![]() | 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 5 | ← | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
(I'm sure this issue has been brought up before, but I can't really find it).
Many articles "belong" to the biology project, the microbiology project and the medicine project at the same time. Are there some guidelines regarding this? Does it make sense that every pathogenic bacterium should be handled by three different projects? As for the classes and importances, they often conflict with each other, of course. I've seen articles that were B in the medicine project and Start in the biology project.
I'm a beginner with the projects and I really want to help, but this mess is a little discouraging. Isn't it? -- Pixie ( talk) 15:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
I am doubtful of the "...affecting around 1 in 250 people..." at Ichthyosis_vulgaris#cite_ref-1. Ichthyosis vulgaris is the most common type of ichthyosis, but the above quote seems way off to me. Can someone review this fact for me? kilbad ( talk) 02:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Anyone have an image of Cushing's syndrome?-- Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 17:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Commons has a handful; I will make a category and add it to the article. -- Una Smith ( talk) 17:36, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
I've been doing some article assessment at WikiProject Measurement recently and I came across the article Apothecaries' system (not one of mine) which seems pretty good. For the time being, I've rated it as A-class on our project quality scale, but I would welcome further comments so I have opened a peer review here. If there are editors with any knowledge or interest in the subject, I'd be grateful if they could read through the article and tell us if there is anything important which should be in there but which isn't at the moment. Cheers! Physchim62 (talk) 11:26, 1 March 2009 (UTC) (BTW, isn't it time to take the Christmas decorations down??!!
I notice a pattern of medicalization of wikipedia pages. The pages of any topic relating to medicine quickly is taken over by specialized terminology. Pages become inaccessible, and there is sparse and spotty inclusion of perspectives of anthropology, history, economics, sociology, religion, business, ecology, or other fields.
The pages of many general-interest topics commonly have the following problems:
Let me give two really simple examples of medicalized topics:
I'm not sure what the solution is. I just want to start a dialogue. I would love to see some sort of policy page arise on medicalization. Ultimately I would like to see all pages on basic topics of general interest be made much more accessible. Example:
I'm not going to go through these articles one-by-one because the problem is too widespread for one person to tackle. We need to create policies to refer to. We need to come to a consensus about how this problem is to be handled. Let's start! I propose the following policies:
(gets off soapbox) Thoughts?
Cazort ( talk) 03:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
The majority of the time semi-technical terminology such as analgesic is usually wiki inlinked, clickable, so a user can click on it to find out what it means. Furthermore often such paragraphs using those medical terminology explain themselves. For example an article on morphine might say something like,,,, Morphine is an analgesic medication used in the management/treatment of severe pain. I think the majority of the medical and pharmacology articles are understandable by the public as well as the medical profession. As there are countless thousands of people editing medical or pharmacological articles it would be impossible for a wiki project to have much impact on the wording you suggest even if we agreed with you. Those would be my views.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 16:36, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
There is a category page for which I want to provide a brief 2-3 sentence intro. I have sources I can cite, but wanted to know how that works with category pages? Is it appropriate to include inline citations and a reference section on a category page? kilbad ( talk) 15:53, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia articles about tumors that are "usually benign" or "often benign" are categorized inconsistently. Some are treated as cancers (suspected malignant until proven benign); others are treated as benign (until proven malignant). So, some are in categories such as Category:Gynecology whereas others are in Category:Gynecological cancer, and some are in both categories. My feeling is that all tumor articles should be in oncology categories, not listed directly in parent general categories such as Category:Gynecology, to maximize the chances that the reader will grasp the intrinsic uncertainty. Thoughts? -- Una Smith ( talk) 18:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Hello. By chance, I just discovered that editors have been expanding Angiostrongylus cantonensis with material intended for Angiostrongyliasis. From what I can tell by looking at the page history, they probably didn't know Angiostrongyliasis already existed. So, it looks like most of the medical information should be merged into Angiostrongyliasis. I have added merge tags and performed some minor cleanup, but I would appreciate some eyes on this or some suggestions. Thanks. Viriditas ( talk) 09:56, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
There is a grant I am thinking about applying for to get a couple grand for use somehow related to WP:DERM. I wanted to know if people had any ideas how I could use this money to improve dermatology content on wikipedia? I need a good reason for them to give it to me. kilbad ( talk) 21:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) I suggest explicitly reminding people that they do not have any greater ownership of the pages they are working on just because they have a grant or are being paid for their work. This has already been a problem for students editing WP for credit in courses. I am sure the OP understands this, being an active participant in this wikiproject, but I am just suggesting that this is a risk once money is changing hands. This might also be an issue if certain promises are made in the grant proposal - all of the work might get reverted. That being said, if all editors adhere to the WP spirit then this is a great idea. -- Scray ( talk) 11:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Twice now a tag which would add this article to this WikiProject has been removed. I am just here to verify that you guys don't want it in the project. My reasoning in adding the tag is that there are important issues of medical ethics involved in this story, and it has been reported that the doctor who helped this woman have a total of 14 children with fertility treatments is under investigation. I'm not really familiar with your projects scope, so maybe medical ethics is not a subject you really cover, but it seemed from the attitude of those removing the tag that they just don't like the subject very much (who does?) regardless of the obvious medical aspects of her story. Beeblebrox ( talk) 18:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
I have some problems with those articles as they stand from a WP:BLP standpoint, so I'm not going to take a stance on whether to rule this in or out since I'm trying to keep some distance. There's a task force that might be a good place to get information on this. We don't have a medical ethics task force, and I'd certainly be interested in starting one, though I'm part of the pointy end of the spear on that and not a real expert. SDY ( talk) 19:14, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
There seems to be considerable overlap of content and some confusion among the following articles:
Some of these conditions are genetic, some are medical conditions, some are dietary. The confusion lies primarily in the cross references. Would anyone here like to have a go at these? -- Una Smith ( talk) 22:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Who "owns" the copyright on a CT/MRI image? The technician? doctor? patient? kilbad ( talk) 22:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
I looking for the right word (or short phrase). Consider Hep B or HIV or something like that. Individual people -- some of whom have a given virus and some of whom don't -- have different serostatus.
What's the equivalent term for individual cells? If you're looking at some hepatocytes, and some are infected by HBV and others are not, then the cells have a different what? Infection status? Something else? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 01:05, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Periodically I see italicized footnotes like the following taken from Lipodermatosclerosis:
Note: This article contains material adapted from the public domain source " Lipodermatosclerosis: Questions and Answers", by the U.S federal government's Genetic and Rare Diseases Information Center
What is the deal with these footnotes. Are they required? May they be removed? If so, when? etc... kilbad ( talk) 01:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
This article is in sad shape and needs some guidance for improvement. Because of the problems, I don't think an official peer review will help all that much, but if anyone can drop by, read the article, and use the talk page to offer up a roadmap with a few milestones other editors can shoot for that would be tremendously helpful. Unfortunately, the article has become a POV magnet for advocates and detractors, and what we really need are referees pointing towards the middle way. Thanks. Viriditas ( talk) 08:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
I think that section is not specific to schizophrenia. Please comment at Talk:Delusion#Merge proposal. Xasodfuih ( talk) 12:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Based on its description, that cat is supposed to be reserved only for alternative medicine articles. Recently however, Special:Contributions/יוסי_ישראלי added a number of article to it. I've removed some articles that were clearly accepted therapies in conventional medicine, but some of the articles have hard-to-judge references (mostly because of poor formatting). Could someone else have a look at that cat? Xasodfuih ( talk) 16:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC) Stuff I'm unsure about include: Laser interstitial thermal therapy and Transurethral microwave thermotherapy (I've removed these two since it seems unlikely they are CAM topics, but I could be wrong), and Low level laser therapy (left it in for now). Xasodfuih ( talk) 16:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Should herpetic whitlow and whitlow be merged? kilbad ( talk) 20:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:April Fool's Main Page/Did You Know is gathering candidates for DYK on April 1. Anyone interested? Browsing the first page of Category:Disease stubs, below are a few that caught my eye. -- Una Smith ( talk) 05:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Due to the article's position as a fringe medical topic, few editors have actually done a thorough review of the article. SandyGeorgia suggested a MoS review, and I didn't know of a better place to ask! So, if you have some time to spare and wouldn't mind helping me, then please head on over to the article and give it a read! :-) FoodPuma 14:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Will others please watchlist this article and try to comb through it and bring it over the hump? I do not feel it received thorough review at FAC, and each time I visit, I find issues. The prose needs work, there are linking and overlinking issues, undefined terms, redundancy, and I continue to find MoS issues. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
A mind map has arrived at "Lung cancer". I would appreciate comments here. Axl ¤ [Talk] 07:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
The same editor has added mindmaps to a number of articles. Ultimately they constitute original research and are not very helpful for the general reader. JFW | T@lk 21:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
want template for coronary a. Like ramus, obtuse, etc should be included. More detail than current template needed. -iphone —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.247.1.2 ( talk) 15:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
This article is about five inches removed from WP:GA. It has numerous important and interesting angles, from clinical diagnosis to the psychosocial impact of screening. JFW | T@lk 16:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
I think instead of putting all of these signs only in aortic regurg article, we should also have each sign as an independent article with a nice little intra-wiki template linking them all together at the bottom. TY! 128.125.28.196 ( talk) 23:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
It would be great if one or two knowledgeable people (preferably from the US) could put this article on their watchlist. There is some insanity going on at Talk:Nasal irrigation#Pulsatile irrigation. -- Hans Adler ( talk) 23:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
The Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Medicine seems to be empty most days, and I suspect that there are articles of interest to our members that are involved in the deletion process. Is there a WP:WikiElf out there that would like to trawl through WP:AFD#Current_discussions every day or two to locate medicine-related articles (very broadly defined) for us?
I'll run through a few days' worth to find anything (except bios) that might be appropriate, but I don't realisitically think that I'll keep up with it in the longer term. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 00:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
I've recently created an article on Delano Meriwether an MD who was involved in the 1976 US swine flu immunization program. I have very little background in medical issues so I was wondering if someone from this project might be able to run their eyes over the medical section of the article... The Hack 04:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Join in the fun at Talk:Dissociative_identity_disorder#Merger_proposal Casliber ( talk · contribs) 22:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Two Featured article promotions in one day, ( Meningitis and Osteochondritis dissecans ) - well done guys 'n gals ! LeeVJ ( talk) 19:46, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
I think Sandy's got a bloody gall, coming on here and saying "well, I promoted it but it's not what I'd have liked". There are no obvious errors in spelling or grammar and the article is probably factually correct: that's a damn sight more than can be said for some recent featured articles. Physchim62 (talk) 22:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
there is verbal listing of gm + and - coverage of each generation, but remember that bar graph you learned in medical school showing how much gm + and - coverage there is for each generation? That would be great for the article. You can find it in most pharm textbooks. 163.40.12.37 ( talk) 14:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
I think upskilling the public on broad activities of antibiotics is an absolutely fantastic idea. Stop everyone splashing around augmentin forte like lollies. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 23:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
...not that I use antibiotics much in psychiatry XD Casliber ( talk · contribs) 23:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
There's some brisk discussion on Talk:Metformin whether we need to discuss recent in vitro studies. Please comment. JFW | T@lk 21:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
See Talk:Major_depressive_disorder#Regarding_the_efficacy_of_dietary_oils_in_depression. Xasodfuih ( talk) 05:59, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Lumbosacral_plexus
I can't see the white lines between the yellow blocks - the white lines are important to tell what nerve is a branch of what. this is important for msk, ortho, neuro and many other branches of medicine if you are going to give me the run around. I would change the color myself but I fail miserably every time I try to modify a template. If you are able to edit templates successfuly, please consider changing the color of the yellow or adding black divider lines to the template for me so I can differentiate nerve branches. TY 128.125.77.26 ( talk) 19:21, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Outdent
I thought changing the Manual of Style required a more formal process(??)
Agree that having a listing of the template colors, rationale, etc. in one place would be helpful. Might be well to hold off on copying the colors to the MOS for a little bit while we expand the table and work out what colors to use. (Copying it would make more places that have to be updated/etc.) But a link from the Manual of Style, or indication on the talk page that effort being made to document the colors might help.
