Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Neuroscience

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Talk:Lateralization of brain function#Pop psychology - opposite the truth[edit]


Could somebody with access to the sources and knowledge of the issue join the discussion above about the following paragraph: Lateralization_of_brain_function#Pop_psychology.

Thanks — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 15:24, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

A lot of nerve[edit]

Hey, I noticed there are a lot of article concerning "nerves", "nerve fibers" and "fibers". These article have a lot of overlap.

After the comment of Tryptofish, I propose

and maybe merge/redirect projection fiber to the new fiber tract.

What do you think?

List of articles:


bundle of axons

--VeniVidiVicipedia (talk) 12:55, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

I love your section title! To answer your question about projections within the brain, they are typically called either "projections" or "tracts", or white matter, but not "nerves". I support your proposal to merge nerve fiber into nerve. They really are the same overlapping topic. But I would prefer to treat the other merge proposal differently.
I'd rename/move afferent nerve fiber to afferent nerve, and efferent nerve fiber to efferent nerve in the interest of pagename consistency. And I would merge and redirect sensory receptors into sensory neuron, because they are really the same thing.
I think two pages on your list are the most problematic. Projection fiber does not really constitute a standalone topic, and should probably just be merged into central nervous system. And neural pathway is rather awful: where on earth does the term "neural face" come from? And why list the dopamine pathways but not the other neurotransmitter pathways? Aside from a massive revision, I'm really unsure what else to do with it. Maybe it can stand as a page, or maybe it should be merged somewhere (?), but I don't have any good ideas.
But I would leave the other pages as they are. Neurons are individual cells whereas nerves are large groups of neurons, so it is appropriate to have separate pages for each. And afferent, efferent, association, and commissural are each separate and individual subtypes, each of which should be a topic on its own. We wouldn't simply merge hippocampus and amygdala into brain, and these likewise should remain separate. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:34, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Good feedback!
Is a sensory nerve the same thing as an afferent nerve?
Maybe it is an idea to create an article about the "supertype" of association fiber and commissural fiber, called fiber tract. Just like nerve is the supertype of efferent nerve and so. The name fiber tract would be the best in my opinion because the words "fiber", "fiber tract" and "tract" are used in the articles and in the literature.
I'm curious why projection fiber does not constitute a standalone topic compared to the other two? Another possibility for projection fiber is to merge and redirect this article with the (possible new) fiber tract article.
I have online access to the one reference of neural pathway. Neural pathway, neural tract and neural face are mentioned nowhere in the book. So now the page has zero references, that's not a lot. A quick google keeps coming back to the wikipedia page. If no one can find a reliable source deletion seems to be the best option.
I've updated my first post.
The hippocampus, amygdala analogy doesn't really count, since they are both components not subtypes. =P — Preceding unsigned comment added by VeniVidiVicipedia (talkcontribs) 10:39, November 23, 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, come to think of it, afferent nerves are pretty much by definition sensory. As for projection fibers, they make up fiber tracts within the brain (as distinguished from local circuits within a single brain region) as well as axonal projections of peripheral nerves. On the other hand, commissural and associative are specific subtypes with specific functions. (Hippocampus and amygdala are certainly components of the brain, and the tracts are components too, but I was thinking of them as subtypes of (gray matter) brain regions within the brain. Or think of all of these things as specific examples.) Beyond that, I'd very much like to see if other editors in addition to the two of us have any ideas about these issues. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:30, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
I agree, in the meantime I have proposed deletion for the neural pathway article.--VeniVidiVicipedia (talk) 09:33, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
I see that an IP contested the PROD. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:15, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Yup I saw it too. I do not really understand the reasoning behind the contest. The availability of "many thousands of reliable sources via simple Google Scholar and Google Books searches" doesn't change the fact that I can't find them in a reasonable amount of time. In the meantime I created Tract (neuroanatomy). Maybe I will look into how merging two article works.VeniVidiVicipedia (talk) 21:26, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Unfortunately, they don't need a good reason to contest at PROD. It's probably not worth the effort to take it to WP:AfD. Merging and redirecting is indeed the best option. Basically, you can just move any worthwhile content (if any) into the target page, and make the other page a redirect to the target page. There is also a process for discussion first, if you don't want to just go ahead with it. Anyway: Wikipedia:Merging. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:03, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Deleting is actually not the right action anyway. If it is deleted, then a search for "neural pathway" will come up empty. Since this is a commonly used term, it is much better to turn it into a redirect than simply to delete it. Looie496 (talk) 14:43, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

