpage |leave a message  10:40, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Morgellons, LOL! Opabinia regalis, you can't be suggesting, and I'm not a 'he', that this category is based have a "... delusional belief that they(me?) are infested with disease-causing agents described as things like insects, parasites, hairs or fibers," and that this category should be WP:TNT. I will treat this comment with seriousness and with the idea that you might mean what you wrote as a comment. Firstly, I thought that editors were supposed to stay away from personal comments regarding the possible motivation (and mental status?) of other editors. Initiating an AfD based upon my mistaken identity {he?) might be a waste of time for those with an interest in this category. I can assure you that I am actually quite fascinated with all things 'creepy crawly", raise mealworms and flightless fruit flies as a hobby to help feed my son's frogs. I don't have a point of view about this mental disorder except that it is a sad thing that some people suffer from it and should be treated with compassion. Best Regards,
  Bfpage |leave a message  20:14, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
@Bfpage: I think you've gotten mixed up; sorry if my last post was confusing. The AfD is for the article list of human diseases associated with infectious pathogens, and has nothing to do with the category you created other than being a member of it. The creator and primary author of that article is Drgao, who is currently topic-banned from medical topics due to past tendentious editing on Morgellons (see also AN thread). Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:24, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Terminology[edit]

For a condition that only affects women should it be "those in their 20s and 30s" or "women in their 20s and 30s"? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:28, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

if its been "pre-established" , logic dictates its already assumed...those in their 20's and 30's...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:33, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Depends on context. If both seem awkward, look for other options. Looie496 (talk) 14:19, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't remember the last time we had a complaint about this that didn't involve a trans person who was trying to make articles about sex-specific medical conditions be gender-neutral. For a few conditions, it might be possible to resolve such disputes with greater specificity, e.g., pregnancy only happens in people who are genetically female. Typically, though, we write "women in their 20s and 30s" because it improves clarity for typical readers. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:49, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
An example is here [2] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:12, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Traumatic diaphragmatic hernia redirect proposal[edit]

Diaphragmatic rupture

Proposed the redirect of traumatic diaphragmatic hernia to diaphragmatic rupture. Same subject matter confirmed by ICD codes. There is some info on the first article, but not much. I think there is no issue with a move but I am not bold enough to do it without a consensus. Discussion is here. Thanks. Peter.Ctalkcontribs 00:50, 18 July 2015 (UTC)


please give opinion--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:55, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Ozzie10aaaa Peter.Ctalkcontribs 14:03, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Infectious medicine page move[edit]

Infectious disease (medical specialty) was recently moved to Infectious medicine by CFCF. I started a discussion on the talk page as to whether this move was indicated, and think further input from this Wikiproject would be helpful. Thanks! Yobol (talk) 02:53, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Well obviously it was indicated or I wouldn't have made the move. Whether the change is supported by the community is something else entirely. Anyway, infectious medicine is a valid synonym and I hate titles with brackets so I stand by my move. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 03:01, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
"Obviously indicated"? According to whom? In 34 years of practicing medicine I have never once heard the term "infectious medicine" used. There are no infectious medicines that I'm aware of, only infectious diseases. This will serve only to confuse readers. Move it back. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 03:30, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I was being pedantic over use of the word indicated. Anyway, it is a synonym which you can find at [3]. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 04:37, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Not pedantic so much as unreasonable. The fact that a couple of labs in Finland and Sweden use it does not make it a "synonym" - just a non sequitur. The rest of the world refers to the specialty as "infectious disease", and so should we. Please move it back. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 05:05, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
No, I'm not being unreasonable, read what I said in my first post. I agree this may not be the best title, but neither do I think the old title is better. I'm glad this initiated debate, because then we can find a better title without brackets. To this can be added that the article had 0 views over the last 90 days before my edit, I think it needs a better title so that it can be more easily found through search. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 11:27, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Also the use is global including the United States, the reason you see the Swedish laboratories furthest up is because they are the most prominent ones to use the term. The exact search had 25000 hits. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 11:36, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
The problem is that the overwhleming number of major medical sources use the phrase "infectious disease" or "infectious diseases" as the name for the subspecialty. You seem to be applying your dislike for parantheses and overriding what the overwhelming number of medical sources actually call the subspecialty. See the talk page for a brief listing of the major medical organizations that calls it "infectious disease" or "infectious diseases". Yobol (talk) 14:49, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't think some parts of the world have this speciality. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 07:44, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Is this article supposed to be about the medical specialty (e.g., equivalent to "dermatology"), or about what you've got when you've been infected (e.g., equivalent to "skin disease")? If it's the specialty, then it might be reasonable to call it "infectious disease medicine", although in the US, the actual name of the subspecialty appears to be plain "infectious disease". WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:08, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
This is a dispute regarding the title of the medical specialty (infectious disease redirects to infection). Yobol (talk) 00:37, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Can we get some further input on the talk page from some other editors? We seemed to have hit an impasse and further outside input would be appreciated. Yobol (talk) 18:34, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