Right at the moment I am going through the anatomy templates and converting the documentation (most of which are boilerplate copies of the same text) to use a template {{ Anatomy navbox doc}}, so that we can include a link to the color reference, wherever it winds up. I am also in the middle of expanding the list of the other anatomy templates (and the colors they use). Zodon ( talk) 20:05, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Can I raise some very serious concerns with the various alcohol articles. It appears that an editor David J. Hanson who is a professor of sociology and a major promotor of the health benefits of alcohol and incidently is funded by Distilled Spirits Council of the United States and who has a habit of using sockpuppets has had some fun editing the various articles on alcohol and health. I thought that I was reading an article on Kava Kava or valerian. I was left with the impression that if I didn't become an alcoholic I would be at high risk of kidney stones or if I didn't drink alcohol with every meal I would be at risk of picking up a life threatening bacterial plague and a range of other terrible diseases and alcohol consumption was not only an essential wonder cure all but a medical wonderdrug recommended by doctors for chronic daily consumption. There was a severe lack of information on the harm. The article long-term effects of alcohol was the worst offender. I have deleted out a lot of bias, research that has been debunked recently and other stuff and I have added a good section on the neuropsychiatric/psychological effects of long term alcohol abuse but so much more relevant info that is lacking and it still is quite NPOV violating. The remaining data on the page seems accurate at least according to current research but it is just biased and severely lacking. I scanned the alcohol cancer page and noticed a few glaring inaccuracies but haven't read it all and dread doing so. All of the alcohol and health articles need an urgent review by doctors who are familar with the toxicities of alcohol on health. As far as medicine goes alcohol is the cause of so many medical, psychiatric and social problems and is such a drain on society, the individual and health services, it really should be of top priority I feel for this project. NOTE the article isn't as bad as it was after I deleted a lot of stuff. My main complaint is what it is lacking at the moment and I am burnt out from wiki editing, I can't do it on my own. Just reading the newspaper every month there is a study coming out it seems linking even moderate alcohol consumption with an increased risk of certain disease like cancer or whatever. Just yesterday one came out on prostrate cancer. This is why we need doctors familar with the topic to get involved. I am pretty knowledgable about the dependence and long term effects on mental health of alcohol but only have a moderate knowledge on the wide range of health consequences.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:11, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
By the way the articles survived by the looks of things for 2 years without any major challenge except people complaining on the talk page. This is quite serious that such important articles sat on wiki for 2 years promoting alcohol for its health benefits, without putting it into context or neutrality.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:13, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
The serious NPOV issues in the long term effects article have been dealt with for the most part. The main problem is what is lacking. Effects on liver is not even mentioned nor pancreas and probably a lot of other medical consequences which is why I think it needs reviewed. I don't think that there will be any problems as far as battling over adding content to the article as the consensus seems to be that what needed to be done was a rewrite which I did and fill in what is still missing which is not yet done. It was only a one man editing job by a professor employed by an alcohol lobby board, who can easily be reverted if he returns with biased edits until he gives up. Nobody agreed with his edits by the looks of the archived talk page.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 11:45, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi -- it's come to my attention that a new editor, Telepatty900 ( talk · contribs), has been making edits to the articles about a number of fields of medicine, adding and removing information in ways that seem dubious to me. Being a neuroscience Ph.D. rather than an M.D., I'm reluctant to take any sort of decisive action except at Neurology, but I thought perhaps the project should be aware of this. Look at the contribs to see what is going on. Looie496 ( talk) 18:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
{{
EMedicineDictionary}}
just returns dead links. Is this a temporary situation, or is there a way of fixing the links?
Graham
87
03:10, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
{{
eMedicine}}
changes). Still has a dictionary (although not having previously used the previous version I can't say if produces same results), so for asthma use
http://www.emedicinehealth.com/script/main/srchcont_dict.asp?src=asthma{{
Drugbox}}
giving pages with multiple further links but all from same website). I'm guessing most of the time only 1 or 2 terms are returned. In Fallopian tube example, I see a couple different "hits" are for same text, another (still in same resource) adds a picture and interestingly "extrauterine" definition comes up as a distinction bewteen normal intrauterine pregnancies and ectopics that may occur in the tubes - I think that's a nice alternative (lateral thinking) system of considering the fallopian tubes by pregnancy location.
David Ruben
Talk
22:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
There also was a {{
EMedicineConsumer}}
(created by Arcadian) with link similarly broken that tried to access eMedicineHealth's own articles. I've fixed that link call. However as no "Consumer" term used by the website itself (as far as I can see) and only currently used by the one article of Dementia, I've been bold and moved it to {{
EMedicineHealth}}
.
David Ruben
Talk
13:11, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
In response to several comments, the re/categorization of pharmacology articles is going to begin. Ongoing refinement of the proposed categorization scheme will continue at WT:PHARM:CAT and via CfD's; however, I wanted to let you know about this categorization effort so that you (1) are aware and (2) might consider participating. kilbad ( talk) 18:03, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
the fractional excretion of sodium article could use a picture.
I just can't look at xxxxx (divided by sign) xxxx (divided by sign) xxxx (divided by sign) divided by sign
I would like to see a graphic showing:
but... I don't know how to upload an image... Can anyone else do this? 24.43.8.159 ( talk) 03:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
There are several types of epidermal nevi, neoplasms, and cysts which still have no stubs in wikipedia. I have a list of them and wanted to know if someone would help me create them? kilbad ( talk) 22:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
This articles has multiple severe problems despite the consensus to keep it as it is at the last AfD. I had removed:
Only alcohol and nicotine were attributed to (non-peer-reviewed) expert opinion as "hard drugs", but even then it's not clear what definitions the sources use (if any). With little useful content left I redirected the article to Drug policy of the Netherlands, which purportedly (because this claim is unsourced too) is the only country to use this classification, and this was the only argument used as "keep" in the AfD. Needless to say, all my changes have been reverted by POV pushers who claim I've gutted the article. Xasodfuih ( talk) 21:35, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
I take it it's not kosher per WP:MEDRS, but then Jimbo is the ultimate content decider here (according to higher-ups than me), so who knows, maybe we should ask him... Xasodfuih ( talk) 22:22, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Join in the fun at Talk:Drug_policy#Merger_proposal - 'hard' and 'soft' are merely two adjectives whose whole being lies within the concept of drug policy, and it should all be on the one page. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 01:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
I came across this article, and it needs some work. so i have added a tag for wikiproject medicine. Najafhaider ( talk) 13:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
It is my opinion that the current names of the articles and categories
are misleading, since all agents (materials, compounds, environments) could and should be classified by IARC. The classification does not make them "carcinogens".
Please comment at Talk:International Agency for Research on Cancer#Proposal to move several articles/categories to alternative names.-- FocalPoint ( talk) 20:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Dear all, I work for PatientsLikeMe and so want to avoid any conflict of interest by doing substantial edits to the article. However since it first went up we have published several research studies and been mentioned in a variety of journals including Lancet Neurology, Nature Medicine, AMIA, etc (see http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=patientslikeme). I would be most grateful to have some additional input to the article from objective 3rd parties. Happy to answer any questions at pwicks@patientslikeme.com, I'm also easily Googlable! Thanks,-- PaulWicks ( talk) 16:08, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Should categories like "Dermatologic signs," "Dermatologic terminology," and "Dermatologic procedures and surgery," be dermatologIC or dermatologiCAL? kilbad ( talk) 19:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Just a note for anyone who doubted this, does anyone else find this interesting that NICE are using DSM terminology now? Casliber ( talk · contribs) 20:20, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
I re designed the template, please inform me if you have any suggestions or comments regarding that Maen. K. A. ( talk) 23:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Two points:
When you see an editor doing good work on medicine-related articles, and you haven't seen them here or at the participants list, please remember to invite them. You can do this quickly by pasting {{ subst:MedInvitation}} onto their user talk page.
Also, since some people will have a stronger interest in a specialty instead of in the whole project, I wonder whether MedInvitation should be expanded to include a small link to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Task_forces? I haven't been able to strike on a happy way to say it, so if someone else likes the idea and has a suggestion, I'd be happy to hear it. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 20:14, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Somehow I missed the good news of a new Wikipedia database dump earlier this month. Wolterbot has sent us a new cleanup listing, including ( 74 of our top-importance articles). If you've got a few minutes, please feel free to pick something from the list and fix it.
Many of these are easy fixes, and there's something for everyone, from general copyediting to requests for expert attention. I think (unless someone squawks) that it might be more efficient for us to edit the lists to remove pages that are fixed. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 00:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Are Childhood dermatomyositis and Juvenile dermatomyositis the same thing? If so, I will defer a merge to someone else. kilbad ( talk) 01:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
This artiscle is at AfD here and we need some more authoritative opinions on the salvagibility of the article. Any help appreciated. -- Banjeboi 02:11, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows ( full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.
If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to
report bugs and
request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a
"news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none
parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at
Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.
Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.
Thanks. — Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 09:24, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)
Are there any guidelines for naming articles related to immunoglobulins? While creating some stubs I noticed that trying to find Ig-related diseases is somewhat challenging as there are no standard naming conventions and inconsistent redirects. I have tried to create a little more organization, but there are still some inconsistencies. Compare Selective immunoglobulin A deficiency and Hyper-IgE syndrome for example. kilbad ( talk) 00:44, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Click on "►" below to display subcategories: |
---|
Category Cancer survivors not found
|
I am not a fan of overly-specific categorization, but this category scheme strikes me as eminently valuable to the general public, and I'd like to expand it. Any objection to the idea? Off the top of my head, I'd like to add subcats for survivors of Hodgkins & non-Hodgkins, cervical, lung, testicular, and prostate cancers. Thoughts? Maralia ( talk) 18:27, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm hoping to improve Oxygen toxicity to become a FAC but I'm not sure of the best way to get a peer review or some constructive criticism as this will be my first experience of the process. Casliber kindly suggested I should mention it here, and I'd be grateful for any advice on the process or the article that I can get. I should add I'm a diver, not a medic, but I've tried my best to adhere to MOSMED. Thanks in advance for any help or advice. -- RexxS ( talk) 23:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
There's a pointer in a notice at BG monitoring suggesting this proposed merger be discussed here. ? However that may be, here's an opinion.
These are different topics, though with a shared common term. One is a discussion of the homeostatic and physiological function of a food chemical and variants thereof. The other is a clinical topic having ot do with treatment of derangements in the management of that chemical. Too wide a difference to be encompassed in a single WP article. Visions of bloat and poor writing haunt my mind at the prospect.
Oppose merger. ww ( talk) 18:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Category:Unknown-importance medicine articles could use a little attention. I've managed to whittle it down from 145 to 94 articles, but I need a break :) Maralia ( talk) 19:12, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Are Neuropathy and Neuronopathy the same thing? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 22:37, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Proposed merger of Narcissism (psychology) into Narcissism, join the fun at Talk:Narcissism#Merger_proposal. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 11:53, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Ok folks, what should we do with Doptone - merge it to...what Medical ultrasonography? Casliber ( talk · contribs) 12:36, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Please check out my proposed design, and please add your comments whether you support applying it or not here or on my talk page Maen. K. A. ( talk) 23:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
I would support a redesign, if your redesign didn't have the problems on narrow screens it would have probably been supported in my opinion.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 09:15, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
OK folks, an IP with this edit, has given an explanation on my talk page.
My take in reverting was to use plainer english wherever possible for technical terms as long as no meaning is lost. However the IP has noted an emotive implication which I hadn't thought of. So which term do we prefer here? Casliber ( talk · contribs) 19:40, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) interesting...hmm..a doptone? Never heard of that name for it (?) Casliber ( talk · contribs) 12:31, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Unborn baby" currently redirects to "Fetus". The key question is what to do with the page at "Unborn baby". It could be a redirect to somewhere, or it could be a dab page, or an article. Snowman ( talk) 13:27, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
There is currently dabs at The Unborn and Unborn child and there are probably other pages I have not noticed yet. The wiktionary has an entry for " unborn" but not "unborn baby". I think that the wiki page "unborn baby" could redirect to the dab "Unborn child", however, I am sure there are other options, Which is the best option? Snowman ( talk) 13:39, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
. At Featured picture candidates, a diagram of a hand and wrist is being reviewed. It's high quality and appears accurate, but feedback would be appreciated on accuracy (for us of non-medical backgrounds). Cheers. Mostlyharmless ( talk) 03:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Sex and illness probably needs a new name. I think that it's supposed to be about whether being male or female makes you more or less likely to get this or that disease, but it's also partly a disambiguation page (to explain that "sex" doesn't mean "sexual activity" in this case, and that the page on STIs is elsewhere). Gender has been relegated to psychological status, so Influence of sex on health, maybe? Any other ideas? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 21:57, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Sex-specific illness might be an idea to. It is also mentioned in the lead sentence. I see that it is already a redirect to that page.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Gender and illness? Gender-based risk of illness Casliber ( talk · contribs) 20:08, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
The difficulty with Sex-specific illness is that the article is mostly about "Sex-semi-specific illnesses", if you will -- not "Prostate cancer only occurs in men", but "Lupus is more common in women".
The term "sex-based" (stealing Casliber's notion) might be useful, as it's unlikely to be confused with sexual activities. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 22:02, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Sex bias in disease? -- Una Smith ( talk) 05:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Dear all,
I have proposed new text for intro on consciousness article on the related discussion pages. I think that I managed to articulate it in line with the latest findings in psychology and neurology, but would like others to review it and comment.
Kind regards, Damir Ibrisimovic ( talk) 06:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
just wondering if any surgerons are out there. Maybe they are all too busy. Must be some retired ones though... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.22.220.61 ( talk) 17:45, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Should these articles be merged? If so, I will defer the move to someone else. kilbad ( talk) 21:22, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
I've stared work on expanding Hyperthermia therapy, which I've focused on the cancer treatment. ( Heat therapy is now the place for all other uses of heat as a medical treatment.)
What I've done so far is to move a bunch of information about "hot cancer treatments" from other articles into this one (plus adding some basic summaries based on the NCI FAQ). I've merged most of what I could, but there are probably still more out there. Most of them are practicallly unsourced, and a few, like Oncothermia, have been very company-specific and promotional in nature.
Two hours ago, Hyperthermia therapy was a one-sentence stub. With some attention to proper references, I think it's going to be a good candidate for WP:DYK — assuming, of course, that we'd like to be on the front page enough to get a bit more work done before the five-day timer passes. I think this topic has something for everyone, because it includes everything from cutting-edge research to complete quackery, so I'm hoping to find a partner or two.