I've started with making some of the discussed changes. So far I've merged Nerve fiber into Nerve, redirect Afferent nerve fiber to Afferent nerve and redirect Efferent nerve fiber to Efferent nerve. The next logical step is to fix the articles starting with the word sensory. As a start I made the proposal to merge Sensory receptor into Sensory neuron. Input is welcome! =] VeniVidiVicipedia (talk) 19:27, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Are afferent nerve and sensory nerve about the same thing?

And efferent nerve and motor nerve?

If so, should they be merged? And in what direction? (a/e)fferent or sensory/motor?)

Do these nerves even exist? I found this comment that says there's really no such thing.

What do you think? VENIVIDIVICIPEDIAtalk 14:13, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Afferent and sensory are indeed the same thing. I would use sensory nerve as the merge target, because I think it is the more likely topic for readers to search for.
But with efferents, it's another story. Efferent nerves include both motor nerves and the efferent nerves of the autonomic nervous system, two entirely different categories. (Sort of like voluntary versus involuntary, although that's not a precise distinction.) That talk comment you linked to was saying that within a single efferent nerve, there can be axons of both motor and autonomic neurons (thus, supposedly, "pure" nerve types might not exist). I'd want to double-check sources as to whether that is actually true, as I'm unsure and a little skeptical. But the nerves of both efferent types most definitely do exist. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:23, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying that! =] VENIVIDIVICIPEDIAtalk 10:07, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't cover projection neurons in any neuron articles[edit]

  • Neuron lists only sensory neurons, motor neurons, and interneurons as classifications of neurons in the lead. It doesn't include the phrase "projection neuron" anywhere in the article.
  • Interneuron states that there are only three classes of neurons: sensory, motor, and interneurons.
  • Projection neuron incorrectly redirects to interneuron without covering what a "projection neuron" is in that article.

Among others, this ref states that there are four basic classifications of neurons: motor neurons, sensory neurons, projection neurons, and interneurons. I realize that some sources lump interneurons and projection neurons together (e.g., [1]), but this convention isn't uniformly applied in practice (e.g., [2]).

Based upon my understanding:

  1. Motor neurons project from the CNS → PNS or CNS → muscle, conveying motor commands from the CNS
  2. Sensory neurons project from the PNS → CNS, and transduce a signal from a sensory stimulus into a neural/neurochemical signal that conveys sensory information
  3. Interneurons project locally within the nervous system, conveying some form of information between neurons located in close proximity within the PNS or CNS
  4. Projection neurons project into a different region within the nervous system, conveying some form of information between neurons located in distinct nervous system regions or structures within the brain; they constitute a huge proportion of neurons within the CNS.

With that said, shouldn't projection neuron be an independent article that covers this topic and lists cell types like striatal medium spiny neurons? Seppi333 (Insert ) 20:43, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

