![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 115 | Archive 116 | Archive 117 | Archive 118 | Archive 119 | Archive 120 | → | Archive 125 |
Hello all, I'm looking to update this image, especially now that Wikipedia Zero has ended. Are there any other interesting interactions or collaborations that I should include? I'm intending to more explicitly refer to WikiEdu. WikiData will definitely have to be mentioned somewhere too. Are there other collaborations that could be included (e.g. Internet-in-a-Box)? I'll also try to update WP:W2J and WT:MEDJOURNAL a bit. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo) talk 01:32, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
Supportive psychotherapy ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
If interested, see Talk:Supportive psychotherapy#WP:MEDRS. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 16:24, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
The page for " Majocchi's disease" is incorrect. There are two similarly named conditions (unfortunatley) that are confused within the page. Majocchi's granuloma is a SEPARATE entitity from Majocchi's Disease. The page in question is named Majocchi's disease but in fact describes majocchi's granuloma. This page should be deleted and two separate pages should be created with the following titles: "Majocchi's granuloma" is the first title and should contain the majority of the content within the existing page. A second page should be created named "Purpura annularis telangiectodes" AKA Majocchi's disease which will contact entirely separate content.
This was a post on the Help desk that went unanswered. I have no idea if the complaint is valid or not. Rmhermen ( talk) 01:19, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Is this...a real thing? There's only two sources on PubMed ( [3]) and 11 on GScholar ( [4]). I don't know if they're reliable or good enough to support the article (which is a total mess regardless). ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 10:31, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi, yesterday User:WIKIBIOMEDAQU added a link to BioMedAQU to Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions. I reverted the edit because of the obvious connection to the promotional username, and the account was blocked as promotional. Today, a new account has been created and added exactly the same link and text, so I assume it's the same person adding it under a less promotional account name. I don't feel able to revert this time though - I can't look at the link from my work PC so I don't know for certain that it doesn't belong there, and the new account name isn't so problematic. Might be pure spam though - is anyone able to take a quick check to see whether it's worth keeping? Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 13:56, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi, it seems that there is a misunderstanding. The examples of Marie Curie Actions are projects financed by Marie Sklodowska-Curie Actions. These are not commercial projects so it would seem legitimate to add them. BioMed30 ( talk) 15:25, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for all this information and examples. I have a question regarding external links, does it also mean that external links should not be there since there are not 'encyclopedic like'? BioMed30 ( talk) 08:55, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
I am a beginner in Wikipedia so tell me if I am right or not; but will it be possible to add this information as external links? BioMed30 ( talk) 10:06, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
I took it to AfD for reasons noted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Internet phobia. Some can check the DSM-5 to see what I mean. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 05:33, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
The request for help relates to Draft:Evolution of HIV. Some subject knowledge is needed. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 06:35, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello again! Does osteolipochondroma need its own article, or can I merge it somewhere? If it should be left on its own, any anyone suggest where I can link it for de-orphaning? Halloween chocolate for anyone who helps :) ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 00:11, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Is now open for proposals. Basically if you have a tech request this is were one can "win" engineering time to get it completed. I have two ideas:
Anyway will be writing these up soon. Others have ideas? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 15:59, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
".. almost all of those languages use the same Arabic numerals as English"That's an interesting new use of the word "almost" that I hadn't come across before. It appears, then, that it's okay to ignore localisation as long as there are only about 3 billion readers who would nominally require it? -- RexxS ( talk) 19:13, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 20:13, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
*DOI tool: Bath, Philip M; Lee, Han Sean; Everton, Lisa F (2018-10-30). "Swallowing therapy for dysphagia in acute and subacute stroke". Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. doi:10.1002/14651858.cd000323.pub3. ISSN 1465-1858. *PMID tool: Bath, Philip M.; Lee, Han Sean; Everton, Lisa F. (2018-10-30). "Swallowing therapy for dysphagia in acute and subacute stroke". The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 10: CD000323. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD000323.pub3. ISSN 1469-493X. PMID 30376602.