I'm going to be offwiki for a few hours, but if you're interested, please drop by and do what you can. If you don't want to help write, but you've got a list of favorite sources, or know of yet another article that needs to be merged and redirected into this one, please feel free to share your thoughts on the article's talk page. Thanks, WhatamIdoing ( talk) 21:43, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
I have noticed an anon placing a link to this database in a large number of articles. See for example Severe combined immunodeficiency, or any of the list of contributions. While the links are relevant to the pages concerned, they would appear to fail WP:ELNO, particularly the clause which reads:
Shall I warn the user and roll back the links as spam?- gadfium 20:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Are all the Acrocyanosis worth a merger? kilbad ( talk) 16:33, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
There is a discussion at Talk:Asperger syndrome #Asperger photo about the suitability of a non-free image of Asperger with one of his subjects. Any input would be appreciated. Eubulides ( talk) 14:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Can people with some knowledge of the subject take a pass at National Board of Medical Examiners, and possibly also Federation of State Medical Boards. The first one was proposed for deletion. I deprodded it and dropped some references in, it looks like a notable organisation, but I'm out of depth and it could use subject specific experts. As could the latter, which looks to be in a bit of a mess. Cheers, Hiding T 15:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
As has been pointed out at WP:FTN#Repetitive strain injury, this article has been hijacked by some folks with an agenda, and will probably need cooperative efforts to fix. Expert eyes would be useful. Looie496 ( talk) 22:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
I deleted a section of uncited text. His theory is very dubious and he takes the mind body, psychosomatic theory of physical symptoms to the extreme and think it is reaching WP:FRINGE standards or lack of. I think someone is promoting a book, perhaps it is Dr Sarno himself doing the editing to try and sell his book? I commented on the talk page.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
I ran across an article about a doctoe, Rashid M. Rashid, and it looks like a résumé/CV to me. Therefore, I wanted to know what doctors are considered notable? Is this article appropriate for wikipedia? kilbad ( talk) 00:35, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Does Chrysalis count for national award? Does not look like a CV as a check on pubmed revealed a high volume of work. Only some of the more unique appear listed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrysalisowner ( talk • contribs) 02:05, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
This is a great debate. I guess you have to question a few things:
a) what is a primary source. In this case, I do not think a peer-reviewed manuscript is primary as it has to go through a review process both legal and scientific. At least in some of the medical articles (other then letters to the editor that are commentary), these are all that is available on certain rare diseases. Furthermore, it is not like you can pay a journal to publish your work if it does not meet the criteria of significance for the fields journal. It is not pay-to-publish.
b) impact. when dealing with a small field (dermatology) with many rare diseases and even more rare treatment options, it may be more appropriate to determine impact via how recognized publications are in the literature. This is a specialty notorious for rarity, and so many reports are only on case or case-series basis. When managing such patients, it really is about whos articles are most often read/cited. Especially in reviews. So if an article on a rare disease is cited in numerous other articles, no matter how "small" the original article was it obviously was of significance to the other authors in the field. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Primarypp ( talk • contribs) 04:47, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree, it seems like medical journals qualify for (a). As stated "In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. Electronic media may also be used. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable the source is."
It is more an issue of recognition and relevance to the field as stated in (b). One of the few ways to recognize this fact may be citation by others. Of course this will be field dependent. I am board certified in internal medicine AND dermatology. In internal medicine we have larger reviews/studies due to larger disease base in the population and so it is harder to achieve relevance without major changes in observation/managmet. In dermatology, it is very different. In fact, sometimes one or 2 reports, no matter the size, lead to complete alteration of management strategies. The main reason seems to be due to small disease base in the population and the resultant rarity in geographic locals, preventing the standard larger studies seen in other fields. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skinobs ( talk • contribs) 10:54, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Great, it sounds like the notability issue is resolved as it seems the articles are notable, are in good sources. In this case, it seems like wording and format are an issue now. I will try and work on this. If it helps to declare conflicts of interest or familiarity, I am in Dermatology so in the case of this article I did some editing to make sure only the more recognized citations are listed i.e those cited by others. Thanks
Skinobs (
talk)
19:36, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rashid M. Rashid and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew C. Miller. Seems all Texan dermatologists are famous now. JFW | T@lk 20:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
A rather odd comment, wolf. I will say if notable=famous then this article does NOT count. It seems like the only objective and well explained person here is WhatamIdoing and it is much appreciated. The publications are notable, not so sure the doctor is, so WhatamIdoing makes a good point and appears to be one of the few that read the whole article and the comments about it. I think someone more like WhatamIdoing or another Dermatologist should chime in for discussion. It would help. I can find nothing else on this person and will no longer add anything else, if it is to be deleted, so be it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skinobs ( talk • contribs) 22:17, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, and this is the challenge. I was able to verify the publication of the manuscripts, all 30 something are in peer reviewed journals that are notable and verifiable. I deleted ALL but the ones cited by others, and seem to play a larger central role in orphan disease understanding, characterization, and management as emphasized by unrelated authors from other countries and institutions. So it seems that the material IS notable, BUT like you said, it is not clear the author is notable. I have given up searching further, but am following the debate for curiosity. It does make me wonder about silly thins like movie stars. They are notable because of the movie, without the move, their is no star. So is it really the fact that people "talk" about the movie that really matters. This is odd because in such a case it sounds more like a popularity contest then one of contribution to society, literature and such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skinobs ( talk • contribs) 01:55, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
It is pointless to have an article on every doctor who has published 30 or more medical papers if not very many people know them because no one is really going to look them up. Also there are policies regarding living person's. Articles on living person's need to be monitor to avoid slander or defamation occuring. Articles on people who aren't widely known are unlikely to be monitored for vandalism or defamation etc. There are lots of reasons why it is a bad idea to have an article on someone who is not widely known outside of his research papers and place of work, too many reasons to list. Anyway this policy has been shaped over years of debate on wikipedia and is not likely to change much in the near future regarding what constitutes notability. Please remember to click on the
in the editor panel before saving the page on talk pages like this so we know who is leaving messages.--
Literaturegeek |
T@1k?
02:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
This is a good point and I agree. I leave it to the wiki process to determine what happens. I havent given too much time to this so it isnt too bad either way. I guess I was just trying to emphasize articles that lead to insight and other novel concepts. But again, this is a good democratic process and I defer to the system. --
Skinobs (
talk)
02:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
While I have everyones' attention about this issue, (1) there are multiple dermatologist articles that I think lack notability, and so I wanted to know if perhaps someone would review Category:Dermatologists and weed through which are notable and which are not, and (2) I think a general category "dermatologists" is needed, but not necessarily subcats based on nationality... what do you think? Any thoughts? kilbad ( talk) 21:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Goesgolf20 has moved Central obesity to Abdominal Fat. Yes with a capital F. Changed things back and he reverted it again. Think we will need some discussion on this.-- Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 03:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
A user is still intent on keeping Abdominal fat.-- Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 04:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
I am looking at Medical analysis of circumcision and I have some concerns. Maybe it is just me but it seems kind of confusing for the general reader. Most topics read like a medical journal article - citing primary sources and whatnot. I am not sure what Wikipedia's policy is on this, in regards style and eligibility for the general reader though , so could someone with more experience comment on the article?
With regard to infectious, dermatology-related categories, there is the following:
However, while I like the general structure of this categorization, there is some lack of precision in the names. First, "Mycotic skin diseases" contains articles about fungi and yeast. Second, all of these categories may contain conditions not only of the skin, but also the mucous membranes. Finally, there are times when certainly bacteria colonize the skin without causing disease, so I think "condition" should be used over "disease." With all that being said, how would you name all these categories? kilbad ( talk) 19:38, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Hello all. I've allowed myself to be sucked into a rather lengthy exchange with an AIDS denialist at Talk:Zidovudine. Leaving aside the sound and fury, the issue is whether AZT's affinities for various enzymes should be described using the words in vitro. My feeling is that all affinity measurements are performed in vitro, so adding the phrase is redundant and perhaps misleading (in that it implies the affinities do not hold in vivo). Things have sort of degenerated, so I'd welcome any comment, even if it's just to say that I'm making a mountain out of a harmless molehill. MastCell Talk 21:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Wondering if I can entice anyone to join me at the obesity page to do some editing. Currently it is a FAC however still needs some work on prose which is not my strong point. Obesity was the 837th most viewed page on Wikipedia this last month. http://wikistics.falsikon.de/latest/wikipedia/en/ -- Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 12:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Is the term "thrush" a term used strictly for oral candidiasis, or is it a more general term for candidiasis of any mucous membrane (vaginal, etc)? I have a secondary source, Andrew's (see WP:DERM:REF for full ref) that seems to indicate that "thrush" is a term used strictly for oral candidiasis. I ask because I want to know where Thrush (medicine) should redirect? kilbad ( talk) 21:14, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I have noticed that in almost every page, causes for medical conditions are listed without any concern for statistical likelyhood.
Example: "heart failure" and "Nasopharyngeal carcinoma" are listed as causes for epistaxis(nose bleed) on the same level as "foreign bodies" (e.g. nose-picking). I do not agree with this policy. The first two above-mentioned conditions are extremely rare and ARE highly unlikely causes for epistaxis (which is a very common occurrence), when compared to nose-picking or even inflammatory reactions. All this will achieve is to concern people with a nose bleed that they may have cancer or heart failure, which is ridiculous.
Other example: "Vertigo" can be caused (on the same basis, according to wikipedia) by "boat travels", "consumption of alchool", "inflammation of the inner-ear" (a rather common cause) or "opsoclonus myoclonus syndrome"(extremely rare!)
The list goes on and on.
This is very poor, and may bring great damage and anxiety to many people who see Wikipedia as a reliable and accurate source for information. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Umgambit (
talk •
contribs)
01:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your answer Una Smith. But most of the information you mention already exists within Wikipedia. For instance, if you check opsoclonus myoclonus syndrome, you will learn that it affect 1 in every 10.000.000 individuals each year. To put this side-by-side with "inflammation of the inner-ear" as possible cause for vertigo is just plain silly by any standard (even if you don't have the exact reliable numbers). This kind of practices should be banned from wikipedia pages: as I mentionned before, this is not an isolated case, a great number of wiki medical related articles suffer from the same kind of incongruence.
My main concern are the persons without medical training that read this kind of information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Umgambit ( talk • contribs) 03:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Greetings, project participants. I created this stub on Dale Dubin, MD which I believe was wrongly deleted. As medicine enthusiasts, I believe you are best suited to judge its merits. Please take a moment to review it and comment here. Thanks - Draeco ( talk) 15:21, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Abdominal fat has been proposed for deletion however an editor keeps repeatedly removing the deletion tag. Might need the eye of an admin. Thanks-- Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 05:58, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Should the hyposensitization be moved/renamed to allergy immunotherapy or allergen specific immunotherapy? The term hyposensitisation is not a common terminology used hence why I think that it should be renamed. I am posting here because there don't seem to be many active editors on that article.
Also the benzodiazepine article is up for review for good article status if anyone has the time to review it.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the move Steve. I prefer allergen specific to but I agree that allergen immunotherapy is better due to its more common use.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm not an MD or vet, but the text in ornithosis agent is confusing. It probably could be speedy deleted under WP:CSD#A1, but Wikipedia should probably have an article about the topic eventually. This site says Psittacosis is "A rickettsial agent active against humans and livestock (poultry)." That's somewhat similar to the text in ornithosis agent. If a human got pneumonia from an infected bird, I guess you could point to an ornithosis agent as the culprit, but I'm certain that an ornithosis agent is not pneumonia; an ornithosis agent would be the biological agent/pathogen/pathogenic bacteria from the bird that could cause pneumonia. Perhaps Rickettsia is a type of ornithosis agent. The Rickettsia article does say that the bacteria is often grown in chicken embryo cultures. It's possible that an Ornithosis article should be built (I think Psittacosis is a type of ornithosis?), and ornithosis agent redirected there. -- Pixelface ( talk) 03:23, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
This is to let people know that there is only a day or so left on a poll. The poll is an attempt to end years of argument about autoformatting which has also led to a dispute about date linking. Your votes are welcome at: Wikipedia:Date formatting and linking poll. Regards Lightmouse ( talk) 09:36, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Is it really necessary to have four articles for the four quadrants of abdominal. Template:Quadrants It just seems unnecessary, but i dont think they should be in the main ab article. What you guys think about merging the four into one? Trying to keep most the stuff... the four articles are stubs anyway... so not much anyways.... IAmTheCoinMan ( talk) 14:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
I want to make a list of dermatologists who have made significant contributions to the field. What should the list be called, and what should the inclusion criteria be? kilbad ( talk) 16:57, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi all,
an anon noted on my talk page that the image of what I thought was Adamkiewicz's artery, is actually something completely different... upon review I think that might be true, unless anyone else here feels that it is right after all?