There's a lot in your question, but I'll just focus on projection neuron being a redirect to interneuron. Yikes! They are indeed opposites! I just changed the target to projection fiber as at least a temporary fix, but there certainly would be nothing wrong with instead making it an independent page as you propose. (Medium spinys are projection neurons, but they are far from the best examples. Cells in the substantia nigra, locus coeruleus, and dorsal raphe, as well as pyramidal cells in the cortex, are better examples.) --Tryptofish (talk) 00:32, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't think that projection neuron should be a separate article at this moment. There seem to be several attributes on which neurons can be classified: connection, structure, location, direction, neurotransmitter, discharge pattern, etc... Every classification gives rise to several classes. When every class gets its own article there will be a lot of duplication of information and many overlapping articles.
I think it is best to first search for review articles discussing neuron nomenclature and classification, since as you said this is not uniformly applied at the moment. This information than can be discussed in neuron. And only consider splitting of a section into an article when it reaches considerable size and quality. VeniVidiVicipedia (talk) 09:23, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Maybe it is an idea that instead of making lists of neurons in each class, to make a table/list article instead, e.g. List of neurons in the human body. This could provide a better overview and allow people to sort on any classification they like. VeniVidiVicipedia (talk) 09:23, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Those are good points. Perhaps it would be best to have some material on projection neurons within the neuron page, and re-target the redirect for projection neuron to the appropriate section of neuron. However, I have very low enthusiasm for the "list of neurons" page being created, because it would become pretty much impossible to decide what to include or not include, and it could potentially be infinitely long – after all, there are a lot of neurons in the human body! (If there isn't a category, however, such a category would be fine.) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:32, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Tried to find some review papers. So far I found a relevant review paper with lots of references to lots of classifications. [1] Also found a less relevant one that I find interesting.[2] Also found this paper, which seems the most promising to me to be used as a source, it discusses the current nomenclature of classes of neurons and their development.[3] VeniVidiVicipedia (talk) 14:36, 10 January 2017 (UTC)


  1. ^ Hamilton, D. J.; Wheeler, D. W.; White, C. M.; Rees, C. L.; Komendantov, A. O.; Bergamino, M.; Ascoli, G. A. (2016-06-09). "Name-calling in the hippocampus (and beyond): coming to terms with neuron types and properties". Brain Informatics: 1–12. doi:10.1007/s40708-016-0053-3. ISSN 2198-4018. 
  2. ^ Harbom, Lise J.; Chronister, William D.; McConnell, Michael J. (2016-02-01). "Single neuron transcriptome analysis can reveal more than cell type classification". BioEssays. 38 (2): 157–161. doi:10.1002/bies.201500097. ISSN 1521-1878. PMC 4852373Freely accessible. PMID 26749010. 
  3. ^ Lodato, Simona; Arlotta, Paola (2015-11-13). "Generating Neuronal Diversity in the Mammalian Cerebral Cortex". doi:10.1146/annurev-cellbio-100814-125353. PMC 4778709Freely accessible. PMID 26359774. Retrieved 2017-01-10.  External link in |website= (help)
Yes, 1 and 3 look like good reliable sources to me. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:05, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

The third source says the following (most info is from [1]): neuron classification in the neocortex is far for complete/finished.

Cortical projection neurons. PNs are excitatory, glutamatergic neurons that connect the cerebral cortex to the entirety of its distal intracortical, subcortical, and subcerebral targets. 70-80% of neurons in cortex. Current (broad) classification:

  • intracortical PNs. in all layers but predominantly in the upper layer II/III.
    • associative PN = PNs that project their axons either to targets in the same hemisphere or to different layers of the same area or column.
    • commisural PNs (CoPNs) = project their axons to targets located in the opposite hemisphere.
      • Callosal PNs (CPNs) = CoPN that connects through the corpus callosum.
  • corticofugal PNs (CFuPNs). primarily in deep layers send axons to distal targets outside of the cortex.
    • corticothalamic PNs (CThPNs) = heterogeneous population of PNs located in layer VI that project to different nuclei of the thalamus to modulate incoming sensory information.
    • subcerebral PNs (ScPNs). in layer Vb cross multiple areas and project their axons to distinct targets below the brain.
      • corticopontine PNs = to the pons and other nuclei of the brainstem
      • corticotectal PNs (CTPNs) = to the superior colliculus
      • corticospinal motor neurons (CSMNs) = to the spinal cord
  • Some classes of PNs send axons to multiple targets and do not easily fit into any of the classes described above.

A few lessons can be learned from these molecular studies. First, the laminar coordinates of a neuron do not fully define its class-specific identity. Second, molecular profiling suggests the presence of a higher degree of heterogeneity within PN subtypes than is apparent from their long-distance connectivity.

