Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Collaboration of the Month/Archive 19

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15 ← Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19

Swine flu

ADHD was displaced for swine flu as MCOTW in view of the hype. JFW | T@lk 20:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Template change?

Would it be helpful to change the template to say something like "Volunteers" instead of "Support"? The point, as I understand it, is to produce a list of people that are willing (and hopefully able, but life does intervene on occasion) to help, not just well-wishers that would like someone else to do the work. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:14, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Using Template:WPMED for collaboration tagging

I've recently brought up the idea of using the main project banner template for Collaboration tagging. Any opinions, thoughts, etc. would be appreciated at Template talk:WPMED#COTW and Portal links from this template. -Optigan13 (talk) 06:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Where oh where has COTW gone?

What's happening with COTW? Last I heard, the collaboration seemed to be doing good for the articles that were edited, but apart from voting, COTW hasn't been updated in quite some time. —RobinHood70 (talk • contribs) 02:45, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Summer holidays! I think the frequency of editing is inversely proportional to the length of day and more so to amount of sunshine ... 10:29, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Um, it's fall now. Dreary rain here, at any rate. - Hordaland (talk) 18:58, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
It also assumes we have no southern-hemisphere editors. But okay, since a very large portion of native English speakers are from the northern hemisphere, I can see the logic. —RobinHood70 (talk • contribs) 20:12, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
You're right, the reverse seasons on the other side of this floating lump slightly befuddle my instincts, but I am currently working with a couple of editors the other way up to me. I suspect there's a dip as the southern hemisphere plunges into sunlight too :) L∴V 20:56, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

ADHD stuff

Perhaps you'd list them here? - Hordaland (talk) 14:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
My 'question' was intended to ask you to flesh out your question. Not everyone has at her/his fingertips what those 9 are.
I know very little about the MCOTW process and cannot answer your question. - Hordaland (talk) 16:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) In response to Hordaland's request, here is an alphabetized list of sub-articles I was able to find by doing a search for "main article" in the ADHD article, including the horizontal list at the bottom - feel free to edit this list to add any others that may have been missed due to the limitations of that search.

--RobinHood70 (talk) 18:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I need positive evidence that this article is safe for MCOTW. JFW | T@lk 23:35, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
By "safe", are you referring to the collapsed discussion below, or am I missing something else? --RobinHood70 (talk) 00:09, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the list, RobinHood! JFW, assuming I understand the question, ArbCom required a mentor to be found by yesterday, else they will appoint one. I'd guess that that is what you are waiting for. - Hordaland (talk) 22:35, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Here is an update on the current status of the article. There are many unresolved issues mainly about undue weight and bias. There has been no positive movement forwards for over a month. Concerns have been ignored.--scuro (talk) 00:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
You seem to really not want doctors or pharmacologists to review the article. If the article is so biased why not let "mainstream" expert healthcare professionals review it? Editors responded non-stop on the talk page and a lot of issues were resolved. You never will have 100% agreement anyway so it is not surprising some things were not resolved.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:25, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
LG, stop trying to personalize everything with your subjective judgements about other contributors and their motives. These judgements are more often wrong then right, and this longstanding approach has NEVER been appreciated. It also goes against the spirit of wikipedia. Fact of the matter is that the majority of recent issues on the discussion page have not been resolved. Worse, a good number of these issues have been totally ignored. See discussion, archives #12-16 (issues have been marked with "resolved" or "unresolved" tags tags). I have no issue with that article being a collaboration of the week, other then the fact that the majority of the contributors have avoided ALL attempts at true consensus building at every turn. The possibility of a lot of wasted time here exists, so the previous post was a simple update of the status of the situation, as requested.--scuro (talk) 15:55, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
I shall provide some diffs for my suspicions. I do not see your name supporting the nomination. I did not accuse but said it "seems like"; my suspicions were not based on the one comment above but on several other incidents which led myself and others to draw a similar view. Your past history suggests that you do not want doctors and pharmacists to review the article.saying it should not be nominated, delaying nomination, then making comments which imply the article is still drama filled here on this project page and saying that it is a waste of everyone's time to get it nominated,[1], [2], [3] ruining any chance of it being nominated when assurances are requested that it is safe and further you still have not added your name above to support the nomination. What other conclusion can one draw? Of course there is always the possibilty of an innocent answer. Anyway any chance of the ADHD article being nominated has been eliminated; I thought it would be good to get independent pharmacists and doctors to review it. Oh well, water under the bridge now.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 12:40, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Twelve people have signed on for ADHD to be accepted as MCOTW. Literaturegeek now seems to be for throwing in the towel. I don't agree. Both in overview (structure etc) and in detail the article(s) could use many more knowledgable, experienced eyes! Even scuro now writes "I have no issue with that article being a collaboration of the week, other then [SIC] the fact that the majority of the contributors have avoided ALL attempts at true consensus building at every turn."
Fine, let's double the number of contributors for a little while and see if the new constellation feels itself capable of "true consensus-building". Please! - Hordaland (talk) 16:53, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
I strongly support this nomination Hordaland. I am not throwing in the towel but just looking at the facts; look at date when it was nominated, exactly a year ago! I was also going by comment by admin here that said it could not proceed without "positive evidence" that it was safe (presumably meaning drama free and all editors agreeing to nomination). The admin here wanted positive evidence, scuro arrived and gave him negative evidence so I came to a conclusion. I am as annoyed as you are Hordaland about this. I hope that the collaboration proceeds, hence why I voted to support it, but I am sorry after a year of waiting and given the facts I am losing hope of a wiki project intervention and review. I would like too see scuro actually vote to support the collaboration as I have requested. Since he was the main focus of the arbcom, adding his official vote would restore some confidence that a collaboration can proceed, even after a year.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 17:21, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
And I "strongly support" not having any more of this sniping on this page.
Scuro, the Arbcom case required you to obtain and retain a mentor as a condition of your continued participation in this subject area. I believe that you've been unable to find one on your own. Has Arbcom bothered to appoint one yet? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:30, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