cheers, -- Steven Fruitsmaak ( Reply) 20:25, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Should these articles be merged? I have a secondary source stating that they are the same thing. If so, I will defer the move to someone else. kilbad ( talk) 22:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Please take a look here. This is potentially deadly advice. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 05:14, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
This site has a lot of radiological images under a creative commons license. http://radiopaedia.org/ -- Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 21:25, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Should Tinea pedis be the article, or Athlete's foot? The ICD codes bold Tinea pedis. kilbad ( talk) 22:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Honestly, I don't have any strong feelings on this issue; so, whatever the community ultimately decides is fine with me. However, even if people have not heard of "Tinea pedis", a simple redirect from "Athlete's foot" will direct them to it the correct article. Due to redirects, accessibility to this information will not be reduced if the article is titled "Tinea pedis." Additionally, the term "Athlete's foot" does not always mean "Tinea pedis," but "Tinea pedis" may always be referred to as "Athlete's foot;" therefore, it seems the title that appropriately encompasses the scope and contents of the article is "Tinea pedis." kilbad ( talk) 15:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Have brought prostate cancer to FAR as it needs some improvements.-- Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 22:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
The gentleman Michael Gibson who operates wikidocs [10] is interested in combining wikidoc with wikipedia or at least working more closely with wikipedia. I think that this would be a wonderful idea. They are under the same license as wikipedia but have tighter security with respect to vandalism. They are also written more for a medical audience. Not sure if it would be best to attach it as a sister project or combine much of the information into wikipedia ( as that is were much of the information comes from in the first place ). I have brought the disucssion to the Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) Anyone have any thoughts?-- Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 15:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Wikidoc was introduced with much fanfare and without any consultation with this WikiProject. The vast majority of its editorial board are cardiologists, leading to a likely imbalance in the quality and quantity of the content. It still strikes me as odd that none of these eminent people seem to have made an attempt to participate here, which would have been so very beneficial. JFW | T@lk 09:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I just saw some great slides in lecture today showing comparisons of different types of beta blockers and ACE Is. It was interesting to see which are proven to help in Heart Failure and which are not... which are proven to help in diabetic nephropathy and which are not... can we use the guidelines and make a chart like this? I think it would be EXTREMELY useful for the community. Does anyone else know what I'm talking about? 99.22.220.61 ( talk) 05:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
This stuff deserves it's own page: http://content.onlinejacc.org/cgi/content/full/53/15/e1/TBL3
taken from http://content.onlinejacc.org/cgi/content/full/j.jacc.2008.11.013#SEC8 do not doubt so much 99.22.220.61 ( talk) 23:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I have been thinking about developing (through consensus) a small dermatology-related manual of style to address a few issues pertaining to dermatology articles. If available, perhaps you could review my thread at MOS and comment there? --- kilbad ( talk) 21:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
I have added a MOS:DERM page, and and will continue to develop it over the next few months. However, I wanted to post it here now so others might follow along and add to the project as desired. Any feedback is greatly appreciated. --- kilbad ( talk) 16:54, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
The Fibro page seems out of date and substandard: there are now two FDA approved drugs to treat Fibromyalgia, yet the article highlights controversy. Even web MD had more information on the condition. I was recently diagnosed and looking for information so naturally I think it's a "real disease." maryann ( talk) 01:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
(undent) Regardless, the article should be clear that while the nature of the disorder is unclear, it is obvious that it does exist. The FDA approving medications doesn't necessarily take a side in the disorder being psychological or physiological, the same way MCS sufferers being classified as disabled doesn't necessarily mean that MCS is an organic disease: in both cases it is recognized as a problem, and no conclusion is necessarily drawn about cause. SDY ( talk) 02:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I am of the opinion that fibromyalgia in most cases is caused by a functional disturbance in the peripheral nerves which generates pain or else a functional disturbance in the pain centers in the brain. As you can't take a blood test or a byopsy to prove or even just to diagnose fibromyalgia it will always be controversial as to the cause. I also am of the opinion that there are likely multiple causes of fibromyalgia, be it genetic/biological (happening naturally without a trigger), exposure to industrial chemicals/toxins or certain prescription drugs or alcohol misuse which triggers some sort of a desruption of function or sensitivity of the nerves. I imagine that there are also people who have undiagnosed peripheral neuropathy who get misdiagnosed with fibromyalgia due to lack of investigation of the cause of the pain. However, this is just a personal opinion and it could be completely wrong. The main thing is, an encylopedia such as wikipedia works on reliable sources so the best way to resolve a dispute is via citing reliable sources rather than debating personal viewpoints.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 17:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Join in the fun at Talk:Acne_scarring#Proposed_merger Casliber ( talk · contribs) 03:34, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
First, when it comes to articles pertaining to medical terminology or signs, like those found in Category:Dermatologic terminology or Category:Dermatologic signs, which should be included in Wikipedia, and which in Wiktionary? Second, of the articles regarding medical terminology or signs that should be in Wikipedia, what should the article consist of? What should the sections be? -- kilbad ( talk) 15:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Please help. We need comments on a RfC at the IC/PBS talk page regarding the use of acupuncture and interstitial cystitis. Debate is acrimonious. ► RATEL ◄ 23:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Silent heart attack, which phrase has been in the media a lot recently, is a redlink; should it be a redirect or should there by a specific article on asymptomatic MIs? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 17:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
There is a breaking story in the international media re the suspicious deaths of 24 world-class sport horses: 21 polo ponies in Florida and 3 endurance race horses in Uruguay. Contamination of a French-made injectable vitamin, BIODYL, is suspected. I created BIODYL as a stub, but as much of the relevant information about this is not in English, I would appreciate some help expanding it. -- Una Smith ( talk) 18:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
While I'm waiting on the conclusion of a GA review, I was wondering if anyone could drop by and scan the article for any major flaws or gaps in information. I'm looking to eventually take it FA, and an informal review would be immensely appreciated. Strombollii ( talk) 03:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Much as it pains me to admit it, and much as the words must be associated with chagrin from WP:MED, inspired by a House episode (pause for cringing), I've created the page for Doege-Potter syndrome. I tracked down 6 useful abstracts from pubmed but they are mostly case studies and I'm culling from just the abstracts. It needs better categories, some sort of navbox at the bottom, probably a better picture in the infobox, considerably more information, and almost certainly the infobox could use some filling out. I couldn't find anything on ICD, eMedicine or the other standard info sources (very possible I'm looking in the wrong spot or with the wrong words). As ever, the wit, wisdom and work of WP:MED woudl be most appreciated. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 14:05, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
This article seems to be very POV/biased against the idea that VMO muscle is involved for correct patella tracking and extension of the leg. There are no citations given for this claim, which seems to be against common orthopaedic knowledge. The citations given are valid but do not prove the editor's point.
I am not a doctor, but I am a scientist, and looking in the literature I can find nothing about the "VMO myth" that the main author of this page assumes is false. My knee pain was just diagnosed as caused by a weak VMO, so imagine my surprise when I come to wikipedia to see it contradict my doctor (and most other literature I can find). The only other similar claim I can find is a website which may or may not be written by the editor-in-question. It also has no citations. I hope someone more knowledgeable than I about the VM/VMO can look at this article. I mentioned it on the talk page but it doesn't seem to see much attention so I thought I'd mention it here. Thanks. Hwinnian ( talk) 21:49, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Pro-ana is being peer reviewed. Interesting article to establish NPOV on. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 11:28, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Hola all, I've another question (posted here for the combination of relevant expertise and more likely to get a review than WT:MEDMOS). I moved U.S. Food and Drug Administration to Food and Drug Administration (United States) today, but as I'm sorting out the redirects I'm having some buyer's remorse over the title and before I correct another 50 redirects I'd like some outside input. Obviously the "U.S." part struck me as inappropriate, but there do not appear to be competing agencies that warrant the "(United States)" disambiguation phrase. I'm from Canada, we get too much US influence to really be unbiased about whether the simple use of "Food and Drug Administration" would be adequate, or if "United States Food and Drug Administration" is the best choice. The actual website has "U.S. Food and Drug Administration" at the top, the Health and Human Services website that is the oversight body to the agency uses just Food and Drug Administration [11], and there do not seem to be a DAB page for agencies called "Food and Drug Administration" (closest is FDA (disambiguation)). I may be requesting an undo of my previous move, but irrespective I stand by my decision to change it to something other than this morning's "U.S. Food and Drug Administration." Thoughts please? This needs not just medical knowledge, but also some interpretation of WP:NAME and how the FDA is perceived and known outside of North America. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 18:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
I prefer simply Food and Drug Administration, since we both have Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and National Institutes of Health. In Belgium it's very commonplace to say "The FDA approved ..." . -- Steven Fruitsmaak ( Reply) 21:10, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Just for the record, Congress, the FD&C Act, the regulations, the 2009 federal budget, and all of the FDA forms omit the "U.S." so I think it's pretty clear that the official name doesn't include the leading letters. SDY ( talk) 01:01, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
A agree with Steven Fruitsmaak about the shorter name. It is what editors will naturally link to and what readers of all countries will naturally search for. The Thailand issue is a complete red herring and should someone ever create such a page, it can be handled per minority naming rules without a clumsy DAB page getting in the way. Colin° Talk 09:17, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
PMID 10548069 We do not seem to have a page. If that is indeed the case and there isn't one under some obscure name, I'd like to start one; but need help with the template boxes and medical reference material. Is this the place to ask if anyone would be interested? 76.97.245.5 ( talk) 00:44, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
I'd be grateful if anybody would be willing to give a third opinon to help resolve a difference we're having at Decompression sickness, please? The difference is whether several sections should be in the "Causes" section or not, i.e. between this diff and this diff. There's a discussion at Talk:Decompression sickness#MOSMED and request for collaboration that would give the background. Thanks in advance for any contributions. -- RexxS ( talk) 03:26, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Dear everyone,
with the help of User:TimVickers, User:Jfdwolff and User:Samir, we have just published (online release) an article about Wikipedia in the leading journal in medical informatics (impact factor roughly 3):
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)Many of you have probably wondered exactly how often you get a result from Wikipedia when you look for medical info on Google. The answer is: 71-85%, depending on the keywords and search engines used.
We outranked MedlinePlus and NHS Direct Online, except for the latter on Google UK. Wikipedia also ranked higher than commercial sources like Mayo Clinic, About.com and Medscape.
I'd be happy to hear some of your comments. E-mail me through the wiki for requests for reprints.
-- Steven Fruitsmaak ( Reply) 10:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Check this out as well - Docs look to Wikipedia for condition info: Manhattan Research ("Nearly 50% of US physicians going online for professional purposes are visiting Wikipedia for health and medical information, especially condition information, according to a Manhattan Research study."). Remember ( talk) 13:47, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Its a pity I do not have access to the article from my university. Could anybody send it to me by email?-- Garrondo ( talk) 07:17, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Could someone confirm:
"2.low urine sodium < 10 ( because kidney saves sodium and water,hence low urine sodium and increase urine osmolarity)" azotemia
I thought that in a case like CAH due to 21 alphaOHase deficiency there was a salt wasting dehydration that led to prerenal azotemia. Would this result not result in excess natriuresis? Ibrmrn ( talk) 20:12, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Article on Panayiotis Zavos (recently in press in relation to claims of human cloning) is in pretty bad shape. Very light on cites, and references various medical and scientific organizations which are currently redlinks (i.e., either they are named wrongly in the article, or we need to create articles on them, or we need to redirect these links to our existing articles on them.) -- 201.37.230.43 ( talk) 22:33, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
This doesn't look real... especially the "Doctors who think this dude is awesome" section. Are there really no detractors on the other side?
I don't know this guy from Adam, but could somebody with insight take a look? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Philip Taron ( talk • contribs) 23:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
whoa, my patient is growing this in the blood. Lets make an article on it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.40.12.37 ( talk) 23:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Should the actual article be called Cat scratch fever, Cat-scratch disease, or Cat scratch disease? The ICD code has Cat scratch disease. --- kilbad ( talk) 02:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi
I just posted this point on the discussion page of the ARDS article but as it's a bit broader than that I've popped it in here too.
For those of us not in the US it'd be really useful if things like PaO2 and PaCO2 were expressed in kPa as well as mmHg. Would it be reasonable for those of us who think in kPa go around adding them on relevant medical pages?
Cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brothersoulshine ( talk • contribs) 14:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi there, things are getting a bit busy at influenza, swine flu, influenza pandemic and 2009 swine flu outbreak. Could some of you watchlist these? Thanks Tim Vickers ( talk) 01:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Neither swine influenza nor 2009 swine flu outbreak mentions antigenic shift... I've only found this source, can we get this into the articles? -- Steven Fruitsmaak ( Reply) 20:47, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
I have added a number of free, full text review articles to the "Further reading" section of the Influenza treatment article, from which people can add additional information to Wikipedia. Perhaps someone else could apply MoS guidelines to the article to improve its overall structure? What exactly should the article structure/sections look like? --- kilbad ( talk) 22:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Swine Flu map NZ.PNG has been nominated for speedy deletion. 76.66.202.139 ( talk) 05:11, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi. The image that has been incorporated in ear and eardrum is, according to a letter sent to OTRS ( Ticket:2009042710075597), wrong. It presents the bones as incus, malleus & stapes rather than malleus, incus & stapes. (See File:Anatomy_of_the_Human_Ear.svg) I'm by no means a doctor, but the National Library of Medicine seems to agree as does the Department for Work and Pensions, here. I am removing the image from both articles. If our letter writer, and these governmental sources, should prove to be wrong and this cc-by source from which the image is taken right, please feel free to restore. I haven't found a single source that would suggest our letter writer to be wrong. But if he is, Ossicles needs to be corrected as well and that image, which lists them in the other order, removed. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
![]() | The current
Medicine Collaboration of the Week is
Swine flu. Last week's collaboration was Huntington's disease. |
JFW | T@lk 16:52, 30 April 2009 (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 5 | ← | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
(I'm sure this issue has been brought up before, but I can't really find it).