DayQuil has been redirected and unredirected a couple times. I don't know if it needs a separate article, or where it should redirect if not. I could see it redirecting to NyQuil, cough syrup, or Vicks. Does anyone have any thoughts on this? Natureium ( talk) 01:54, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
The refs for nyquil were
1) a google site https://sites.google.com/site/tylenolpt/home/history
2) A page not found http://www.oakridger.com/article/20130524/NEWS/305249943
3) Another page not found and not independent https://vicks.com/en-us/browse-products/childrens-medicine/childrens-nyquil
4) Another dead link http://news.ufl.edu/2006/07/19/decongensant/
5) And a shopping website of P and G https://vicks.com/en-us/shop-products/nyquil This is a great example of WHY we should redirect these pages to the generic. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 02:44, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Please take a look at Nelson Pill Hearings - there seems to be some anti-contraception bias in that article. Tony May ( talk) 15:57, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Other thoughts? Do we need a list of thousands of peoples... Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 18:26, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Opinions are needed on the following: Talk:Female hysteria#Merge discussion. A permalink for it is here. The discussion concerns what to do with the Hysteria article since "hysteria" is not synonymous with "female hysteria," at least in the modern sense. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 23:43, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi all, you'll have seen some University of Edinburgh students editing topics related to Global Health in the last 72 hours. The assignment page is here. They were asked to add 180 words to a topic related to Global Health with today as their deadline. I wasn't aware of which articles they were going to edit as the project was put together relatively quickly with limited training time so your indulgence is craved here a little so please do bear with me. I can see already we need to spend more time on the stricter referencing requirements for biomedical topics (as we now do for the Reproductive Biology assignment) and reinforcing the need for citing the open access url not the University of Edinburgh paywalled url. I've seen a few Wikiproject Medicine editors have now made some copyedits, many thanks, in terms of where the edits are appearing in the article and the type of language used so if there is particular takeaways from this that you would like to get across then do let me know what these main bullet points would be so I can pass on accordingly. The course leaders and the students are keen to learn but they also have a packed MSc programme to get through so it's a little bit of a balancing act to see how they can dip their toes in, learn the need to know stuff, have a positive experience contributing to Wikipedia about Global Health topics and hopefully then go on to spend more time contributing in future iterations of the course and once they graduate also. I do appreciate on this occasion there is some tidying up and reversions needed, apologies, but am keen that the students can have a positive experience overall and we learn from this to do it better next time. All best, Stinglehammer ( talk) 17:52, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Some disagreement about sourcing quality; more eyes could help. Alexbrn ( talk) 18:34, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
There has been a discussion open since January 2018 at Talk:Impaired_glucose_tolerance#Merger_Discussion. Can folks think about what pages should there be as we have Impaired glucose tolerance and Subclinical diabetes as well as Prediabetes. As well as Insulin resistance. And Impaired fasting glucose. Weirdly, this material is only briefly covered in Diabetes mellitus type 2, which has been passed as a Good Article...
More opinions on what should be merged into what'd be good.... Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 05:35, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Peoples thoughts on this source? Examples include [8] Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 14:53, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Medical students at Queen's have begun to make suggestion on the following article talk pages. They are monitoring their talk pages this week and will be making article improvements Nov 10-13th. I encourage the ProjectMed community to give these students a warm welcome and have some patience while they are learning. The group is excited to be contributing. Hopefully, we will be able to work together to improve the evidence that is shared in these 16 articles and give the students (and faculty) a positive experience on Wikipedia that so that some of them may stick around and help us with our efforts. If you have any questions or suggestions please do not hesitate to let me know.
JenOttawa ( talk) 19:07, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
From the previous, or another, class:
Outriggr ( talk) 02:22, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Where are editors like this one at the Cracked nipple article and this one at the Oophorectomy article coming from? Notice it's the first editor's first edit. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 01:16, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Myself and User:Zefr appear to both have reached a disagreement on Talk:Xylitol#Veterinary_studies, over the inclusion of this sentence. In small, laboratory scale animal studies, controlled feeds very high in Xylitol, increased the bone density of rat's with osteoporosis. [1] [2]
User:Zefr's position appears to be repeating that this is either a primary source issue, when drugs.com is clearly a reputable secondary source or that it is FRINGE medical advice. However the stance I've taken is that respect for reliable sources per WP:MEDREV, is central to the project, alongside repeating that this is not an article on animal osteoporosis, so it doesn't require the level of scientific rigor that would understandably be deemed necessary on that article. Which I would agree with, if it were. Instead this is an encyclopedic article on a relatively obscure sugar, what it has been used for and where areas of study have gone. So I hope you can understand why I am perpexpled by what I see as an entirely misplaced apprehension to suggest A review...is not compliant with WP:MEDRS to imply any effect on osteoporosis. When again, this is not an article on animal osteoporosis? so how is their concern applicable?
A google search will find a hundred plus citations for this allegedly fringe area of study. Which anyone can do, by typing - xylitol bone mineralization - into your favorite search engine. It is clearly squarely in the domain of WP:MEDANIMAL and it is further made absolutely clear that it is not to be tried by humans, with the inclusion of the Monica Reinagel citation, which explicitly spells out exactly why this is not to be taken as medical advice, in graphic detail. So in sum, I'm perplexed by how WP:MEDRS or any other policy applies, as grounds for exluding this.