Cortical interneurons. (just started reading it.) Cortical INs make local connections within the cortex that may span multiple layers. 20-30% of neurons in cortex. very diverse -> classification still work in progress. Traditional (broad) classification:

  • spiny pyramidal and stellate cells
  • aspiny (or sparsely spiny) nonpyramidal cells

An interesting additional source about interneuron cell types: [2].

So far I think it is best to have as less articles about neuron classes as possible. Since as said earlier the classification is at best incomplete. VeniVidiVicipedia (talk) 17:19, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

2016 Community Wishlist Survey Proposal to Revive Popular Pages[edit]

Magic Wand Icon 229981 Color Flipped.svg

Greetings WikiProject Neuroscience Members!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about a technical proposal to revive your Popular Pages list in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

If the above proposal gets in the Top 10 based on the votes, there is a high likelihood of this bot being restored so your project will again see monthly updates of popular pages.

Further, there are over 260 proposals in all to review and vote for, across many aspects of wikis.

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Best regards, SteviethemanDelivered: 18:05, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Issues in recent peer review of Hippocampus[edit]

The Hippocampus article was peer reviewed by a neuroscientist recently, discovering several issues: Wikiversity:The Hippocampus#Peer review comments
The main issue that needs to be addressed is the disconnect between hippocampal involvement in declarative memory versus spatial navigation, preferably by mentioning functional imaging studies. The peer reviewer has referred to the following works:

  • Schiller, D.; Eichenbaum, H.; Buffalo, E. A.; Davachi, L.; Foster, D. J.; Leutgeb, S.; Ranganath, C. (2015). "Memory and Space: Towards an Understanding of the Cognitive Map". Journal of Neuroscience. 35 (41): 13904–13911. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2618-15.2015. ISSN 0270-6474. 
  • Buzsáki, György; Moser, Edvard I (2013). "Memory, navigation and theta rhythm in the hippocampal-entorhinal system". Nature Neuroscience. 16 (2): 130–138. doi:10.1038/nn.3304. ISSN 1097-6256. 

I appreciate any help with this matter. After such an amendment, the article can be published in WikiJournal of Medicine, which is an open-access journal with no publication charges of any kind. The article will then be given standard citation formats and DOI codes so that it can be cited by external works. If you help out, you can be displayed among the main authors of the publication in WikiJournal of Medicine if you want, but you then need to agree and sign the "Submission letter", and you should also write your real name. In any case, contributors will be attributed by a link to the article history of Hippocampus. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions.


Mikael Häggström (talk) 20:00, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Editor-in-chief, WikiJournal of Medicine

Update: These issues have now been amended. Mikael Häggström (talk) 08:04, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Missing topics list[edit]

My list of missing topics about neurology is updated - Skysmith (talk) 15:09, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

@Skysmith: I do not really understand what the purpose is of this list... Create redirects to already existing articles? VeniVidiVicipedia (talk) 21:08, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
If I may reply to that, I've always understood the list to be suggestions for new pages to be created. But if there are already equivalent pages under different names, it would be appropriate to make redirects instead. Are there examples of topics where you do not see value in a standalone page? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:16, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
I do think that many of those are suitable for redirects but I don't think I can say myself which are. Some are also terms not currently in use. If you can point out what would be suitable for what, all the better - Skysmith (talk) 22:21, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
In think these articles could be redirected if more people agree.

Got to the cognitive neurology section. I think its fastest to discuss the ones with least discussion first. VeniVidiVicipedia (talk) 21:44, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I recognize that there may be many links suitable mostly for redirects, like these ones. But often I am not sure enough to create them myself. - Skysmith (talk) 20:17, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

a questionable evo-devo model of stuttering[edit]

Wikipedia's article Stuttering says ( )

More boys stammer than girls, in the ratio of 3-4 boys : 1 girl. This is because males have evolved as the hunters, fighters and as protectors and suitors. To succeed, they have required more adrenaline. Their Hypothalamic-Pituitary-Adrenal (HPA) Axis is more active.