Many articles "belong" to the biology project, the microbiology project and the medicine project at the same time. Are there some guidelines regarding this? Does it make sense that every pathogenic bacterium should be handled by three different projects? As for the classes and importances, they often conflict with each other, of course. I've seen articles that were B in the medicine project and Start in the biology project.
I'm a beginner with the projects and I really want to help, but this mess is a little discouraging. Isn't it? -- Pixie ( talk) 15:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
I am doubtful of the "...affecting around 1 in 250 people..." at Ichthyosis_vulgaris#cite_ref-1. Ichthyosis vulgaris is the most common type of ichthyosis, but the above quote seems way off to me. Can someone review this fact for me? kilbad ( talk) 02:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Anyone have an image of Cushing's syndrome?-- Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 17:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Commons has a handful; I will make a category and add it to the article. -- Una Smith ( talk) 17:36, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
I've been doing some article assessment at WikiProject Measurement recently and I came across the article Apothecaries' system (not one of mine) which seems pretty good. For the time being, I've rated it as A-class on our project quality scale, but I would welcome further comments so I have opened a peer review here. If there are editors with any knowledge or interest in the subject, I'd be grateful if they could read through the article and tell us if there is anything important which should be in there but which isn't at the moment. Cheers! Physchim62 (talk) 11:26, 1 March 2009 (UTC) (BTW, isn't it time to take the Christmas decorations down??!!
I notice a pattern of medicalization of wikipedia pages. The pages of any topic relating to medicine quickly is taken over by specialized terminology. Pages become inaccessible, and there is sparse and spotty inclusion of perspectives of anthropology, history, economics, sociology, religion, business, ecology, or other fields.
The pages of many general-interest topics commonly have the following problems:
Let me give two really simple examples of medicalized topics:
I'm not sure what the solution is. I just want to start a dialogue. I would love to see some sort of policy page arise on medicalization. Ultimately I would like to see all pages on basic topics of general interest be made much more accessible. Example:
I'm not going to go through these articles one-by-one because the problem is too widespread for one person to tackle. We need to create policies to refer to. We need to come to a consensus about how this problem is to be handled. Let's start! I propose the following policies:
(gets off soapbox) Thoughts?
Cazort ( talk) 03:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
The majority of the time semi-technical terminology such as analgesic is usually wiki inlinked, clickable, so a user can click on it to find out what it means. Furthermore often such paragraphs using those medical terminology explain themselves. For example an article on morphine might say something like,,,, Morphine is an analgesic medication used in the management/treatment of severe pain. I think the majority of the medical and pharmacology articles are understandable by the public as well as the medical profession. As there are countless thousands of people editing medical or pharmacological articles it would be impossible for a wiki project to have much impact on the wording you suggest even if we agreed with you. Those would be my views.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 16:36, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
There is a category page for which I want to provide a brief 2-3 sentence intro. I have sources I can cite, but wanted to know how that works with category pages? Is it appropriate to include inline citations and a reference section on a category page? kilbad ( talk) 15:53, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia articles about tumors that are "usually benign" or "often benign" are categorized inconsistently. Some are treated as cancers (suspected malignant until proven benign); others are treated as benign (until proven malignant). So, some are in categories such as Category:Gynecology whereas others are in Category:Gynecological cancer, and some are in both categories. My feeling is that all tumor articles should be in oncology categories, not listed directly in parent general categories such as Category:Gynecology, to maximize the chances that the reader will grasp the intrinsic uncertainty. Thoughts? -- Una Smith ( talk) 18:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Hello. By chance, I just discovered that editors have been expanding Angiostrongylus cantonensis with material intended for Angiostrongyliasis. From what I can tell by looking at the page history, they probably didn't know Angiostrongyliasis already existed. So, it looks like most of the medical information should be merged into Angiostrongyliasis. I have added merge tags and performed some minor cleanup, but I would appreciate some eyes on this or some suggestions. Thanks. Viriditas ( talk) 09:56, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
There is a grant I am thinking about applying for to get a couple grand for use somehow related to WP:DERM. I wanted to know if people had any ideas how I could use this money to improve dermatology content on wikipedia? I need a good reason for them to give it to me. kilbad ( talk) 21:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) I suggest explicitly reminding people that they do not have any greater ownership of the pages they are working on just because they have a grant or are being paid for their work. This has already been a problem for students editing WP for credit in courses. I am sure the OP understands this, being an active participant in this wikiproject, but I am just suggesting that this is a risk once money is changing hands. This might also be an issue if certain promises are made in the grant proposal - all of the work might get reverted. That being said, if all editors adhere to the WP spirit then this is a great idea. -- Scray ( talk) 11:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Twice now a tag which would add this article to this WikiProject has been removed. I am just here to verify that you guys don't want it in the project. My reasoning in adding the tag is that there are important issues of medical ethics involved in this story, and it has been reported that the doctor who helped this woman have a total of 14 children with fertility treatments is under investigation. I'm not really familiar with your projects scope, so maybe medical ethics is not a subject you really cover, but it seemed from the attitude of those removing the tag that they just don't like the subject very much (who does?) regardless of the obvious medical aspects of her story. Beeblebrox ( talk) 18:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
I have some problems with those articles as they stand from a WP:BLP standpoint, so I'm not going to take a stance on whether to rule this in or out since I'm trying to keep some distance. There's a task force that might be a good place to get information on this. We don't have a medical ethics task force, and I'd certainly be interested in starting one, though I'm part of the pointy end of the spear on that and not a real expert. SDY ( talk) 19:14, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
There seems to be considerable overlap of content and some confusion among the following articles:
Some of these conditions are genetic, some are medical conditions, some are dietary. The confusion lies primarily in the cross references. Would anyone here like to have a go at these? -- Una Smith ( talk) 22:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Who "owns" the copyright on a CT/MRI image? The technician? doctor? patient? kilbad ( talk) 22:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
I looking for the right word (or short phrase). Consider Hep B or HIV or something like that. Individual people -- some of whom have a given virus and some of whom don't -- have different serostatus.
What's the equivalent term for individual cells? If you're looking at some hepatocytes, and some are infected by HBV and others are not, then the cells have a different what? Infection status? Something else? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 01:05, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Periodically I see italicized footnotes like the following taken from Lipodermatosclerosis:
Note: This article contains material adapted from the public domain source " Lipodermatosclerosis: Questions and Answers", by the U.S federal government's Genetic and Rare Diseases Information Center
What is the deal with these footnotes. Are they required? May they be removed? If so, when? etc... kilbad ( talk) 01:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
This article is in sad shape and needs some guidance for improvement. Because of the problems, I don't think an official peer review will help all that much, but if anyone can drop by, read the article, and use the talk page to offer up a roadmap with a few milestones other editors can shoot for that would be tremendously helpful. Unfortunately, the article has become a POV magnet for advocates and detractors, and what we really need are referees pointing towards the middle way. Thanks. Viriditas ( talk) 08:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
I think that section is not specific to schizophrenia. Please comment at Talk:Delusion#Merge proposal. Xasodfuih ( talk) 12:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Based on its description, that cat is supposed to be reserved only for alternative medicine articles. Recently however, Special:Contributions/יוסי_ישראלי added a number of article to it. I've removed some articles that were clearly accepted therapies in conventional medicine, but some of the articles have hard-to-judge references (mostly because of poor formatting). Could someone else have a look at that cat? Xasodfuih ( talk) 16:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC) Stuff I'm unsure about include: Laser interstitial thermal therapy and Transurethral microwave thermotherapy (I've removed these two since it seems unlikely they are CAM topics, but I could be wrong), and Low level laser therapy (left it in for now). Xasodfuih ( talk) 16:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Should herpetic whitlow and whitlow be merged? kilbad ( talk) 20:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:April Fool's Main Page/Did You Know is gathering candidates for DYK on April 1. Anyone interested? Browsing the first page of Category:Disease stubs, below are a few that caught my eye. -- Una Smith ( talk) 05:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Due to the article's position as a fringe medical topic, few editors have actually done a thorough review of the article. SandyGeorgia suggested a MoS review, and I didn't know of a better place to ask! So, if you have some time to spare and wouldn't mind helping me, then please head on over to the article and give it a read! :-) FoodPuma 14:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Will others please watchlist this article and try to comb through it and bring it over the hump? I do not feel it received thorough review at FAC, and each time I visit, I find issues. The prose needs work, there are linking and overlinking issues, undefined terms, redundancy, and I continue to find MoS issues. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
A mind map has arrived at "Lung cancer". I would appreciate comments here. Axl ¤ [Talk] 07:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
The same editor has added mindmaps to a number of articles. Ultimately they constitute original research and are not very helpful for the general reader. JFW | T@lk 21:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
want template for coronary a. Like ramus, obtuse, etc should be included. More detail than current template needed. -iphone —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.247.1.2 ( talk) 15:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
This article is about five inches removed from WP:GA. It has numerous important and interesting angles, from clinical diagnosis to the psychosocial impact of screening. JFW | T@lk 16:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
I think instead of putting all of these signs only in aortic regurg article, we should also have each sign as an independent article with a nice little intra-wiki template linking them all together at the bottom. TY! 128.125.28.196 ( talk) 23:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
It would be great if one or two knowledgeable people (preferably from the US) could put this article on their watchlist. There is some insanity going on at Talk:Nasal irrigation#Pulsatile irrigation. -- Hans Adler ( talk) 23:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
The Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Medicine seems to be empty most days, and I suspect that there are articles of interest to our members that are involved in the deletion process. Is there a WP:WikiElf out there that would like to trawl through WP:AFD#Current_discussions every day or two to locate medicine-related articles (very broadly defined) for us?
I'll run through a few days' worth to find anything (except bios) that might be appropriate, but I don't realisitically think that I'll keep up with it in the longer term. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 00:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
I've recently created an article on Delano Meriwether an MD who was involved in the 1976 US swine flu immunization program. I have very little background in medical issues so I was wondering if someone from this project might be able to run their eyes over the medical section of the article... The Hack 04:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Join in the fun at Talk:Dissociative_identity_disorder#Merger_proposal Casliber ( talk · contribs) 22:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Two Featured article promotions in one day, ( Meningitis and Osteochondritis dissecans ) - well done guys 'n gals ! LeeVJ ( talk) 19:46, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
I think Sandy's got a bloody gall, coming on here and saying "well, I promoted it but it's not what I'd have liked". There are no obvious errors in spelling or grammar and the article is probably factually correct: that's a damn sight more than can be said for some recent featured articles. Physchim62 (talk) 22:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
there is verbal listing of gm + and - coverage of each generation, but remember that bar graph you learned in medical school showing how much gm + and - coverage there is for each generation? That would be great for the article. You can find it in most pharm textbooks. 163.40.12.37 ( talk) 14:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
I think upskilling the public on broad activities of antibiotics is an absolutely fantastic idea. Stop everyone splashing around augmentin forte like lollies. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 23:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
...not that I use antibiotics much in psychiatry XD Casliber ( talk · contribs) 23:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
There's some brisk discussion on Talk:Metformin whether we need to discuss recent in vitro studies. Please comment. JFW | T@lk 21:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
See Talk:Major_depressive_disorder#Regarding_the_efficacy_of_dietary_oils_in_depression. Xasodfuih ( talk) 05:59, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Lumbosacral_plexus
I can't see the white lines between the yellow blocks - the white lines are important to tell what nerve is a branch of what. this is important for msk, ortho, neuro and many other branches of medicine if you are going to give me the run around. I would change the color myself but I fail miserably every time I try to modify a template. If you are able to edit templates successfuly, please consider changing the color of the yellow or adding black divider lines to the template for me so I can differentiate nerve branches. TY 128.125.77.26 ( talk) 19:21, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Outdent
I thought changing the Manual of Style required a more formal process(??)
Agree that having a listing of the template colors, rationale, etc. in one place would be helpful. Might be well to hold off on copying the colors to the MOS for a little bit while we expand the table and work out what colors to use. (Copying it would make more places that have to be updated/etc.) But a link from the Manual of Style, or indication on the talk page that effort being made to document the colors might help.