Boundarylayer ( talk) 00:19, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
Stating that research has happened is of value to readers. Wholly in contrast to your suggestion that this is, somehow below the threshold for an encyclopedia to make any use of. You only have to view the Methylene blue article, were what it likewise has been studied for. Is succinctly listed. To quote the article. It has been studied in AIDS-related Kaposi's sarcoma, West Nile virus, and to inactivate staphylococcus aureus, and HIV-1. Phenothiazine dyes and light have been known to have virucidal properties for over 70 years - that sentence is well balanced and of due weight. While none of these applications are clinical practice for a galaxy of reasons, the fact that study has occurred with substance A to treat a condition B, is both definitely of value and truly encyclopedic. I note that entire sentence there on the Methylene blue article, went unchallenged and did not cause a fuss. Yet for some reason using a secondary source here with the case of Xylitol, to communicate that something has been investigated. Is for some reason not good enough because we need aggregation of studies? ...Why exactly? We're simply stating a fact. Just like the methylene blue article does and just like countless other aricles that do the same. Yet am I to take away that you and others here, similarly object to all of the inclusion occurring in these other articles? ...Really? Boundarylayer ( talk) 12:13, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
References
I while back I came across Multisystem proteinopathy which looked like this at the time. I trimmed out the primary sources which made it like this.
I then merged it into Hereditary inclusion body myopathy.
An IP editor objected to this and would like to see the multisystem proteinopathy page split back out. Which you can see at the HIBM talk page at Talk:Hereditary_inclusion_body_myopathy#Undoing_merge_with_multisystem_proteinopathy.
They've been following up with me (with remarkable patience) and I have not made up my own mind yet.
More input would be helpful. Jytdog ( talk) 16:01, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
I am not sure if this has been previously addressed by this Wikiproject, but it sort of stuns me how commercial companies have brazenly inserted wikilinks to themselves into "see also" sections for articles about medical devices like artificial cardiac pacemaker and implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (two such diffs where I removed these UNDUE influences: here and here.
This paragraph that I removed, which cites "google.com" (lol) was particularly bad. Out of the almost dozen commercial influences and self-important redlinked doctors/companies mentioned, only Anthony Adducci was actually mentioned in the patent (the coinventor, Schwalm, was not even mentioned in the article as a "pioneer").
Companies like Medtronic are large and prestigious and deserve appropriate coverage. However, looking at the "what links here" for this company (as an example), it seems someone at this company wants to insert mention of this company into as many medical device pages as possible, possibly to boost their search results when people search for medical devices on the internet. I feel the project should be aware of and actively fight this unethical form of search engine optimization. Yanping Nora Soong ( talk) 01:02, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
User:Yanping Nora Soong We have had multiple global heads of marketing at Medtronic try to white wash a Wikipedia article. They, like most undisclosed paid editors, told falsehoods and their stories changed once caught. Was written up in the Atalantic.othe Agressive trimmed of these "see also" sections is fine by me. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 06:41, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
I noticed this site:
Retractiondatabase.org. Do we have a project page that lists retractions that need to be cleaned up on medical pages in Wikipedia? I am visualising something similar to the
Cochrane bot (that flags retracted and updated reviews for humans to adjust the knowledge being shared and the citations accordingly).
Does anyone have any suggestions?
Thanks,
JenOttawa (
talk) 14:12, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
|retracted=yes
in
CS1 templates. There is {{
retracted}} though.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 19:00, 30 October 2018 (UTC)References
I am a largely-retired UK geriatrician with an interest in medical education. I am planning to set up some Wikipedia training locally. Following a discussion with Doug Taylor, we thought it would be helpful to draw up a list of transferable skills needed to edit a Wikipedia page successfully, and be a part of the Wikipedia community. Identifying the specific skills in this way will allow teachers to identify how they might teach them and assess them. It could also form a useful template to allow comparison with different healthcare (& other) curricula, for example undergraduate, and UK Foundation Programme. This in turn would improve the ease of incorporating teaching Wikipedia editing into such curricula.
Towards this end I thought it might be useful to start a draft template. It's at Matrix of WikiEdu teaching template headings & component skills. If thought useful, it could be amended iteratively by the Wikipedia community, in order to build up a comprehensive document. What do you think? Kitb ( talk) 12:21, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
Having now done a (small) pilot session, I have learnt some valuable lessoons! I just wondered is there a repository anywhere about how to teach WP editing to a helathcare [esp medical] audience? It would be great to curate some simple dynamic resources re WP medical usage, so that one could rapidly & simply check out latest usage & impact stats to put on a slide (or, even better, get the learners to explore online!). Is there any appetite for this? Kitb ( talk) 11:44, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
There is a move discussion at Talk:Breathing_circuit#Requested_move_4_November_2018. Flooded with them hundreds 08:09, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello, it's me again! Is a mucosectomy the same as an endoscopic mucosal resection? de:Mukosektomie through Google Translate says yes, but I have no idea. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 13:03, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
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. -- Izno ( talk) 21:31, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Could use some additional eyes. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 21:54, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
I noticed that this article contains a lot of primary references. I removed one sentence that was added (no reference and seemed to be self promo). I will flag it here if anyone has time to take a look: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spinal_muscular_atrophy# Thanks, JenOttawa ( talk) 02:53, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
References
Is anyone else having problems? Using Chrome I cannot seem to get the PMID tool to work today (visual editor). I can use the DOI. I got an error message with the PMID: "We couldn't make a citation for you. You can create one manually using the "Manual" tab above." JenOttawa ( talk) 16:12, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
A beta site with some new tools that might get incorporated into Pubmed depending on the feedback they receive can be found here CV9933 ( talk) 16:48, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Since my last visit here, I've collected some more pages with bad links which need expert attention. Search for 'disam' in main view and for '{{d' in edit mode. As always, if you solve one of these puzzles, remove the {{ dn}} tag from the article and add {{ done}} here.