(←) Wait, am I missing something? Why is it bad for an article that clearly could use some work to be the subject of an organized collaboration?--Unionhawk Talk E-mail Review 23:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Above all wikipedia is a collaborative process. Certain parties here have avoided every attempt at collaboration, they have NEVER sought to resolve differences with those who hold opinions contrary to their opinions. Evidence of this happened as recently as yesterday when two of the nominating parties rejected mediation. Somehow they think if intelligent people are invited onto the page that everything will be solved. The excuses as to why collaboration can't be done are irrelevant if the attempt at true collaboration has never been made. WPM can choose this article but my opinion has only been reinforced by recent activity on and off the ADHD page. Do not put intelligent people through unnecessary drama.--scuro (talk) 00:26, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

(←(undent already!)) Wait, how is nominating this to be the focus of a WikiProject collaboration, avoiding collaboration?--Unionhawk Talk E-mail Review 03:25, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I believe that those from wikiproject will make every effort to be collaborative. But editors on the article who hold minority/fringe opinion on key issues, have never filed a mediation request or other collaborative processes. That was until this week, when you attempted to open mediation. That request was blocked because Literaturegeek and Doc James refused the request. The above parties refused to mediate the basic principle of "no personal attacks", and one of the key point of disagreement, which is the theory that ADHD is fake.[4]. If basic and obvious issues can't be dealt with, it is my opinion that main editors of the article are not ready to work collaboratively with WPM editors. Of course this is only my opinion, I could be wrong about this, and WPM can choose this article at anytime.--scuro (talk) 13:26, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

No point repeating our questions; we are back to going around in circles Union, I have as you probably know now filed another arbcom request.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 03:28, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Wow a year already since I originally filled this request. ADHD is sort of a complicated issue. Unless you are interested in the topic it would be a hard one to jump in the middle of. The amount of research is significant the numbers of opinion huge. Would strongly welcome more eyes on these issues.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:52, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
It is complicated but so are a lot of medical conditions and psychological disorders. There are certainly diverse opinions on ADHD and especially on its treatments, following WP:MEDRS and WP:UNDUE etc should help to navigate these territories which is what this wiki project would do. :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 13:25, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Can I suggest that all further comments regarding the actual content of the article get directed to the talk page? This page is for voting and brief commentary. Can I also suggest that given the vast amount of controversy in the mere nomination of this page, it's probable that there remains even more controversy in the state of said article. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  13:45, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
I think that if ever there were an article that cried out for the need for expert attention and help from the WikiProject Medicine community, this would be such an article. Without commenting on the specific content of the article, I would simply like to mention that much of the disagreement within this article involves issues related to sources, due weight, relevance, and scope, and these strike me as exactly the sort of areas where collaboration could be helpful. Further, this article is currently listed as being of High Importance within WikiProject Medicine/Neurology, and yet there are only a few active editors on this article...in fact, I believe there may be currently more forked articles than there are active editors involved...which may contribute to the difficulty in finding consensus between editors. Finally, to answer the question of whether this article is "safe" for collaboration, I would answer that collaboration may in fact serve to focus discussion and avoid many of the impasses that have caused (understandable) frustration for many of the editors involved. ~ Hyperion35 (talk) 05:33, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Extended content
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

This page and it's sister page ADHD controversies has one or more contributors with HUGE ownership issues as documented by an administrator. Nothing has changed. Do not waste anyone's time with this article until the process of consensus is firmly established once more.--scuro (talk) 04:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