Right at the moment I am going through the anatomy templates and converting the documentation (most of which are boilerplate copies of the same text) to use a template {{ Anatomy navbox doc}}, so that we can include a link to the color reference, wherever it winds up. I am also in the middle of expanding the list of the other anatomy templates (and the colors they use). Zodon ( talk) 20:05, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Can I raise some very serious concerns with the various alcohol articles. It appears that an editor David J. Hanson who is a professor of sociology and a major promotor of the health benefits of alcohol and incidently is funded by Distilled Spirits Council of the United States and who has a habit of using sockpuppets has had some fun editing the various articles on alcohol and health. I thought that I was reading an article on Kava Kava or valerian. I was left with the impression that if I didn't become an alcoholic I would be at high risk of kidney stones or if I didn't drink alcohol with every meal I would be at risk of picking up a life threatening bacterial plague and a range of other terrible diseases and alcohol consumption was not only an essential wonder cure all but a medical wonderdrug recommended by doctors for chronic daily consumption. There was a severe lack of information on the harm. The article long-term effects of alcohol was the worst offender. I have deleted out a lot of bias, research that has been debunked recently and other stuff and I have added a good section on the neuropsychiatric/psychological effects of long term alcohol abuse but so much more relevant info that is lacking and it still is quite NPOV violating. The remaining data on the page seems accurate at least according to current research but it is just biased and severely lacking. I scanned the alcohol cancer page and noticed a few glaring inaccuracies but haven't read it all and dread doing so. All of the alcohol and health articles need an urgent review by doctors who are familar with the toxicities of alcohol on health. As far as medicine goes alcohol is the cause of so many medical, psychiatric and social problems and is such a drain on society, the individual and health services, it really should be of top priority I feel for this project. NOTE the article isn't as bad as it was after I deleted a lot of stuff. My main complaint is what it is lacking at the moment and I am burnt out from wiki editing, I can't do it on my own. Just reading the newspaper every month there is a study coming out it seems linking even moderate alcohol consumption with an increased risk of certain disease like cancer or whatever. Just yesterday one came out on prostrate cancer. This is why we need doctors familar with the topic to get involved. I am pretty knowledgable about the dependence and long term effects on mental health of alcohol but only have a moderate knowledge on the wide range of health consequences.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:11, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
By the way the articles survived by the looks of things for 2 years without any major challenge except people complaining on the talk page. This is quite serious that such important articles sat on wiki for 2 years promoting alcohol for its health benefits, without putting it into context or neutrality.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:13, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
The serious NPOV issues in the long term effects article have been dealt with for the most part. The main problem is what is lacking. Effects on liver is not even mentioned nor pancreas and probably a lot of other medical consequences which is why I think it needs reviewed. I don't think that there will be any problems as far as battling over adding content to the article as the consensus seems to be that what needed to be done was a rewrite which I did and fill in what is still missing which is not yet done. It was only a one man editing job by a professor employed by an alcohol lobby board, who can easily be reverted if he returns with biased edits until he gives up. Nobody agreed with his edits by the looks of the archived talk page.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 11:45, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi -- it's come to my attention that a new editor, Telepatty900 ( talk · contribs), has been making edits to the articles about a number of fields of medicine, adding and removing information in ways that seem dubious to me. Being a neuroscience Ph.D. rather than an M.D., I'm reluctant to take any sort of decisive action except at Neurology, but I thought perhaps the project should be aware of this. Look at the contribs to see what is going on. Looie496 ( talk) 18:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
{{
EMedicineDictionary}}
just returns dead links. Is this a temporary situation, or is there a way of fixing the links?
Graham
87
03:10, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
{{
eMedicine}}
changes). Still has a dictionary (although not having previously used the previous version I can't say if produces same results), so for asthma use
http://www.emedicinehealth.com/script/main/srchcont_dict.asp?src=asthma{{
Drugbox}}
giving pages with multiple further links but all from same website). I'm guessing most of the time only 1 or 2 terms are returned. In Fallopian tube example, I see a couple different "hits" are for same text, another (still in same resource) adds a picture and interestingly "extrauterine" definition comes up as a distinction bewteen normal intrauterine pregnancies and ectopics that may occur in the tubes - I think that's a nice alternative (lateral thinking) system of considering the fallopian tubes by pregnancy location.
David Ruben
Talk
22:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
There also was a {{
EMedicineConsumer}}
(created by Arcadian) with link similarly broken that tried to access eMedicineHealth's own articles. I've fixed that link call. However as no "Consumer" term used by the website itself (as far as I can see) and only currently used by the one article of Dementia, I've been bold and moved it to {{
EMedicineHealth}}
.
David Ruben
Talk
13:11, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
In response to several comments, the re/categorization of pharmacology articles is going to begin. Ongoing refinement of the proposed categorization scheme will continue at WT:PHARM:CAT and via CfD's; however, I wanted to let you know about this categorization effort so that you (1) are aware and (2) might consider participating. kilbad ( talk) 18:03, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
the fractional excretion of sodium article could use a picture.
I just can't look at xxxxx (divided by sign) xxxx (divided by sign) xxxx (divided by sign) divided by sign
I would like to see a graphic showing:
but... I don't know how to upload an image... Can anyone else do this? 24.43.8.159 ( talk) 03:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
There are several types of epidermal nevi, neoplasms, and cysts which still have no stubs in wikipedia. I have a list of them and wanted to know if someone would help me create them? kilbad ( talk) 22:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
This articles has multiple severe problems despite the consensus to keep it as it is at the last AfD. I had removed:
Only alcohol and nicotine were attributed to (non-peer-reviewed) expert opinion as "hard drugs", but even then it's not clear what definitions the sources use (if any). With little useful content left I redirected the article to Drug policy of the Netherlands, which purportedly (because this claim is unsourced too) is the only country to use this classification, and this was the only argument used as "keep" in the AfD. Needless to say, all my changes have been reverted by POV pushers who claim I've gutted the article. Xasodfuih ( talk) 21:35, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
I take it it's not kosher per WP:MEDRS, but then Jimbo is the ultimate content decider here (according to higher-ups than me), so who knows, maybe we should ask him... Xasodfuih ( talk) 22:22, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Join in the fun at Talk:Drug_policy#Merger_proposal - 'hard' and 'soft' are merely two adjectives whose whole being lies within the concept of drug policy, and it should all be on the one page. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 01:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
I came across this article, and it needs some work. so i have added a tag for wikiproject medicine. Najafhaider ( talk) 13:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
It is my opinion that the current names of the articles and categories
are misleading, since all agents (materials, compounds, environments) could and should be classified by IARC. The classification does not make them "carcinogens".
Please comment at Talk:International Agency for Research on Cancer#Proposal to move several articles/categories to alternative names.-- FocalPoint ( talk) 20:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Dear all, I work for PatientsLikeMe and so want to avoid any conflict of interest by doing substantial edits to the article. However since it first went up we have published several research studies and been mentioned in a variety of journals including Lancet Neurology, Nature Medicine, AMIA, etc (see http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=patientslikeme). I would be most grateful to have some additional input to the article from objective 3rd parties. Happy to answer any questions at pwicks@patientslikeme.com, I'm also easily Googlable! Thanks,-- PaulWicks ( talk) 16:08, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Should categories like "Dermatologic signs," "Dermatologic terminology," and "Dermatologic procedures and surgery," be dermatologIC or dermatologiCAL? kilbad ( talk) 19:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Just a note for anyone who doubted this, does anyone else find this interesting that NICE are using DSM terminology now? Casliber ( talk · contribs) 20:20, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
I re designed the template, please inform me if you have any suggestions or comments regarding that Maen. K. A. ( talk) 23:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Two points:
When you see an editor doing good work on medicine-related articles, and you haven't seen them here or at the participants list, please remember to invite them. You can do this quickly by pasting {{ subst:MedInvitation}} onto their user talk page.
Also, since some people will have a stronger interest in a specialty instead of in the whole project, I wonder whether MedInvitation should be expanded to include a small link to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Task_forces? I haven't been able to strike on a happy way to say it, so if someone else likes the idea and has a suggestion, I'd be happy to hear it. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 20:14, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Somehow I missed the good news of a new Wikipedia database dump earlier this month. Wolterbot has sent us a new cleanup listing, including ( 74 of our top-importance articles). If you've got a few minutes, please feel free to pick something from the list and fix it.
Many of these are easy fixes, and there's something for everyone, from general copyediting to requests for expert attention. I think (unless someone squawks) that it might be more efficient for us to edit the lists to remove pages that are fixed. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 00:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Are Childhood dermatomyositis and Juvenile dermatomyositis the same thing? If so, I will defer a merge to someone else. kilbad ( talk) 01:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
This artiscle is at AfD here and we need some more authoritative opinions on the salvagibility of the article. Any help appreciated. -- Banjeboi 02:11, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows ( full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.
If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to
report bugs and
request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a
"news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none
parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at
Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.
Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.
Thanks. — Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 09:24, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)
Are there any guidelines for naming articles related to immunoglobulins? While creating some stubs I noticed that trying to find Ig-related diseases is somewhat challenging as there are no standard naming conventions and inconsistent redirects. I have tried to create a little more organization, but there are still some inconsistencies. Compare Selective immunoglobulin A deficiency and Hyper-IgE syndrome for example. kilbad ( talk) 00:44, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Click on "►" below to display subcategories: |
---|
Category Cancer survivors not found
|
I am not a fan of overly-specific categorization, but this category scheme strikes me as eminently valuable to the general public, and I'd like to expand it. Any objection to the idea? Off the top of my head, I'd like to add subcats for survivors of Hodgkins & non-Hodgkins, cervical, lung, testicular, and prostate cancers. Thoughts? Maralia ( talk) 18:27, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm hoping to improve Oxygen toxicity to become a FAC but I'm not sure of the best way to get a peer review or some constructive criticism as this will be my first experience of the process. Casliber kindly suggested I should mention it here, and I'd be grateful for any advice on the process or the article that I can get. I should add I'm a diver, not a medic, but I've tried my best to adhere to MOSMED. Thanks in advance for any help or advice. -- RexxS ( talk) 23:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
There's a pointer in a notice at BG monitoring suggesting this proposed merger be discussed here. ? However that may be, here's an opinion.
These are different topics, though with a shared common term. One is a discussion of the homeostatic and physiological function of a food chemical and variants thereof. The other is a clinical topic having ot do with treatment of derangements in the management of that chemical. Too wide a difference to be encompassed in a single WP article. Visions of bloat and poor writing haunt my mind at the prospect.
Oppose merger. ww ( talk) 18:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Category:Unknown-importance medicine articles could use a little attention. I've managed to whittle it down from 145 to 94 articles, but I need a break :) Maralia ( talk) 19:12, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Are Neuropathy and Neuronopathy the same thing? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 22:37, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Proposed merger of Narcissism (psychology) into Narcissism, join the fun at Talk:Narcissism#Merger_proposal. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 11:53, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Ok folks, what should we do with Doptone - merge it to...what Medical ultrasonography? Casliber ( talk · contribs) 12:36, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Please check out my proposed design, and please add your comments whether you support applying it or not here or on my talk page Maen. K. A. ( talk) 23:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
I would support a redesign, if your redesign didn't have the problems on narrow screens it would have probably been supported in my opinion.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 09:15, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
OK folks, an IP with this edit, has given an explanation on my talk page.
My take in reverting was to use plainer english wherever possible for technical terms as long as no meaning is lost. However the IP has noted an emotive implication which I hadn't thought of. So which term do we prefer here? Casliber ( talk · contribs) 19:40, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) interesting...hmm..a doptone? Never heard of that name for it (?) Casliber ( talk · contribs) 12:31, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Unborn baby" currently redirects to "Fetus". The key question is what to do with the page at "Unborn baby". It could be a redirect to somewhere, or it could be a dab page, or an article. Snowman ( talk) 13:27, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
There is currently dabs at The Unborn and Unborn child and there are probably other pages I have not noticed yet. The wiktionary has an entry for " unborn" but not "unborn baby". I think that the wiki page "unborn baby" could redirect to the dab "Unborn child", however, I am sure there are other options, Which is the best option? Snowman ( talk) 13:39, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
. At Featured picture candidates, a diagram of a hand and wrist is being reviewed. It's high quality and appears accurate, but feedback would be appreciated on accuracy (for us of non-medical backgrounds). Cheers. Mostlyharmless ( talk) 03:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Sex and illness probably needs a new name. I think that it's supposed to be about whether being male or female makes you more or less likely to get this or that disease, but it's also partly a disambiguation page (to explain that "sex" doesn't mean "sexual activity" in this case, and that the page on STIs is elsewhere). Gender has been relegated to psychological status, so Influence of sex on health, maybe? Any other ideas? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 21:57, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Sex-specific illness might be an idea to. It is also mentioned in the lead sentence. I see that it is already a redirect to that page.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Gender and illness? Gender-based risk of illness Casliber ( talk · contribs) 20:08, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
The difficulty with Sex-specific illness is that the article is mostly about "Sex-semi-specific illnesses", if you will -- not "Prostate cancer only occurs in men", but "Lupus is more common in women".
The term "sex-based" (stealing Casliber's notion) might be useful, as it's unlikely to be confused with sexual activities. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 22:02, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Sex bias in disease? -- Una Smith ( talk) 05:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Dear all,
I have proposed new text for intro on consciousness article on the related discussion pages. I think that I managed to articulate it in line with the latest findings in psychology and neurology, but would like others to review it and comment.
Kind regards, Damir Ibrisimovic ( talk) 06:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
just wondering if any surgerons are out there. Maybe they are all too busy. Must be some retired ones though... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.22.220.61 ( talk) 17:45, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Should these articles be merged? If so, I will defer the move to someone else. kilbad ( talk) 21:22, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
I've stared work on expanding Hyperthermia therapy, which I've focused on the cancer treatment. ( Heat therapy is now the place for all other uses of heat as a medical treatment.)
What I've done so far is to move a bunch of information about "hot cancer treatments" from other articles into this one (plus adding some basic summaries based on the NCI FAQ). I've merged most of what I could, but there are probably still more out there. Most of them are practicallly unsourced, and a few, like Oncothermia, have been very company-specific and promotional in nature.
Two hours ago, Hyperthermia therapy was a one-sentence stub. With some attention to proper references, I think it's going to be a good candidate for WP:DYK — assuming, of course, that we'd like to be on the front page enough to get a bit more work done before the five-day timer passes. I think this topic has something for everyone, because it includes everything from cutting-edge research to complete quackery, so I'm hoping to find a partner or two.