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[edit]

  • Support as proposer Doc James (talk · contribs · 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 🍌 (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.Ctalkcontribs 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 ) 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 🍌 (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/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 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)

Oppose[edit]

  • 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? • • • 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. • • • 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 4,931,207 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 – User:Fluffernutter's here occasionally, but I doubt that she wants to deal with this again – 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 · contribs · 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 · contribs · 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 · contribs · 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)

Discuss[edit]

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. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 05:34, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Maybe only activatable by an admin or researcher? Doc James (talk · contribs · 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 🍌 (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 · contribs · 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. • • • 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 · contribs · 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"? • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 08:30, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Yep. It's effectively the same thing. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · 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. • • • 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 • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 08:47, 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 · contribs · 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. • • • 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 · contribs · 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. • • • 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. • • • 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 · contribs · email) 13:50, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

xtools (medical article edit search)[edit]

as you might have noticed various xtools have been down (which many here certainly use at one point or another) I have taken this up at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#history revision statistics (alternate tool)...have been assured it is temporary (this thread seems informative,as well Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 138#Various tools are down )thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:24, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Had some issues and assumed they were on my end. Glad to know they will (hopefully) be up soon. Peter.Ctalkcontribs 15:54, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

List of human diseases associated with infectious pathogens[edit]

Hi everyone. List of human diseases associated with infectious pathogens is up for AFD and it might be of some interest to those here. At best the article needs a lot of trimming. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:55, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

give opinion(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:37, 20 July 2015 (UTC)


Invasiveness of surgical procedures[edit]

have not had time, to edit this important article, could someone lend a hand?, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:45, 21 July 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 🍌 (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 🍌 (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 🍌 (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 🍌 (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 🍌 (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 [4]. There are not that many. Bot will only work on stuff going forwards. Doc James (talk · contribs · 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 · contribs · 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/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 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 · contribs · 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(tc) 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 [5] 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 · contribs · email) 09:24, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Seems here [6] we have the ATC yet it is not on Wikidata [7]. We simply need a bot to move them over. These are the only articles with ATCs [8]. Do you want to try to build that? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:32, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Chronic pain[edit]

Would someone please move the last two paragraphs from the lede to the "Management" section for me? I'm editing on an iPad mini for the next few days and just can't manage copy and paste. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 06:13, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

done. Jytdog (talk) 08:37, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank you Jytdog. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 09:30, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM[edit]

I have removed certain posts from this page as it is not intended to be a news repository. If you wish to post a news item please make clear how it is relevant to improving an article, not just saying it is interesting or important. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 18:17, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

CFCF🍌 try not to one click other peoples post in the future (I have continued the conversation at DocJames talk page)..thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:26, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Please see above rational. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 18:44, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
refer to DocJames.thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:45, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

For those interested this has now resulted in a report filed against me at ANI/Edit warring -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 21:24, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Gentleman lets take this down a couple of notches. I have closed the 3RR report. We should have the discussion here. You both edit positively.
We should decide what scope of content we want on this page. When I see interesting bits of news or articles I post them to the talk page of the wiki article in question. User:Jfdwolff does the same such as in this edit here [9]. Think this is good practice.
What are others thoughts? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:51, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Posts should really be in some way related to the wikiproject imo. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 06:34, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