It would be helpful for evidence and examples to be provided to verify this claim. Thank you. Nja247 21:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Plus, if there are ownership issues, then don't you think making this the MCOTW would help that issue?--Unionhawk Talk 00:03, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Evidence of page ownership was provided at the recent unsuccessful wikiquette alert filled against me.[[5]] Most of the major contributors were involved in this and should know of it and the evidence provided. I understand that some of you want the article to be a featured article. But it is wrong to virtually block a user off of the article for over a year, change the article in a major way, and then seek featured article status. How would the new editors, coming in to tweak the article, know that the version on the page is one sided without a lot of drama unfolding in talk. Why should they waste their time in such a process when they could work on another article with contributors who all want to make a page better and all seek consensus? True NPOV occurs when all parties are at the table and come to consensus about content. I have been at that table for over a year, and one contributor seems to avoid consensus building while using page ownership to allow only edits that they approve of. I would support seeking the Medicine Collaboration of the Week article when the process of consensus is being followed and the content has been vetted out to some degree. As it stands now, only certain editors are editing the page.--scuro (talk) 04:25, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Right now, seeing this as a good article would be great. Featured is probably a long way away.
I would be happy to seek consensus, but, at the moment, all you seem to do is revert with edit summaries like "please discuss this on the talk page," without actually starting a discussion on the talk page.--Unionhawk Talk 16:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
That's a very broad brush your are using and you have loaded it on thick. I'm no paint by numbers dude!--scuro (talk) 03:00, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Nor have you provided the sources I've asked for numerous times. Nja247 07:29, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Abdominal aortic aneurysm

Abdominal aortic aneurysm is really good. With a bit of work I think it could be brought up to GA. Anyone interested in working further on it?Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:14, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Collaboration of the Month?

The WikiProject Medicine Collaboration of the Week article selection has not been updated for nearly a year. Has this effort fallen by the wayside? If so, would other members of this project object if I take the initiative to start updating the articles listed for this collaboration, perhaps on a more sustainable "Collaboration of the Month" basis? --Craig Hicks (talk) 16:08, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

It might have a greater chance of getting going again on a month basis, so no objections from myself.. Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 10:24, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
I am in the process of making this change. I think the project will be more sustainable on a monthly basis, at least for now. Craig Hicks (talk) 14:00, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Agree. I have been thinking of getting this going again aswell. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:07, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Excellent! I was hoping you still were interested. Craig Hicks (talk) 15:28, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Great! --WS (talk) 15:49, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Sweet! Collaborations make wikipedia editing more fun imo Kallimachus (talk) 05:12, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

December 2010 Medicine Collaboration of the Month

Since no one else has made this yet I decided that I would. Should we do cancer for the WP:MCOTM? While it doesn't have the most votes it is a vital topic to Wikipedia and is heavily trafficked daily. Thanks! Peter.C • talk 22:04, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

To keep things fair we should go with the majority vote. Have thus changed Dec to Sleep deprivation, hopefully Cancer will than be next month. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:29, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

January 2011 Medicine Collaboration of the Month

Hope that everyone had a happy holiday. Now we're all in "zombie editing mode". What better way to end it then by selecting the article of the month to be cancer? It has two votes, while not the most recent article on the ballet it is most important one. Doc James has also expressed his feelings for cancer to be this months collaborative article. If anyone has any objects raise them before this time tomorrow. If no one objects by that time I will change the article to cancer. Also, remember to recruit your friends to help with MCOTM articles! Thanks! :) Peter.C • talk 03:23, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I hope this is the right place to approach a side issue. There is a constellation of ancillary articles pertaining to cancer (not to be confused with Cancer (constellation). We might want to look over some and figure out how the article should relate to them:
This is just a starter list. It is intended mostly as food for thought. Some of these might be merged. (Some might only provide a sentence after the merge.) Some have a little meat on them. I haven't gone into any detail on them yet. I thought I'd get a sampling of associated articles for a sense of what is on Wikipedia.Novangelis (talk) 07:59, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
To make a start, I have merged cancer patient into cancer. --WS (talk) 09:11, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


What's the best place to coordinate work on the main article? And who else is helping? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:20, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Probably on the talk page of the cancer article. I guess the question is which of the above are subpages of the main cancer article and which are tangentially related or co tracts. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:28, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Here's some more related articles:

There are also approximately a jillion articles about specific types of cancer (should be more than 200), charities, events, drugs, and academic journals.

We've also got a few odd red links: Cancer-related pain and tumor microenvironment are two important subjects. Cancer awareness is another missing article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:03, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Freenote IRC channel

Hello all, I am here to announce that we now have a IRC channel to help us collaborate in real time! Feel free to join it at #wikipedia-mcotm. For IRC help visit this tutorial. To use IRC in your browser use the freenode webchat. Peter.C • talk 17:39, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

February 2011 Medicine Collaboration of the Month

Currently spinal cord injury has the most votes. Unless anyone nominates/votes on any other articles I think it is safe to say that it will most likely win but to be fair we should wait until this time tomorrow to see if anyone has any new articles to recommend or votes for other articles. Peter.C • talk 21:51, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I have notified the people who supported that nomination of its selection and nudged folks at WT:MED. Peter, I think it would be useful to have you start a discussion on the article's talk page about something that needs to be improved. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:37, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Template update

I've updated two templates to make the dates change automagically each month, and to fix the names of the articles and the date when they're subst'd rather than transcluded. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:52, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Collaboration_of_the_Month/Archive_19&oldid=989106948"