As always, thanks in advance. Narky Blert ( talk) 10:50, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
:-)
WhatamIdoing (
talk) 22:41, 11 November 2018 (UTC)I need some help from this project to improve an infobox, specifically infobox gene
The article agrees that it's a protein. First line: "Ceruloplasmin (or caeruloplasmin) is a ferroxidase enzyme that in humans is encoded by the CP gene" Yet the infobox... incomprehensible!! Just look at that monster!
I encounter this issue every protein article I visit. They are darned difficult to read!! I can confidently say they are completely incomprehensible to any reader that's not trained to biology at a university level. Is that what we want??
I proposed some changes here, some with consensus, but unfortunately the discussion was archived without any being made.
I would in the wiki way make these changes (including small ones myself), but the infobox is programmed in lua. Whilst I admire the lovingly handcrafted box this means that only a handful of editors can change this 2,000+ line programmed monolith.
I am seeking some help improving the infobox. I'm not too fussed how but some simple suggestions are:
-- Tom (LT) ( talk) 10:37, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
@ Boghog: You might be interested in this thread. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 08:31, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi, (well at least one doesn't work, I'm extrapolating...EDIT on the template page of the two examples Folliculitis doesn't work, Lymphadenitis does)
Does anyone know who should be looking after these templates? ( /info/en/?search=Template:MerckHome & MerckManual)
I tried a link, e.g. at the bottom of Miliaria it links to: http://www.merck.com/mmhe/sec18/ch206/ch206b.html which is sort of broken, it goes to Lice Infestation. The layout of the site seems to have changed from the section chapter topic format. I assume it (merck.com) was trying to translate to the new format, but got the wrong redirection.
e.g. the new place for Miliaria is https://www.merckmanuals.com/home/skin-disorders/sweating-disorders/prickly-heat
I was about to edit the page but found the template, which implies many such links may be broken. ˥ Ǝ Ʉ H Ɔ I Ɯ ( talk) 02:41, 15 November 2018 (UTC) Edited ˥ Ǝ Ʉ H Ɔ I Ɯ ( talk) 02:55, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
{{
MerckHome|18|206|b|Prickly Heat}}
and I don't think that information can be bashed into the new URL. They might require manual updates. The good news is that this will probably require only a few dozen edits, as the templates are not very widely used.
WhatamIdoing (
talk) 03:40, 15 November 2018 (UTC)Can editors with medical experience please have a look at Phospholipidosis? There's lots of poorly formatted recent editing and an over-reliance on primary sources. Plus there is what appeas to me to be promotion for a company named Nextcea, Inc. Considering one of the major editors of the article is an account named Nextcea ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), I'm sure there is COI/paid editing involved too. Sorry to just drop this here, but this topic is out of my league. Deli nk ( talk) 23:38, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Just dropping this here in case anyone is interested to take a look at it. Came across this because of a request at WP:FFU. I basically gutted the article. I did a bit of BEFOREish poking around and I suspect there may be enough to piece together an article with some substance, but it's not my forte. So here is it in case anyone has a particular interest in apparently rare genetic disorders and Amish people. GMG talk 18:37, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
The new article Common Practices in Pain Management with an Emphasis on the Role of Opioids, which appears to be the product of a school assignment, could use medical review. Peacock ( talk) 21:01, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Talk:Posttraumatic_stress_disorder#Acupuncture If you have a chance, gathering a consensus/suggestions would be helpful here. Thanks! JenOttawa ( talk) 12:57, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
give opinion(gave mine)--
Ozzie10aaaa (
talk) 22:22, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
We have several articles being edited by students who seem to have not been informed about MEDRS. The following articles would benefit from increased monitoring:
Thanks. Natureium ( talk) 00:25, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
A group of us have been collaborating on this article, though none of us are specialists in medicine. The biographical part is mostly done (except her early life, which is still buried in questions). None of us are comfortable in attempting to discuss her research and expertise. The sources relating to her pathological research are discussed here. If there is anyone from this project that could help explain her research that would be very much appreciated. Thank you. SusunW ( talk) 18:41, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 19:43, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Education_noticeboard#Large_genetics_class_off_the_rails and the pages linked there, which need checking. Jytdog ( talk) 20:10, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello. I have a quick question in regards to the recent edits by MegGutman ( talk · contribs) ( [18], [19]). Should we use these sources or is it unnecessary per WP:PSTS? Thanks, Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 04:21, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 115 | Archive 116 | Archive 117 | Archive 118 | Archive 119 | Archive 120 | → | Archive 125 |
Hello all, I'm looking to update this image, especially now that Wikipedia Zero has ended. Are there any other interesting interactions or collaborations that I should include? I'm intending to more explicitly refer to WikiEdu. WikiData will definitely have to be mentioned somewhere too. Are there other collaborations that could be included (e.g. Internet-in-a-Box)? I'll also try to update WP:W2J and WT:MEDJOURNAL a bit. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo) talk 01:32, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
Supportive psychotherapy ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
If interested, see Talk:Supportive psychotherapy#WP:MEDRS. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 16:24, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
The page for " Majocchi's disease" is incorrect. There are two similarly named conditions (unfortunatley) that are confused within the page. Majocchi's granuloma is a SEPARATE entitity from Majocchi's Disease. The page in question is named Majocchi's disease but in fact describes majocchi's granuloma. This page should be deleted and two separate pages should be created with the following titles: "Majocchi's granuloma" is the first title and should contain the majority of the content within the existing page. A second page should be created named "Purpura annularis telangiectodes" AKA Majocchi's disease which will contact entirely separate content.
