Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Neuroscience

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

Review needed[edit]

Could somebody please review Draft:Innovations in Clinical Neuroscience, specifically as to whether it meets WP:JOURNALCRIT or not? Leave your comments on the draft. Thanks. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:55, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

I wish that Randykitty were still here (sigh). @DGG: maybe this would be something where you would have a feel for it? --Tryptofish (talk) 17:44, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Should we not have rather more material on Karl J. Friston?[edit]

Karl J. Friston has been ranked as "the most influential neuroscientist" of our time, and by any measure is at least a highly influential neuroscientist.

However, our article on Friston is hardly more than a stub.

Can anybody add more good content to this article? (Unfortunately I'm not competent to work on this myself.)

Thanks - (talk) 22:18, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

What to do with the lotus seed pod image at the Trypophobia article?[edit]

Opinions are needed on the following: Talk:Trypophobia#Should the image be removed, retained in the lead but collapsed, or moved down?. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:00, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

I've commented there, and I also think that this has been over-discussed. (I don't mean that as a criticism of posting this here, but just as a comment about the edit history of that page.) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:05, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
I first read that as "Tryptophobia", which I assume could only mean "fear of the Tryptofish;" but, then I realized that wasn't the case. Face-tongue.svg Seppi333 (Insert ) 01:34, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Be afraid! Be very afraid! I read it that way the first time, too. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:36, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

FYI: Category:Neural networks is under discussion at WP:CFD[edit]

See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 October 28#Category:Neural networks for the discussion entry. Seppi333 (Insert ) 01:28, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Featured quality source review RFC[edit]

Editors in this WikiProject may be interested in the featured quality source review RFC that has been ongoing. It would change the featured article candidate process (FAC) so that source reviews would need to occur prior to any other reviews for FAC. Your comments are appreciated. --IznoRepeat (talk) 21:48, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Social cognitive neuroscience[edit]

new article; a cross between social neuroscience and cognitive neuroscience, out of dialogue with both. Jytdog (talk) 12:59, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Do editors think that we really need this article? Is it a candidate for AfD? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:45, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
A quick search shows a few reviews, not entirely independent: [1],[2], perhaps [3]. I think it could possible survive AFD notability criteria. The main question in my mind is where to best place the material: social cognition, social neuroscience, cognitive neuroscience, or its own article? --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 00:13, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, I think that's a good take on it. Seems to me that 1 and 2 are the same author, and it's a stretch to say that 3 is the same thing. But AfD is probably not worth the hassle. I kind of like the idea of having a merge discussion, as opposed to having its own page. I'd have to give some thought as to the possible merge targets. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:38, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Actually, it looks to me most like it could be merged instead into Mirror neuron and Default mode network. It's pretty much redundant with those, and not much else. In fact, it kind of looks to me like WP:Synth to combine those two together in a single page, at least per the abstracts of those first two reviews. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:45, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Also, it looks to me like the single primary editor of the page is doing it as part of a class project. Consequently, I think the easiest thing might be to wait until the course is over, and then discuss the merge possibilities. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:49, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Social cognitive neuroscience is often considered distinct from social neuroscience and cognitive neuroscience. This review shows the distinction between social neuroscience and social cognitive neuroscience [4]. Here are a few more reviews, labs, and courses that are specific to the field and are run by independent researchers [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] (if no access Sci-Hub should work). Also I don't think putting mirror neuron and default network (latter is sometimes called "mentalizing network" in social contexts) together is synthesis on my part, there are many papers about the roles of these two networks in social cogniton [12] [13] [14]. But more practically, yes I am doing this for a class project, and it would be easier to wait until the course is over to discuss merging possibilities. Chilledsunshine (talk) 22:31, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Move discussion notice - Talk:Brodmann_area_45#Requested_move_2_December_2018[edit]

SMirC-thumbsup.svg Hey there! I'm Flooded with them hundreds. There is a move discussion at Talk:Brodmann_area_45#Requested_move_2_December_2018 requiring more participation, please consider commenting/voting in it along with the other discussions in the backlog (Wikipedia:Requested moves#Elapsed listings). Flooded with them hundreds 17:56, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

In relation to this this comment was made about Brodmann areas 44 and 45 on talk:Brodmann areas 44 and 45 (which I am deleting, but to preserve the comment witch is relevant to the above discussion, I am pasting it here. If the decision is made to go ahead with the proposed changes then the page can be restored. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:02, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

This page should not be speedily deleted because it was created to overcome a problematic page change from a wanted page name Triangular part of inferior frontal gyrus and the blocking of a name change to Operculum of inferior frontal gyrus. There is already a long-standing page name of Orbital part of inferior frontal gyrus which is the third part of the inferior frontal gyrus. Brodmann area 44 and Brodmann area 45 have their own pages, which i feel need to be changed either back or to, the anatomic terminology. Somewhere along the line the Brodmann area pages were used synonymously with the anatomic names. Brodmann areas are cytoarchitectural terms that do often but not always match the anatomically termed location. BrainInfo site makes a clear distintion between the anatomic names and the cytoarchitectural names. It makes a confusing mish mash of terms as it is. The page Orbital part of inferior frontal gyrus stands on its own and there is the page Brodmann area 47 that stands on its own. The page Brodmann areas 41 and 42 covers the Brodmann areas for the auditory cortex which has its own name. In the same way the page Brodmann areas 44 and 45 was made to cover Broca's area which has its own page. There is what is referred to as Gyral anatomy and cytoarchitectural organisation. Somewhere along the way these terms have become mixed. By keeping the page Brodmann areas 44 and 45, the separate pages of Brodmann 44 can rename as the opercular part of inferior frontal gyrus and 45 can rename as the triangular part of inferior frontal gyrus. If this is not be then are all the other pages to be transferred to brodmann area pages. Imstead of Visual cortex is there to be Brodmann area 17 and so on.--Iztwoz (talk) 22:20, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Neuroscientists in project scope?[edit]

Are neuroscience researchers within the purview of this project? I ask because I'm not sure whether I should tag the talk page of researchers like Kent C. Berridge and Eric J. Nestler with {{WPNEURO}}. They're two of the three preeminent researchers in some aspect (affective neuroscience and molecular neurobiology/clinical neuroscience, respectively) of the neuroscience of reward. Seppi333 (Insert ) 09:26, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

In my opinion, the answer is yes they are within scope. List of neuroscientists is a good place to look for pages. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:49, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Which version to go with at the Empathy article?[edit]

We need some opinions about which version of the Empathy article we should go with -- the current version or the version seen at User:Benteziegen/sandbox. Of course, we don't have to go with either version and could develop the article in another way. But the current one is the current one. Discussion is at Talk:Empathy#Theory and empirical section. The Empathy article deals with a number of medical/health topics, and neuroscience matters, ranging from autism, borderline personality disorder, schizophrenia, psychopathy, and so on. I also contacted WP:Med about weighing in. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:28, 15 February 2019 (UTC)