The sections on articles being created or completed & for peer-review had been moved to archive page. Separately there has been an active discussion in Wp_talk:MCOTW#Collaboration_on_articles about having an intermediate step of articles in progress for which the collabortaion by others was sought and so I have merged the old and new proposal on the page. This is meant to be separate from the WP:MCOTW topic that everyone jointly nominates and then works on for a specific week. David Ruben 00:55, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
Again thank you
Knowledge Seeker, I've thought more about your points, and so I propose:
A solution might be to change the current structure from ' ==Individual's name== / *[[Page]] discussion ' to just a simple list of ' *[[Page]] discussion ~~~~ '. The use of signatures ('~~~~') is then both easier for everyone to use, and has the advantage that the entry is clearly date-stamped. However this would loose the multiple sub-sections and the ability to edit just ones own bit.
Please everyone, comment below .... - David Ruben 20:24, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
==[[Article]]==
, like we do on
WP:MCOTW? That helps keep things organized. They could even be generate by a template too like on MCOTW, and we could set a (loose) rule of when to remove items. Perhaps: new items go on the top; remove an item if there is no discussion for at least two weeks? And of course if you decide you do want to keep the section on what we're working on individually, I'd stick it at the bottom—and we'd need some way of pruning stale listings. Like I think I mentioned before, I think the key to making this work is to ensure it's dynamic; stagnation will kill it. —
Knowledge Seeker
দ 01:43, August 24, 2005 (UTC)Shouldn't we remove older requests. There are requests from 2004. :) NCurse work 20:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm kinda lost here... Can someone put a message at the top what the consensus for this discussion was? How are collaborations organised?-- Steven Fruitsmaak | Talk 09:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Hello, I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask. Another editor advised me to ask this project, but I don't know if this is the right talk page.
I asked on the Talk:Vardenafil page whether a single study comparing it to sildenafil and tadalafil in the treatment of pulmonary hypertension should be mentioned in the article. The study is mentioned in US Respiratory Disease 2006, authored by Manu Jain and Anna P. Lam. The article is available here, and a longer versino for subscribers is available here. According to the article, this one study found that vardenafil did not cause "a significant reduction in the pulmonary to systemic vascular resistance ratio."
Do you think it's worth mentioning this one study in the Vardenafil article, or do you think it should be omitted, pending further studies? Thank you. -- Kyok o 19:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
The sections on articles being created or completed & for peer-review had been moved to archive page. Separately there has been an active discussion in Wp_talk:MCOTW#Collaboration_on_articles about having an intermediate step of articles in progress for which the collabortaion by others was sought and so I have merged the old and new proposal on the page. This is meant to be separate from the WP:MCOTW topic that everyone jointly nominates and then works on for a specific week. David Ruben 00:55, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
Again thank you
Knowledge Seeker, I've thought more about your points, and so I propose:
A solution might be to change the current structure from ' ==Individual's name== / *[[Page]] discussion ' to just a simple list of ' *[[Page]] discussion ~~~~ '. The use of signatures ('~~~~') is then both easier for everyone to use, and has the advantage that the entry is clearly date-stamped. However this would loose the multiple sub-sections and the ability to edit just ones own bit.
Please everyone, comment below .... - David Ruben 20:24, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
==[[Article]]==
, like we do on
WP:MCOTW? That helps keep things organized. They could even be generate by a template too like on MCOTW, and we could set a (loose) rule of when to remove items. Perhaps: new items go on the top; remove an item if there is no discussion for at least two weeks? And of course if you decide you do want to keep the section on what we're working on individually, I'd stick it at the bottom—and we'd need some way of pruning stale listings. Like I think I mentioned before, I think the key to making this work is to ensure it's dynamic; stagnation will kill it. —
Knowledge Seeker
দ 01:43, August 24, 2005 (UTC)Shouldn't we remove older requests. There are requests from 2004. :) NCurse work 20:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm kinda lost here... Can someone put a message at the top what the consensus for this discussion was? How are collaborations organised?-- Steven Fruitsmaak | Talk 09:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Hello, I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask. Another editor advised me to ask this project, but I don't know if this is the right talk page.
I asked on the Talk:Vardenafil page whether a single study comparing it to sildenafil and tadalafil in the treatment of pulmonary hypertension should be mentioned in the article. The study is mentioned in US Respiratory Disease 2006, authored by Manu Jain and Anna P. Lam. The article is available here, and a longer versino for subscribers is available here. According to the article, this one study found that vardenafil did not cause "a significant reduction in the pulmonary to systemic vascular resistance ratio."
Do you think it's worth mentioning this one study in the Vardenafil article, or do you think it should be omitted, pending further studies? Thank you. -- Kyok o 19:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)