This was a post on the Help desk that went unanswered. I have no idea if the complaint is valid or not. Rmhermen ( talk) 01:19, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Is this...a real thing? There's only two sources on PubMed ( [3]) and 11 on GScholar ( [4]). I don't know if they're reliable or good enough to support the article (which is a total mess regardless). ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 10:31, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi, yesterday User:WIKIBIOMEDAQU added a link to BioMedAQU to Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions. I reverted the edit because of the obvious connection to the promotional username, and the account was blocked as promotional. Today, a new account has been created and added exactly the same link and text, so I assume it's the same person adding it under a less promotional account name. I don't feel able to revert this time though - I can't look at the link from my work PC so I don't know for certain that it doesn't belong there, and the new account name isn't so problematic. Might be pure spam though - is anyone able to take a quick check to see whether it's worth keeping? Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 13:56, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi, it seems that there is a misunderstanding. The examples of Marie Curie Actions are projects financed by Marie Sklodowska-Curie Actions. These are not commercial projects so it would seem legitimate to add them. BioMed30 ( talk) 15:25, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for all this information and examples. I have a question regarding external links, does it also mean that external links should not be there since there are not 'encyclopedic like'? BioMed30 ( talk) 08:55, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
I am a beginner in Wikipedia so tell me if I am right or not; but will it be possible to add this information as external links? BioMed30 ( talk) 10:06, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
I took it to AfD for reasons noted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Internet phobia. Some can check the DSM-5 to see what I mean. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 05:33, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
The request for help relates to Draft:Evolution of HIV. Some subject knowledge is needed. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 06:35, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello again! Does osteolipochondroma need its own article, or can I merge it somewhere? If it should be left on its own, any anyone suggest where I can link it for de-orphaning? Halloween chocolate for anyone who helps :) ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 00:11, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Is now open for proposals. Basically if you have a tech request this is were one can "win" engineering time to get it completed. I have two ideas:
Anyway will be writing these up soon. Others have ideas? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 15:59, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
".. almost all of those languages use the same Arabic numerals as English"That's an interesting new use of the word "almost" that I hadn't come across before. It appears, then, that it's okay to ignore localisation as long as there are only about 3 billion readers who would nominally require it? -- RexxS ( talk) 19:13, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 20:13, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
*DOI tool: Bath, Philip M; Lee, Han Sean; Everton, Lisa F (2018-10-30). "Swallowing therapy for dysphagia in acute and subacute stroke". Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. doi:10.1002/14651858.cd000323.pub3. ISSN 1465-1858. *PMID tool: Bath, Philip M.; Lee, Han Sean; Everton, Lisa F. (2018-10-30). "Swallowing therapy for dysphagia in acute and subacute stroke". The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 10: CD000323. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD000323.pub3. ISSN 1469-493X. PMID 30376602.