The cite given for this information is

Stammering (Stuttering) A Complex Vocal Tic, Patricia Sims, Kindle version 2014

This work is apparently self-published (

Are we happy with this text as it stands, or should this be deleted or modified? -- (talk) 04:38, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

It should be deleted unless a better source can be found. Looie496 (talk) 15:34, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

WikiJournal of Medicine promotion[edit]

WJM Poster (hyperlinked).pdf
WikiJournal of Medicine logo.svg

The WikiJournal of Medicine is a free, peer reviewed academic journal which aims to provide a new mechanism for ensuring the accuracy of Wikipedia's biomedical content. We started it as a way of bridging the Wikipedia-academic gap.[3] It is also part of a WikiJournal User Group with other WikiJournals under development.[4] The journal is still starting out and not yet well known, so we are advertising ourselves to WikiProjects that might be interested.

Engaging Wikipedians

  • Original articles on topics that don't yet have a Wikipedia page, or only a stub/start
  • Wikipedia articles that you are willing to see through external peer review (either solo or as in a group, process analagous to GA / FA review)
  • Image articles, based around an important medical image or summary diagram

Engaging non-Wikipedians

We hope that an academic journal format may also encourage non-Wikipedians to contribute who would otherwise not. Therefore, please consider:

  • Printing off the advertisement poster an distribute in tearooms & noticeboards at your place of work
  • Emailing around the pdf through contact networks or mailing lists (suggested wording)

If you want to know more, we recently published an editorial describing how the journal developed.[5] Alternatively, check out the journal's About or Discussion pages.

  1. ^ Molyneaux, Bradley J.; Arlotta, Paola; Menezes, Joao R. L.; Macklis, Jeffrey D. "Neuronal subtype specification in the cerebral cortex". Nature Reviews Neuroscience. 8 (6): 427–437. doi:10.1038/nrn2151. 
  2. ^ Kepecs, Adam; Fishell, Gordon. "Interneuron cell types are fit to function". Nature. 505 (7483): 318–326. doi:10.1038/nature12983. PMC 4349583Freely accessible. PMID 24429630. 
  3. ^ Masukume, G; Kipersztok, L; Das, D; Shafee, T; Laurent, M; Heilman, J (November 2016). "Medical journals and Wikipedia: a global health matter". The Lancet Global Health. 4 (11): e791. doi:10.1016/S2214-109X(16)30254-6. 
  4. ^ "Wikiversity Journal: A new user group". The Signpost. 2016-06-15. 
  5. ^ Shafee, T; Das, D; Masukume, G; Häggström, M. "WikiJournal of Medicine, the first Wikipedia-integrated academic journal". WikiJournal of Medicine. 4. doi:10.15347/wjm/2017.001. 
WikiJournal of Science logo.svg

Additionally, the WikiJournal of Science is just starting up under a similar model and looking for contributors. Firstly it is seeking editors to guide submissions through external academic peer review and format accepted articles. It is also encouraging submission of articles in the same format as Wiki.J.Med. If you're interested, please come and discuss the project on the journal's talk page, or the general discussion page for the WikiJournal User group.
T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 10:33, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Prefrontal cortex[edit]

I ran into this problem while trying to find a redirect target for prelimbic cortex. This journal article, this textbook, and the Neurolex mPFC entry indicate that the "prelimbic cortex" or "prelimbic area" is part of the medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC). The textbook also indicates that the prelimbic cortex is contained within Brodmann area 32.

  • The current PFC article lead states that the PFC encompasses six Brodmann areas: 9, 10, 11, 12, 46, and 47.
    • The current "Subdivisions" section of the PFC article – Prefrontal cortex § Subdivisions – lists eight Brodmann areas that are part of the PFC: 8, 9, 10, 11, 44, 45, 46, and 47 (area 12 is missing?).
  • The textbook linked above (PFC substructures are covered on pages 22-24) indicates that the PFC contains all or part of fourteen Brodmann areas: 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 24, 25, 32, 44, 45, 46, 47.