I'm going to be offwiki for a few hours, but if you're interested, please drop by and do what you can. If you don't want to help write, but you've got a list of favorite sources, or know of yet another article that needs to be merged and redirected into this one, please feel free to share your thoughts on the article's talk page. Thanks, WhatamIdoing ( talk) 21:43, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
I have noticed an anon placing a link to this database in a large number of articles. See for example Severe combined immunodeficiency, or any of the list of contributions. While the links are relevant to the pages concerned, they would appear to fail WP:ELNO, particularly the clause which reads:
Shall I warn the user and roll back the links as spam?- gadfium 20:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Are all the Acrocyanosis worth a merger? kilbad ( talk) 16:33, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
There is a discussion at Talk:Asperger syndrome #Asperger photo about the suitability of a non-free image of Asperger with one of his subjects. Any input would be appreciated. Eubulides ( talk) 14:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Can people with some knowledge of the subject take a pass at National Board of Medical Examiners, and possibly also Federation of State Medical Boards. The first one was proposed for deletion. I deprodded it and dropped some references in, it looks like a notable organisation, but I'm out of depth and it could use subject specific experts. As could the latter, which looks to be in a bit of a mess. Cheers, Hiding T 15:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
As has been pointed out at WP:FTN#Repetitive strain injury, this article has been hijacked by some folks with an agenda, and will probably need cooperative efforts to fix. Expert eyes would be useful. Looie496 ( talk) 22:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
I deleted a section of uncited text. His theory is very dubious and he takes the mind body, psychosomatic theory of physical symptoms to the extreme and think it is reaching WP:FRINGE standards or lack of. I think someone is promoting a book, perhaps it is Dr Sarno himself doing the editing to try and sell his book? I commented on the talk page.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
I ran across an article about a doctoe, Rashid M. Rashid, and it looks like a résumé/CV to me. Therefore, I wanted to know what doctors are considered notable? Is this article appropriate for wikipedia? kilbad ( talk) 00:35, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Does Chrysalis count for national award? Does not look like a CV as a check on pubmed revealed a high volume of work. Only some of the more unique appear listed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrysalisowner ( talk • contribs) 02:05, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
This is a great debate. I guess you have to question a few things:
a) what is a primary source. In this case, I do not think a peer-reviewed manuscript is primary as it has to go through a review process both legal and scientific. At least in some of the medical articles (other then letters to the editor that are commentary), these are all that is available on certain rare diseases. Furthermore, it is not like you can pay a journal to publish your work if it does not meet the criteria of significance for the fields journal. It is not pay-to-publish.
b) impact. when dealing with a small field (dermatology) with many rare diseases and even more rare treatment options, it may be more appropriate to determine impact via how recognized publications are in the literature. This is a specialty notorious for rarity, and so many reports are only on case or case-series basis. When managing such patients, it really is about whos articles are most often read/cited. Especially in reviews. So if an article on a rare disease is cited in numerous other articles, no matter how "small" the original article was it obviously was of significance to the other authors in the field. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Primarypp ( talk • contribs) 04:47, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree, it seems like medical journals qualify for (a). As stated "In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. Electronic media may also be used. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable the source is."
It is more an issue of recognition and relevance to the field as stated in (b). One of the few ways to recognize this fact may be citation by others. Of course this will be field dependent. I am board certified in internal medicine AND dermatology. In internal medicine we have larger reviews/studies due to larger disease base in the population and so it is harder to achieve relevance without major changes in observation/managmet. In dermatology, it is very different. In fact, sometimes one or 2 reports, no matter the size, lead to complete alteration of management strategies. The main reason seems to be due to small disease base in the population and the resultant rarity in geographic locals, preventing the standard larger studies seen in other fields. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skinobs ( talk • contribs) 10:54, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Great, it sounds like the notability issue is resolved as it seems the articles are notable, are in good sources. In this case, it seems like wording and format are an issue now. I will try and work on this. If it helps to declare conflicts of interest or familiarity, I am in Dermatology so in the case of this article I did some editing to make sure only the more recognized citations are listed i.e those cited by others. Thanks
Skinobs (
talk)
19:36, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rashid M. Rashid and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew C. Miller. Seems all Texan dermatologists are famous now. JFW | T@lk 20:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
A rather odd comment, wolf. I will say if notable=famous then this article does NOT count. It seems like the only objective and well explained person here is WhatamIdoing and it is much appreciated. The publications are notable, not so sure the doctor is, so WhatamIdoing makes a good point and appears to be one of the few that read the whole article and the comments about it. I think someone more like WhatamIdoing or another Dermatologist should chime in for discussion. It would help. I can find nothing else on this person and will no longer add anything else, if it is to be deleted, so be it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skinobs ( talk • contribs) 22:17, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, and this is the challenge. I was able to verify the publication of the manuscripts, all 30 something are in peer reviewed journals that are notable and verifiable. I deleted ALL but the ones cited by others, and seem to play a larger central role in orphan disease understanding, characterization, and management as emphasized by unrelated authors from other countries and institutions. So it seems that the material IS notable, BUT like you said, it is not clear the author is notable. I have given up searching further, but am following the debate for curiosity. It does make me wonder about silly thins like movie stars. They are notable because of the movie, without the move, their is no star. So is it really the fact that people "talk" about the movie that really matters. This is odd because in such a case it sounds more like a popularity contest then one of contribution to society, literature and such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skinobs ( talk • contribs) 01:55, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
It is pointless to have an article on every doctor who has published 30 or more medical papers if not very many people know them because no one is really going to look them up. Also there are policies regarding living person's. Articles on living person's need to be monitor to avoid slander or defamation occuring. Articles on people who aren't widely known are unlikely to be monitored for vandalism or defamation etc. There are lots of reasons why it is a bad idea to have an article on someone who is not widely known outside of his research papers and place of work, too many reasons to list. Anyway this policy has been shaped over years of debate on wikipedia and is not likely to change much in the near future regarding what constitutes notability. Please remember to click on the
in the editor panel before saving the page on talk pages like this so we know who is leaving messages.--
Literaturegeek |
T@1k?
02:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
This is a good point and I agree. I leave it to the wiki process to determine what happens. I havent given too much time to this so it isnt too bad either way. I guess I was just trying to emphasize articles that lead to insight and other novel concepts. But again, this is a good democratic process and I defer to the system. --
Skinobs (
talk)
02:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
While I have everyones' attention about this issue, (1) there are multiple dermatologist articles that I think lack notability, and so I wanted to know if perhaps someone would review Category:Dermatologists and weed through which are notable and which are not, and (2) I think a general category "dermatologists" is needed, but not necessarily subcats based on nationality... what do you think? Any thoughts? kilbad ( talk) 21:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Goesgolf20 has moved Central obesity to Abdominal Fat. Yes with a capital F. Changed things back and he reverted it again. Think we will need some discussion on this.-- Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 03:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
A user is still intent on keeping Abdominal fat.-- Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 04:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
I am looking at Medical analysis of circumcision and I have some concerns. Maybe it is just me but it seems kind of confusing for the general reader. Most topics read like a medical journal article - citing primary sources and whatnot. I am not sure what Wikipedia's policy is on this, in regards style and eligibility for the general reader though , so could someone with more experience comment on the article?
With regard to infectious, dermatology-related categories, there is the following:
However, while I like the general structure of this categorization, there is some lack of precision in the names. First, "Mycotic skin diseases" contains articles about fungi and yeast. Second, all of these categories may contain conditions not only of the skin, but also the mucous membranes. Finally, there are times when certainly bacteria colonize the skin without causing disease, so I think "condition" should be used over "disease." With all that being said, how would you name all these categories? kilbad ( talk) 19:38, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Hello all. I've allowed myself to be sucked into a rather lengthy exchange with an AIDS denialist at Talk:Zidovudine. Leaving aside the sound and fury, the issue is whether AZT's affinities for various enzymes should be described using the words in vitro. My feeling is that all affinity measurements are performed in vitro, so adding the phrase is redundant and perhaps misleading (in that it implies the affinities do not hold in vivo). Things have sort of degenerated, so I'd welcome any comment, even if it's just to say that I'm making a mountain out of a harmless molehill. MastCell Talk 21:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Wondering if I can entice anyone to join me at the obesity page to do some editing. Currently it is a FAC however still needs some work on prose which is not my strong point. Obesity was the 837th most viewed page on Wikipedia this last month. http://wikistics.falsikon.de/latest/wikipedia/en/ -- Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 12:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Is the term "thrush" a term used strictly for oral candidiasis, or is it a more general term for candidiasis of any mucous membrane (vaginal, etc)? I have a secondary source, Andrew's (see WP:DERM:REF for full ref) that seems to indicate that "thrush" is a term used strictly for oral candidiasis. I ask because I want to know where Thrush (medicine) should redirect? kilbad ( talk) 21:14, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I have noticed that in almost every page, causes for medical conditions are listed without any concern for statistical likelyhood.
Example: "heart failure" and "Nasopharyngeal carcinoma" are listed as causes for epistaxis(nose bleed) on the same level as "foreign bodies" (e.g. nose-picking). I do not agree with this policy. The first two above-mentioned conditions are extremely rare and ARE highly unlikely causes for epistaxis (which is a very common occurrence), when compared to nose-picking or even inflammatory reactions. All this will achieve is to concern people with a nose bleed that they may have cancer or heart failure, which is ridiculous.
Other example: "Vertigo" can be caused (on the same basis, according to wikipedia) by "boat travels", "consumption of alchool", "inflammation of the inner-ear" (a rather common cause) or "opsoclonus myoclonus syndrome"(extremely rare!)
The list goes on and on.
This is very poor, and may bring great damage and anxiety to many people who see Wikipedia as a reliable and accurate source for information. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Umgambit (
talk •
contribs)
01:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your answer Una Smith. But most of the information you mention already exists within Wikipedia. For instance, if you check opsoclonus myoclonus syndrome, you will learn that it affect 1 in every 10.000.000 individuals each year. To put this side-by-side with "inflammation of the inner-ear" as possible cause for vertigo is just plain silly by any standard (even if you don't have the exact reliable numbers). This kind of practices should be banned from wikipedia pages: as I mentionned before, this is not an isolated case, a great number of wiki medical related articles suffer from the same kind of incongruence.
My main concern are the persons without medical training that read this kind of information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Umgambit ( talk • contribs) 03:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Greetings, project participants. I created this stub on Dale Dubin, MD which I believe was wrongly deleted. As medicine enthusiasts, I believe you are best suited to judge its merits. Please take a moment to review it and comment here. Thanks - Draeco ( talk) 15:21, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Abdominal fat has been proposed for deletion however an editor keeps repeatedly removing the deletion tag. Might need the eye of an admin. Thanks-- Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 05:58, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Should the hyposensitization be moved/renamed to allergy immunotherapy or allergen specific immunotherapy? The term hyposensitisation is not a common terminology used hence why I think that it should be renamed. I am posting here because there don't seem to be many active editors on that article.
Also the benzodiazepine article is up for review for good article status if anyone has the time to review it.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the move Steve. I prefer allergen specific to but I agree that allergen immunotherapy is better due to its more common use.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm not an MD or vet, but the text in ornithosis agent is confusing. It probably could be speedy deleted under WP:CSD#A1, but Wikipedia should probably have an article about the topic eventually. This site says Psittacosis is "A rickettsial agent active against humans and livestock (poultry)." That's somewhat similar to the text in ornithosis agent. If a human got pneumonia from an infected bird, I guess you could point to an ornithosis agent as the culprit, but I'm certain that an ornithosis agent is not pneumonia; an ornithosis agent would be the biological agent/pathogen/pathogenic bacteria from the bird that could cause pneumonia. Perhaps Rickettsia is a type of ornithosis agent. The Rickettsia article does say that the bacteria is often grown in chicken embryo cultures. It's possible that an Ornithosis article should be built (I think Psittacosis is a type of ornithosis?), and ornithosis agent redirected there. -- Pixelface ( talk) 03:23, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
This is to let people know that there is only a day or so left on a poll. The poll is an attempt to end years of argument about autoformatting which has also led to a dispute about date linking. Your votes are welcome at: Wikipedia:Date formatting and linking poll. Regards Lightmouse ( talk) 09:36, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Is it really necessary to have four articles for the four quadrants of abdominal. Template:Quadrants It just seems unnecessary, but i dont think they should be in the main ab article. What you guys think about merging the four into one? Trying to keep most the stuff... the four articles are stubs anyway... so not much anyways.... IAmTheCoinMan ( talk) 14:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
I want to make a list of dermatologists who have made significant contributions to the field. What should the list be called, and what should the inclusion criteria be? kilbad ( talk) 16:57, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi all,
an anon noted on my talk page that the image of what I thought was Adamkiewicz's artery, is actually something completely different... upon review I think that might be true, unless anyone else here feels that it is right after all?