DayQuil has been redirected and unredirected a couple times. I don't know if it needs a separate article, or where it should redirect if not. I could see it redirecting to NyQuil, cough syrup, or Vicks. Does anyone have any thoughts on this? Natureium ( talk) 01:54, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
The refs for nyquil were
1) a google site https://sites.google.com/site/tylenolpt/home/history
2) A page not found http://www.oakridger.com/article/20130524/NEWS/305249943
3) Another page not found and not independent https://vicks.com/en-us/browse-products/childrens-medicine/childrens-nyquil
4) Another dead link http://news.ufl.edu/2006/07/19/decongensant/
5) And a shopping website of P and G https://vicks.com/en-us/shop-products/nyquil This is a great example of WHY we should redirect these pages to the generic. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 02:44, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Please take a look at Nelson Pill Hearings - there seems to be some anti-contraception bias in that article. Tony May ( talk) 15:57, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Other thoughts? Do we need a list of thousands of peoples... Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 18:26, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Opinions are needed on the following: Talk:Female hysteria#Merge discussion. A permalink for it is here. The discussion concerns what to do with the Hysteria article since "hysteria" is not synonymous with "female hysteria," at least in the modern sense. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 23:43, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi all, you'll have seen some University of Edinburgh students editing topics related to Global Health in the last 72 hours. The assignment page is here. They were asked to add 180 words to a topic related to Global Health with today as their deadline. I wasn't aware of which articles they were going to edit as the project was put together relatively quickly with limited training time so your indulgence is craved here a little so please do bear with me. I can see already we need to spend more time on the stricter referencing requirements for biomedical topics (as we now do for the Reproductive Biology assignment) and reinforcing the need for citing the open access url not the University of Edinburgh paywalled url. I've seen a few Wikiproject Medicine editors have now made some copyedits, many thanks, in terms of where the edits are appearing in the article and the type of language used so if there is particular takeaways from this that you would like to get across then do let me know what these main bullet points would be so I can pass on accordingly. The course leaders and the students are keen to learn but they also have a packed MSc programme to get through so it's a little bit of a balancing act to see how they can dip their toes in, learn the need to know stuff, have a positive experience contributing to Wikipedia about Global Health topics and hopefully then go on to spend more time contributing in future iterations of the course and once they graduate also. I do appreciate on this occasion there is some tidying up and reversions needed, apologies, but am keen that the students can have a positive experience overall and we learn from this to do it better next time. All best, Stinglehammer ( talk) 17:52, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Some disagreement about sourcing quality; more eyes could help. Alexbrn ( talk) 18:34, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
There has been a discussion open since January 2018 at Talk:Impaired_glucose_tolerance#Merger_Discussion. Can folks think about what pages should there be as we have Impaired glucose tolerance and Subclinical diabetes as well as Prediabetes. As well as Insulin resistance. And Impaired fasting glucose. Weirdly, this material is only briefly covered in Diabetes mellitus type 2, which has been passed as a Good Article...
More opinions on what should be merged into what'd be good.... Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 05:35, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Peoples thoughts on this source? Examples include [8] Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 14:53, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Medical students at Queen's have begun to make suggestion on the following article talk pages. They are monitoring their talk pages this week and will be making article improvements Nov 10-13th. I encourage the ProjectMed community to give these students a warm welcome and have some patience while they are learning. The group is excited to be contributing. Hopefully, we will be able to work together to improve the evidence that is shared in these 16 articles and give the students (and faculty) a positive experience on Wikipedia that so that some of them may stick around and help us with our efforts. If you have any questions or suggestions please do not hesitate to let me know.
JenOttawa ( talk) 19:07, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
From the previous, or another, class:
Outriggr ( talk) 02:22, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Where are editors like this one at the Cracked nipple article and this one at the Oophorectomy article coming from? Notice it's the first editor's first edit. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 01:16, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Myself and User:Zefr appear to both have reached a disagreement on Talk:Xylitol#Veterinary_studies, over the inclusion of this sentence. In small, laboratory scale animal studies, controlled feeds very high in Xylitol, increased the bone density of rat's with osteoporosis. [1] [2]
User:Zefr's position appears to be repeating that this is either a primary source issue, when drugs.com is clearly a reputable secondary source or that it is FRINGE medical advice. However the stance I've taken is that respect for reliable sources per WP:MEDREV, is central to the project, alongside repeating that this is not an article on animal osteoporosis, so it doesn't require the level of scientific rigor that would understandably be deemed necessary on that article. Which I would agree with, if it were. Instead this is an encyclopedic article on a relatively obscure sugar, what it has been used for and where areas of study have gone. So I hope you can understand why I am perpexpled by what I see as an entirely misplaced apprehension to suggest A review...is not compliant with WP:MEDRS to imply any effect on osteoporosis. When again, this is not an article on animal osteoporosis? so how is their concern applicable?
A google search will find a hundred plus citations for this allegedly fringe area of study. Which anyone can do, by typing - xylitol bone mineralization - into your favorite search engine. It is clearly squarely in the domain of WP:MEDANIMAL and it is further made absolutely clear that it is not to be tried by humans, with the inclusion of the Monica Reinagel citation, which explicitly spells out exactly why this is not to be taken as medical advice, in graphic detail. So in sum, I'm perplexed by how WP:MEDRS or any other policy applies, as grounds for exluding this.