Should the PFC article be revised to include these other regions, or is there a reason why only a subset of these areas is listed in the PFC article? If it stays as is, where should prelimbic cortex redirect? Seppi333 (Insert ) 16:21, 6 March 2017 (UTC) ---- edited 16:36, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I checked the sources, and yes, the prelimbic cortex is area 32, and 32 is within the prefrontal cortex. So I suggest: (1) prelimbic cortex should redirect to Brodmann area 32, which would be more precise than targeting it to the prefrontal page, and (2) it would be fine to expand prefrontal cortex to include more Brodmann areas. I suspect that the only reason so many areas are left out of the page is that they were overlooked, but they can certainly be added subsequently. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:20, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
I was thinking about redirecting it to Brodmann area 32; however, I figured the PFC would be a better target because it's probably more likely (based upon page view statistics) that a subsection on the prelimbic cortex would be expanded by other editors if it were located in that article than if it were located in Brodmann area 32. If you think the Brodmann area would be a better redirect target, I'll go ahead and redirect it there though.
Per your suggestion, I've revised the lead of the PFC article and added maintenance tags to the appropriate sections. Seppi333 (Insert ) 03:52, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
It's not a big deal for me either way, about targeting 32 versus PFC, but the way that I see it is that it specifically is area 32, whereas it's only a part of PFC. But you could also use a "prelimbic cortex redirects here, for the more [general/specific] brain region, see..." hatnote in either case. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:44, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
I've added the redirect hatnote and created the redirect. I'll add content on the prelimbic cortex to both of those article within the next day or two. Seppi333 (Insert ) 01:55, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Extension of 'Topic Page' review articles from PLOS Computational Biology to PLOS Genetics[edit]


The journal group PLOS is extending its 'Topic Page' review format that was spearheaded by PLOS Computational Biology to also include PLOS Genetics. In this format, accepted articles are dual-published both in the journal, and as Wikipedia pages (see Wikipedia category).

Suitable topics must either currently lack a Wikipedia page, or have only stub/start class contents. If you you would like to submit such a review article, see these guidelines. If you have any recommendations for topics to be commissioned, feel free to let any of the involved editors know: T Shafee (PLOS Gen), D Mietchen (PLOS Comp Biol).
T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 12:38, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/Marquette University/Neurobiology (Spring 2017)[edit]

Just a heads up that students have created new versions of articles in sandboxes and there is some plan to move them to mainspace soon. Some existing articles are stubs; some have significant content. Jytdog (talk) 20:56, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Upcoming "420 collaboration"[edit]

Cannabis leaf 2.svg

You are invited to participate in the upcoming

"420 collaboration",

which is being held from Saturday, April 15 to Sunday, April 30, and especially on April 20, 2017!

The purpose of the collaboration, which is being organized by WikiProject Cannabis, is to create and improve cannabis-related content at Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects in a variety of fields, including: culture, health, hemp, history, medicine, politics, and religion.

For more information about this campaign, and to learn how you can help improve Wikipedia, please visit the "420 collaboration" page.

---Another Believer (Talk) 20:43, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

User edit check[edit]

Can someone here check this user's edits to make sure they aren't trying to add sneaky vandalism or other misinformation. Sakuura Cartelet Talk 02:28, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

RfC on the WP:ANDOR guideline[edit]

Hi, all. Opinions are needed on the following: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#RfC: Should the WP:ANDOR guideline be softened to begin with "Avoid unless" wording or similar?. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:44, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Recategorizing all medicine and biology articles using the more specific MeSH hierarchy[edit]

I would like to have your opinion regarding this idea here. --Brainist (talk) 21:31, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Neuralink debate[edit]

I am currently engaged in a discussion with another editor on Talk:Neuralink#Musk's timeframes about whether these edits violate WP:CRYSTAL and/or WP:UNDUE. A third opinion would be much appreciated. Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 22:15, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Citation overkill proposal at WP:Citation overkill talk page[edit]

Opinions are needed on the following: Wikipedia talk:Citation overkill#Citations. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:32, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Popular pages report[edit]

We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Neuroscience/Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of WikiProject Neuroscience.

We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:

  • The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
  • The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
  • The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).

We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of WikiProject Neuroscience, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.

Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)