cheers, -- Steven Fruitsmaak ( Reply) 20:25, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Should these articles be merged? I have a secondary source stating that they are the same thing. If so, I will defer the move to someone else. kilbad ( talk) 22:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Please take a look here. This is potentially deadly advice. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 05:14, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
This site has a lot of radiological images under a creative commons license. http://radiopaedia.org/ -- Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 21:25, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Should Tinea pedis be the article, or Athlete's foot? The ICD codes bold Tinea pedis. kilbad ( talk) 22:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Honestly, I don't have any strong feelings on this issue; so, whatever the community ultimately decides is fine with me. However, even if people have not heard of "Tinea pedis", a simple redirect from "Athlete's foot" will direct them to it the correct article. Due to redirects, accessibility to this information will not be reduced if the article is titled "Tinea pedis." Additionally, the term "Athlete's foot" does not always mean "Tinea pedis," but "Tinea pedis" may always be referred to as "Athlete's foot;" therefore, it seems the title that appropriately encompasses the scope and contents of the article is "Tinea pedis." kilbad ( talk) 15:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Have brought prostate cancer to FAR as it needs some improvements.-- Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 22:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
The gentleman Michael Gibson who operates wikidocs [10] is interested in combining wikidoc with wikipedia or at least working more closely with wikipedia. I think that this would be a wonderful idea. They are under the same license as wikipedia but have tighter security with respect to vandalism. They are also written more for a medical audience. Not sure if it would be best to attach it as a sister project or combine much of the information into wikipedia ( as that is were much of the information comes from in the first place ). I have brought the disucssion to the Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) Anyone have any thoughts?-- Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 15:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Wikidoc was introduced with much fanfare and without any consultation with this WikiProject. The vast majority of its editorial board are cardiologists, leading to a likely imbalance in the quality and quantity of the content. It still strikes me as odd that none of these eminent people seem to have made an attempt to participate here, which would have been so very beneficial. JFW | T@lk 09:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I just saw some great slides in lecture today showing comparisons of different types of beta blockers and ACE Is. It was interesting to see which are proven to help in Heart Failure and which are not... which are proven to help in diabetic nephropathy and which are not... can we use the guidelines and make a chart like this? I think it would be EXTREMELY useful for the community. Does anyone else know what I'm talking about? 99.22.220.61 ( talk) 05:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
This stuff deserves it's own page: http://content.onlinejacc.org/cgi/content/full/53/15/e1/TBL3
taken from http://content.onlinejacc.org/cgi/content/full/j.jacc.2008.11.013#SEC8 do not doubt so much 99.22.220.61 ( talk) 23:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I have been thinking about developing (through consensus) a small dermatology-related manual of style to address a few issues pertaining to dermatology articles. If available, perhaps you could review my thread at MOS and comment there? --- kilbad ( talk) 21:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
I have added a MOS:DERM page, and and will continue to develop it over the next few months. However, I wanted to post it here now so others might follow along and add to the project as desired. Any feedback is greatly appreciated. --- kilbad ( talk) 16:54, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
The Fibro page seems out of date and substandard: there are now two FDA approved drugs to treat Fibromyalgia, yet the article highlights controversy. Even web MD had more information on the condition. I was recently diagnosed and looking for information so naturally I think it's a "real disease." maryann ( talk) 01:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
(undent) Regardless, the article should be clear that while the nature of the disorder is unclear, it is obvious that it does exist. The FDA approving medications doesn't necessarily take a side in the disorder being psychological or physiological, the same way MCS sufferers being classified as disabled doesn't necessarily mean that MCS is an organic disease: in both cases it is recognized as a problem, and no conclusion is necessarily drawn about cause. SDY ( talk) 02:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I am of the opinion that fibromyalgia in most cases is caused by a functional disturbance in the peripheral nerves which generates pain or else a functional disturbance in the pain centers in the brain. As you can't take a blood test or a byopsy to prove or even just to diagnose fibromyalgia it will always be controversial as to the cause. I also am of the opinion that there are likely multiple causes of fibromyalgia, be it genetic/biological (happening naturally without a trigger), exposure to industrial chemicals/toxins or certain prescription drugs or alcohol misuse which triggers some sort of a desruption of function or sensitivity of the nerves. I imagine that there are also people who have undiagnosed peripheral neuropathy who get misdiagnosed with fibromyalgia due to lack of investigation of the cause of the pain. However, this is just a personal opinion and it could be completely wrong. The main thing is, an encylopedia such as wikipedia works on reliable sources so the best way to resolve a dispute is via citing reliable sources rather than debating personal viewpoints.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 17:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Join in the fun at Talk:Acne_scarring#Proposed_merger Casliber ( talk · contribs) 03:34, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
First, when it comes to articles pertaining to medical terminology or signs, like those found in Category:Dermatologic terminology or Category:Dermatologic signs, which should be included in Wikipedia, and which in Wiktionary? Second, of the articles regarding medical terminology or signs that should be in Wikipedia, what should the article consist of? What should the sections be? -- kilbad ( talk) 15:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Please help. We need comments on a RfC at the IC/PBS talk page regarding the use of acupuncture and interstitial cystitis. Debate is acrimonious. ► RATEL ◄ 23:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Silent heart attack, which phrase has been in the media a lot recently, is a redlink; should it be a redirect or should there by a specific article on asymptomatic MIs? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 17:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
There is a breaking story in the international media re the suspicious deaths of 24 world-class sport horses: 21 polo ponies in Florida and 3 endurance race horses in Uruguay. Contamination of a French-made injectable vitamin, BIODYL, is suspected. I created BIODYL as a stub, but as much of the relevant information about this is not in English, I would appreciate some help expanding it. -- Una Smith ( talk) 18:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
While I'm waiting on the conclusion of a GA review, I was wondering if anyone could drop by and scan the article for any major flaws or gaps in information. I'm looking to eventually take it FA, and an informal review would be immensely appreciated. Strombollii ( talk) 03:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Much as it pains me to admit it, and much as the words must be associated with chagrin from WP:MED, inspired by a House episode (pause for cringing), I've created the page for Doege-Potter syndrome. I tracked down 6 useful abstracts from pubmed but they are mostly case studies and I'm culling from just the abstracts. It needs better categories, some sort of navbox at the bottom, probably a better picture in the infobox, considerably more information, and almost certainly the infobox could use some filling out. I couldn't find anything on ICD, eMedicine or the other standard info sources (very possible I'm looking in the wrong spot or with the wrong words). As ever, the wit, wisdom and work of WP:MED woudl be most appreciated. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 14:05, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
This article seems to be very POV/biased against the idea that VMO muscle is involved for correct patella tracking and extension of the leg. There are no citations given for this claim, which seems to be against common orthopaedic knowledge. The citations given are valid but do not prove the editor's point.
I am not a doctor, but I am a scientist, and looking in the literature I can find nothing about the "VMO myth" that the main author of this page assumes is false. My knee pain was just diagnosed as caused by a weak VMO, so imagine my surprise when I come to wikipedia to see it contradict my doctor (and most other literature I can find). The only other similar claim I can find is a website which may or may not be written by the editor-in-question. It also has no citations. I hope someone more knowledgeable than I about the VM/VMO can look at this article. I mentioned it on the talk page but it doesn't seem to see much attention so I thought I'd mention it here. Thanks. Hwinnian ( talk) 21:49, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Pro-ana is being peer reviewed. Interesting article to establish NPOV on. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 11:28, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Hola all, I've another question (posted here for the combination of relevant expertise and more likely to get a review than WT:MEDMOS). I moved U.S. Food and Drug Administration to Food and Drug Administration (United States) today, but as I'm sorting out the redirects I'm having some buyer's remorse over the title and before I correct another 50 redirects I'd like some outside input. Obviously the "U.S." part struck me as inappropriate, but there do not appear to be competing agencies that warrant the "(United States)" disambiguation phrase. I'm from Canada, we get too much US influence to really be unbiased about whether the simple use of "Food and Drug Administration" would be adequate, or if "United States Food and Drug Administration" is the best choice. The actual website has "U.S. Food and Drug Administration" at the top, the Health and Human Services website that is the oversight body to the agency uses just Food and Drug Administration [11], and there do not seem to be a DAB page for agencies called "Food and Drug Administration" (closest is FDA (disambiguation)). I may be requesting an undo of my previous move, but irrespective I stand by my decision to change it to something other than this morning's "U.S. Food and Drug Administration." Thoughts please? This needs not just medical knowledge, but also some interpretation of WP:NAME and how the FDA is perceived and known outside of North America. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 18:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
I prefer simply Food and Drug Administration, since we both have Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and National Institutes of Health. In Belgium it's very commonplace to say "The FDA approved ..." . -- Steven Fruitsmaak ( Reply) 21:10, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Just for the record, Congress, the FD&C Act, the regulations, the 2009 federal budget, and all of the FDA forms omit the "U.S." so I think it's pretty clear that the official name doesn't include the leading letters. SDY ( talk) 01:01, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
A agree with Steven Fruitsmaak about the shorter name. It is what editors will naturally link to and what readers of all countries will naturally search for. The Thailand issue is a complete red herring and should someone ever create such a page, it can be handled per minority naming rules without a clumsy DAB page getting in the way. Colin° Talk 09:17, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
PMID 10548069 We do not seem to have a page. If that is indeed the case and there isn't one under some obscure name, I'd like to start one; but need help with the template boxes and medical reference material. Is this the place to ask if anyone would be interested? 76.97.245.5 ( talk) 00:44, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
I'd be grateful if anybody would be willing to give a third opinon to help resolve a difference we're having at Decompression sickness, please? The difference is whether several sections should be in the "Causes" section or not, i.e. between this diff and this diff. There's a discussion at Talk:Decompression sickness#MOSMED and request for collaboration that would give the background. Thanks in advance for any contributions. -- RexxS ( talk) 03:26, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Dear everyone,
with the help of User:TimVickers, User:Jfdwolff and User:Samir, we have just published (online release) an article about Wikipedia in the leading journal in medical informatics (impact factor roughly 3):
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)Many of you have probably wondered exactly how often you get a result from Wikipedia when you look for medical info on Google. The answer is: 71-85%, depending on the keywords and search engines used.
We outranked MedlinePlus and NHS Direct Online, except for the latter on Google UK. Wikipedia also ranked higher than commercial sources like Mayo Clinic, About.com and Medscape.
I'd be happy to hear some of your comments. E-mail me through the wiki for requests for reprints.
-- Steven Fruitsmaak ( Reply) 10:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Check this out as well - Docs look to Wikipedia for condition info: Manhattan Research ("Nearly 50% of US physicians going online for professional purposes are visiting Wikipedia for health and medical information, especially condition information, according to a Manhattan Research study."). Remember ( talk) 13:47, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Its a pity I do not have access to the article from my university. Could anybody send it to me by email?-- Garrondo ( talk) 07:17, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Could someone confirm:
"2.low urine sodium < 10 ( because kidney saves sodium and water,hence low urine sodium and increase urine osmolarity)" azotemia
I thought that in a case like CAH due to 21 alphaOHase deficiency there was a salt wasting dehydration that led to prerenal azotemia. Would this result not result in excess natriuresis? Ibrmrn ( talk) 20:12, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Article on Panayiotis Zavos (recently in press in relation to claims of human cloning) is in pretty bad shape. Very light on cites, and references various medical and scientific organizations which are currently redlinks (i.e., either they are named wrongly in the article, or we need to create articles on them, or we need to redirect these links to our existing articles on them.) -- 201.37.230.43 ( talk) 22:33, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
This doesn't look real... especially the "Doctors who think this dude is awesome" section. Are there really no detractors on the other side?
I don't know this guy from Adam, but could somebody with insight take a look? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Philip Taron ( talk • contribs) 23:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
whoa, my patient is growing this in the blood. Lets make an article on it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.40.12.37 ( talk) 23:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Should the actual article be called Cat scratch fever, Cat-scratch disease, or Cat scratch disease? The ICD code has Cat scratch disease. --- kilbad ( talk) 02:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi
I just posted this point on the discussion page of the ARDS article but as it's a bit broader than that I've popped it in here too.
For those of us not in the US it'd be really useful if things like PaO2 and PaCO2 were expressed in kPa as well as mmHg. Would it be reasonable for those of us who think in kPa go around adding them on relevant medical pages?
Cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brothersoulshine ( talk • contribs) 14:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi there, things are getting a bit busy at influenza, swine flu, influenza pandemic and 2009 swine flu outbreak. Could some of you watchlist these? Thanks Tim Vickers ( talk) 01:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Neither swine influenza nor 2009 swine flu outbreak mentions antigenic shift... I've only found this source, can we get this into the articles? -- Steven Fruitsmaak ( Reply) 20:47, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
I have added a number of free, full text review articles to the "Further reading" section of the Influenza treatment article, from which people can add additional information to Wikipedia. Perhaps someone else could apply MoS guidelines to the article to improve its overall structure? What exactly should the article structure/sections look like? --- kilbad ( talk) 22:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Swine Flu map NZ.PNG has been nominated for speedy deletion. 76.66.202.139 ( talk) 05:11, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi. The image that has been incorporated in ear and eardrum is, according to a letter sent to OTRS ( Ticket:2009042710075597), wrong. It presents the bones as incus, malleus & stapes rather than malleus, incus & stapes. (See File:Anatomy_of_the_Human_Ear.svg) I'm by no means a doctor, but the National Library of Medicine seems to agree as does the Department for Work and Pensions, here. I am removing the image from both articles. If our letter writer, and these governmental sources, should prove to be wrong and this cc-by source from which the image is taken right, please feel free to restore. I haven't found a single source that would suggest our letter writer to be wrong. But if he is, Ossicles needs to be corrected as well and that image, which lists them in the other order, removed. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
![]() | The current
Medicine Collaboration of the Week is
Swine flu. Last week's collaboration was Huntington's disease. |
JFW | T@lk 16:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)