Boundarylayer ( talk) 00:19, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
Stating that research has happened is of value to readers. Wholly in contrast to your suggestion that this is, somehow below the threshold for an encyclopedia to make any use of. You only have to view the Methylene blue article, were what it likewise has been studied for. Is succinctly listed. To quote the article. It has been studied in AIDS-related Kaposi's sarcoma, West Nile virus, and to inactivate staphylococcus aureus, and HIV-1. Phenothiazine dyes and light have been known to have virucidal properties for over 70 years - that sentence is well balanced and of due weight. While none of these applications are clinical practice for a galaxy of reasons, the fact that study has occurred with substance A to treat a condition B, is both definitely of value and truly encyclopedic. I note that entire sentence there on the Methylene blue article, went unchallenged and did not cause a fuss. Yet for some reason using a secondary source here with the case of Xylitol, to communicate that something has been investigated. Is for some reason not good enough because we need aggregation of studies? ...Why exactly? We're simply stating a fact. Just like the methylene blue article does and just like countless other aricles that do the same. Yet am I to take away that you and others here, similarly object to all of the inclusion occurring in these other articles? ...Really? Boundarylayer ( talk) 12:13, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
References
I while back I came across Multisystem proteinopathy which looked like this at the time. I trimmed out the primary sources which made it like this.
I then merged it into Hereditary inclusion body myopathy.
An IP editor objected to this and would like to see the multisystem proteinopathy page split back out. Which you can see at the HIBM talk page at Talk:Hereditary_inclusion_body_myopathy#Undoing_merge_with_multisystem_proteinopathy.
They've been following up with me (with remarkable patience) and I have not made up my own mind yet.
More input would be helpful. Jytdog ( talk) 16:01, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
I am not sure if this has been previously addressed by this Wikiproject, but it sort of stuns me how commercial companies have brazenly inserted wikilinks to themselves into "see also" sections for articles about medical devices like artificial cardiac pacemaker and implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (two such diffs where I removed these UNDUE influences: here and here.
This paragraph that I removed, which cites "google.com" (lol) was particularly bad. Out of the almost dozen commercial influences and self-important redlinked doctors/companies mentioned, only Anthony Adducci was actually mentioned in the patent (the coinventor, Schwalm, was not even mentioned in the article as a "pioneer").
Companies like Medtronic are large and prestigious and deserve appropriate coverage. However, looking at the "what links here" for this company (as an example), it seems someone at this company wants to insert mention of this company into as many medical device pages as possible, possibly to boost their search results when people search for medical devices on the internet. I feel the project should be aware of and actively fight this unethical form of search engine optimization. Yanping Nora Soong ( talk) 01:02, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
User:Yanping Nora Soong We have had multiple global heads of marketing at Medtronic try to white wash a Wikipedia article. They, like most undisclosed paid editors, told falsehoods and their stories changed once caught. Was written up in the Atalantic.othe Agressive trimmed of these "see also" sections is fine by me. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 06:41, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
I noticed this site:
Retractiondatabase.org. Do we have a project page that lists retractions that need to be cleaned up on medical pages in Wikipedia? I am visualising something similar to the
Cochrane bot (that flags retracted and updated reviews for humans to adjust the knowledge being shared and the citations accordingly).
Does anyone have any suggestions?
Thanks,
JenOttawa (
talk) 14:12, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
|retracted=yes
in
CS1 templates. There is {{
retracted}} though.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 19:00, 30 October 2018 (UTC)References
I am a largely-retired UK geriatrician with an interest in medical education. I am planning to set up some Wikipedia training locally. Following a discussion with Doug Taylor, we thought it would be helpful to draw up a list of transferable skills needed to edit a Wikipedia page successfully, and be a part of the Wikipedia community. Identifying the specific skills in this way will allow teachers to identify how they might teach them and assess them. It could also form a useful template to allow comparison with different healthcare (& other) curricula, for example undergraduate, and UK Foundation Programme. This in turn would improve the ease of incorporating teaching Wikipedia editing into such curricula.
Towards this end I thought it might be useful to start a draft template. It's at Matrix of WikiEdu teaching template headings & component skills. If thought useful, it could be amended iteratively by the Wikipedia community, in order to build up a comprehensive document. What do you think? Kitb ( talk) 12:21, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
Having now done a (small) pilot session, I have learnt some valuable lessoons! I just wondered is there a repository anywhere about how to teach WP editing to a helathcare [esp medical] audience? It would be great to curate some simple dynamic resources re WP medical usage, so that one could rapidly & simply check out latest usage & impact stats to put on a slide (or, even better, get the learners to explore online!). Is there any appetite for this? Kitb ( talk) 11:44, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
There is a move discussion at Talk:Breathing_circuit#Requested_move_4_November_2018. Flooded with them hundreds 08:09, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello, it's me again! Is a mucosectomy the same as an endoscopic mucosal resection? de:Mukosektomie through Google Translate says yes, but I have no idea. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 13:03, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
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. -- Izno ( talk) 21:31, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Could use some additional eyes. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 21:54, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
I noticed that this article contains a lot of primary references. I removed one sentence that was added (no reference and seemed to be self promo). I will flag it here if anyone has time to take a look: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spinal_muscular_atrophy# Thanks, JenOttawa ( talk) 02:53, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
References
Is anyone else having problems? Using Chrome I cannot seem to get the PMID tool to work today (visual editor). I can use the DOI. I got an error message with the PMID: "We couldn't make a citation for you. You can create one manually using the "Manual" tab above." JenOttawa ( talk) 16:12, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
A beta site with some new tools that might get incorporated into Pubmed depending on the feedback they receive can be found here CV9933 ( talk) 16:48, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Since my last visit here, I've collected some more pages with bad links which need expert attention. Search for 'disam' in main view and for '{{d' in edit mode. As always, if you solve one of these puzzles, remove the {{ dn}} tag from the article and add {{ done}} here.