CFCF, Doc James, Ozzie10aaaa Looking at the posts that were archived, I can understand what bothered CFCF. The post about the meetup was entirely appropriate, but I think that discussions about news articles are generally not suitable here unless they span a major breakthrough that needs to be covered on numerous pages (e.g. an effective HIV vaccine).
James pointed out my habit of posting high-quality secondary sources on talk pages. Of course this is not news but a way to flag up useful content for anyone intending expansion to an article in the future. Please let me know if this is felt to be annoying. JFW | T@lk 12:31, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Its not the same thing. Posting a high quality source on the tlak page of a specific article is useful . I do this to leave myself notes when I know I will be returning to work on an article in the future. Posting medical news on this talk page with no suggestion as to how it is related to the wikiproject is a misuse of this page. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 17:46, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
I was specifically referring to what Jacob was doing as useful. If the news is to be useful a MEDRS compliant source should be provided. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:03, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Cochrane Review "Zinc for the common cold" has been withdrawn[edit]

The Cochrane Review "Zinc for the common cold" has been withdrawn due to concerns regarding the calculation and analysis of data in the review. Zinc for the common cold-Withdrawn So, I removed the content from three the article that was based on this review. They are Zinc and the common cold, Zinc, and Alternative treatments used for the common cold. I reworded the articles so they still make sense, but I invite someone with more knowledge of the topic to look over the articles and edit them for better clarity. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 18:46, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

will look--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:08, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
We still have this JAMA review. [10] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:53, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
the 3 articles in question seem OK in terms of "wording", the above JAMA review would further benefit the article..(however, Zinc and the common cold article reference #1 is dated and primary it would benefit from a secondary source per Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine) thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:34, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Article name change?[edit]

Hey guys, I was wondering about the name of this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypertrophic_pulmonary_osteoarthropathy

Should it be:

or

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 🍌 (email) 20:01, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Feel free to move. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:54, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Doc James, requires admin. :s -- CFCF 🍌 (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 · contribs · 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.—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 · contribs · 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)

Copyvio bot on Cameron lesions[edit]

Could someone knowledgeable run the copyvio bot on this article. The images are incorrectly licensed and I would like to see if anything else could be copyvio. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 01:50, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

It is explained at the bottom of the page. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:52, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
2marlboro might be worth reaching out to? I don't think we need to delete anything then, just make sure the licenses are okay so that noone else does. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 01:58, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Emailed Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:30, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

"Facelift"[edit]

The usage and primary topic of facelift is under discussion, see talk:facelift (disambiguation) -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 04:35, 23 July 2015 (UTC)


give opinion(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:01, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Moving the Mental disorder article[edit]

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Mental illness#Requested move 7 July 2015. A WP:Permalink for that discussion is here. Flyer22 (talk) 05:25, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

please give opinion(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:11, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Move discussion has been reopened by closer. LeadSongDog come howl! 19:38, 23 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 · contribs · 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, [11], 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. -- Colin°Talk 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]

Neuroferritinopathy
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 🍌 (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 🍌 (email) 17:16, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

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

"Adhesive bandage" or "Sticking plaster" ?[edit]

See talk:adhesive bandage or talk:sticking plaster -- depending on how the article is bounced around -- for the discussion -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 15:20, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Note:usually there should be one talk page for the discussion.thank you --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:56, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
The article has been requested for speedy moves while discussion is open, so I present both possible locations -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 16:52, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Apparently this has already been decided? Is any more input needed on this? Peter.Ctalkcontribs 16:26, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
The discussion is still open (as of the time of this comment) the page has just bounced around a bit. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 16:52, 23 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 -- 67.70.32.190 (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.Ctalkcontribs 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 Bluerasberry¿ or Wikiversity Journal of Medicine Mikael Häggström¿ 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 🍌 (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.Ctalkcontribs 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 · contribs · 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 Häggström (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.Ctalkcontribs 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 [12] when the article already covers the content in question with recent secondary sources in the paragraph above. Doc James (talk · contribs · 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 – 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?—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)

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 🍌 (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 https://readability-score.com , 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 🍌 (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 🍌 (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 [13]? 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 · contribs · 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 · contribs · email) 09:44, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── 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 🍌 (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 · contribs · 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 · contribs · 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 · contribs · 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.Ctalkcontribs 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 [14])...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.Ctalkcontribs 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)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── 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 🍌 (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.Ctalkcontribs 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 · contribs · 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 ¤ [Talk] 10:36, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

awesome--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:46, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
AXL (gene)AXL receptor tyrosine kinase – 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 ¤ [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 🍌 (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 ¤ [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[15] 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 · contribs · 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?—Anne Delong (talk) 03:11, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

the #6 references is MEDRS compliant, and there is this [16] review...therefore save...and thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:46, 29 July 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]

[17] 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 ≠ 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)

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)

Dyslexia[edit]

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)