As always, thanks in advance. Narky Blert ( talk) 10:50, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
:-)
WhatamIdoing (
talk) 22:41, 11 November 2018 (UTC)I need some help from this project to improve an infobox, specifically infobox gene
The article agrees that it's a protein. First line: "Ceruloplasmin (or caeruloplasmin) is a ferroxidase enzyme that in humans is encoded by the CP gene" Yet the infobox... incomprehensible!! Just look at that monster!
I encounter this issue every protein article I visit. They are darned difficult to read!! I can confidently say they are completely incomprehensible to any reader that's not trained to biology at a university level. Is that what we want??
I proposed some changes here, some with consensus, but unfortunately the discussion was archived without any being made.
I would in the wiki way make these changes (including small ones myself), but the infobox is programmed in lua. Whilst I admire the lovingly handcrafted box this means that only a handful of editors can change this 2,000+ line programmed monolith.
I am seeking some help improving the infobox. I'm not too fussed how but some simple suggestions are:
-- Tom (LT) ( talk) 10:37, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
@ Boghog: You might be interested in this thread. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 08:31, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi, (well at least one doesn't work, I'm extrapolating...EDIT on the template page of the two examples Folliculitis doesn't work, Lymphadenitis does)
Does anyone know who should be looking after these templates? ( /info/en/?search=Template:MerckHome & MerckManual)
I tried a link, e.g. at the bottom of Miliaria it links to: http://www.merck.com/mmhe/sec18/ch206/ch206b.html which is sort of broken, it goes to Lice Infestation. The layout of the site seems to have changed from the section chapter topic format. I assume it (merck.com) was trying to translate to the new format, but got the wrong redirection.
e.g. the new place for Miliaria is https://www.merckmanuals.com/home/skin-disorders/sweating-disorders/prickly-heat
I was about to edit the page but found the template, which implies many such links may be broken. ˥ Ǝ Ʉ H Ɔ I Ɯ ( talk) 02:41, 15 November 2018 (UTC) Edited ˥ Ǝ Ʉ H Ɔ I Ɯ ( talk) 02:55, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
{{
MerckHome|18|206|b|Prickly Heat}}
and I don't think that information can be bashed into the new URL. They might require manual updates. The good news is that this will probably require only a few dozen edits, as the templates are not very widely used.
WhatamIdoing (
talk) 03:40, 15 November 2018 (UTC)Can editors with medical experience please have a look at Phospholipidosis? There's lots of poorly formatted recent editing and an over-reliance on primary sources. Plus there is what appeas to me to be promotion for a company named Nextcea, Inc. Considering one of the major editors of the article is an account named Nextcea ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), I'm sure there is COI/paid editing involved too. Sorry to just drop this here, but this topic is out of my league. Deli nk ( talk) 23:38, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Just dropping this here in case anyone is interested to take a look at it. Came across this because of a request at WP:FFU. I basically gutted the article. I did a bit of BEFOREish poking around and I suspect there may be enough to piece together an article with some substance, but it's not my forte. So here is it in case anyone has a particular interest in apparently rare genetic disorders and Amish people. GMG talk 18:37, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
The new article Common Practices in Pain Management with an Emphasis on the Role of Opioids, which appears to be the product of a school assignment, could use medical review. Peacock ( talk) 21:01, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Talk:Posttraumatic_stress_disorder#Acupuncture If you have a chance, gathering a consensus/suggestions would be helpful here. Thanks! JenOttawa ( talk) 12:57, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
give opinion(gave mine)--
Ozzie10aaaa (
talk) 22:22, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
We have several articles being edited by students who seem to have not been informed about MEDRS. The following articles would benefit from increased monitoring:
Thanks. Natureium ( talk) 00:25, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
A group of us have been collaborating on this article, though none of us are specialists in medicine. The biographical part is mostly done (except her early life, which is still buried in questions). None of us are comfortable in attempting to discuss her research and expertise. The sources relating to her pathological research are discussed here. If there is anyone from this project that could help explain her research that would be very much appreciated. Thank you. SusunW ( talk) 18:41, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 19:43, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Education_noticeboard#Large_genetics_class_off_the_rails and the pages linked there, which need checking. Jytdog ( talk) 20:10, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello. I have a quick question in regards to the recent edits by MegGutman ( talk · contribs) ( [18], [19]). Should we use these sources or is it unnecessary per WP:PSTS? Thanks, Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 04:21, 18 November 2018 (UTC)