![]() | 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 130 | Archive 131 | Archive 132 | Archive 133 | Archive 134 | Archive 135 | → | Archive 140 |
Amazing study, I recommend everyone here read it
The literature positions Wikipedia as a prominent health information resource in various contexts for the public, patients, students, and practitioners seeking health information online. Wikipedia’s health content is accessed frequently, and its pages regularly rank highly in Google search results. While Wikipedia itself is well into its second decade, the academic discourse around Wikipedia within the context of health is still young and the academic literature is limited when attempts are made to understand Wikipedia as a health information resource. Possibilities for future research will be discussed.
Wikimedia Foundation grant service paid the open access fee of about US$1500 so it has a CC-By-4.0 license.
Thanks Mcbrarian of McMaster University for doing and publishing this powerful research paper. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:27, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
General assessments of quality. General assessments of the quality of Wikipedia’s health information, those that do not take into consideration the impact of its quality on a specific population, comprise approximately 18% (n = 16) of the articles included in this review (S3 Appendix, Table 5). Despite claims that English Wikipedia’s health content is written in plain, accessible language, assessments of its quality, regardless of context, share a common finding: while Wikipedia does well to remain current [26,41,44], its medical content uses technical terms that result in readability levels too low to accommodate the very people it stands to benefit most. The readability of the easiest articles has been reported to be around ninth grade [25,30,40]. Some studies find that Wikipedia’s medical content requires at least a college reading level or is considered highly difficult [34,43]. Other studies simply report Wikipedia’s readability as higher than that of other health information sources such as WebMD, MedlinePlus, or MayoClinic [44,64].
Johnbod ( talk) 19:15, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
I am surprised no one has spotted or mentioned the serious howlers in this paper (particularly considering we wouldn't accept such howlers in our medical content). SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:34, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
I've just submitted a project grant that will fund our library's efforts to get faculty and researchers on board with contributing their expertise to Wikipedia's medical content. If you're thinking what I'm thinking, which is, health professionals, particularly academic ones, don't have incentive. Well, DORA, which was recently signed by a major health research funder (CIHR), could change that, and I'll be teaching our faculty all about it. Mcbrarian ( talk) 21:34, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
A new article recently published on Wikipedia medical content:
Barring the odd grammar of the title, the article has some useful bulk analysis on change in total size, references and number of medical terms in en.wp. Sadly, there isn't much granular breakdown of different sections, trends or linking with the wider literature. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo) talk 03:06, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Video games came up twice recently in medicine so I wanted to share the situations here
We have a discussion live now (please comment) on including drug prices. The video game community has similar discussed including video game console prices. I invited that WikiProject to the drug price RfC.
Various sources are reporting that coronavirus affects video game sales. Previously journalists reported in many ways that a 2011 earthquake greatly affected video game culture.
Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:25, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Hi-- I have a conflict of interest so I cannot edit the US Cochrane Center article however the information it contains is largely inaccurate now. Just wondering if someone wants to update it who is not conflicted like I am. Essentially the US Cochrane Center in Baltimore has closed and been replaced by a A US Cochrane network of 12 (and growing) US Cochrane affiliate sites scattered across the nation. See https://www.hcinnovationgroup.com/clinical-it/evidence-based-care/news/21084692/cochrane-launches-network-of-us-institutions-to-promote-evidencebased-healthcare Rdellavalle ( talk • contribs) 16:59, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Annual Reviews, an independent, nonprofit scholarly research publisher, seeks an enthusiastic Wikipedian-in-Residence (WIR).
The aim of this role is to improve Wikipedia’s coverage of the sciences by citing expert articles from Annual Reviews’ journals. The WIR will engage with Wikipedia editors across life, biomedical, physical, and social science articles and WikiProjects to help ensure responsible and valuable expansion of content.
This is a temporary position for 10 hours/week, paid at $30/hour USD, and is anticipated to last for up to 1 year. This position can only be based remotely from the following states: CA, OR, OH, NV, NC, WA, WI, CO, MA, PA, NY, HI, or MT.
PLEASE APPLY! https://annualreviewsnews.org/2020/02/25/seeking-a-wikipedian-in-residence/
Cheers, Jake Ocaasi t | c 18:10, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
To avoid an edit war, a consensus is being sought at Talk:Rhinoplasty as to whether an article section entitled 'Ultrasonic_rhinoplasty' should be retained or deleted. I am out of my depth, medically, and the few commenters there are mostly new accounts who have edited nowhere else. Experienced "eyes on" would be most welcome. See discussion here. Many thanks, Nick Moyes ( talk) 23:13, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
Could somebody check and improve generaly this draft article "Anaplastic oligodendroglioma"? Wname1 ( talk) 20:27, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
It could be good when a seconde User check and improve generaly this draft article "Draft:Anaplastic oligodendroglioma" like User:Ozzie10aaaa. Wname1 ( talk) 18:37, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
I have become aware of efforts to drive Wikipedia internet traffic towards the website Semantic Scholar via Citation bot, and I would like to raise the issue to make sure this topic receives more scrutiny and consideration. I have recently noticed multiple Semantic Scholar links in deep vein thrombosis, which I am rewriting and updating. I have just gone through and removed all Semantic Scholar links that either A. link free PDF versions while the publisher's website does not offer free access (examples: [1] [links to pdf at "View PDF"], [2] [links to pdf under "Alternate Sources"], [3] [links to pdf at "View PDF"]) or B. simply (or mostly) just replicate metadata found at the doi or PubMed. One example of this is here, which happened to also display Table 1 and Table 2 of the article. Per Trappist the monk, "There was a recent discussion at User talk:Citation bot/Archive 19 § Semantic scholar 2 that spawned a current discussion at Help talk:Citation Style 1 § Request to add Semantic Scholar IDs to the citation template..." [4] My main concern and the potential harm I see in using this website relates to how PMC identifiers operate and because of this how we and our readership are conditioned to expect Wikipedia to operate. With a PMC id, the title of a journal article becomes a url link that takes one to a free version of the article without any copyright concerns. However, the preponderance of url links in the deep vein thrombosis article did neither of these desirable things. Biosthmors ( talk) 17:56, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
Opinions are needed on the following: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles#Proposed change to title guideline. A permalink for it is here. It stems from this discussion at Talk:Sex reassignment surgery, where Google search results were used in a problematic way. As for the WP:OR part, while WP:OR doesn't apply to talk pages, it's still obviously the case that the OR on talk pages should not be applied to articles or used to otherwise affect articles. So given this and the fact that the Sex reassignment surgery article was almost moved per flawed Google search results, is it best to remove "rather than conduct original research" from the title aspect of MOS:MED? If the footnote needs amending, we can obviously amend that.
Pinging RexxS since, in the aforementioned move discussion, RexxS extensively debated the editor who proposed to move the article. Flyer22 Frozen ( talk) 00:25, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
This is Chrome browser extension for finding reports from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine that are relevant to a particular Wikipedia article. It’s technically In Beta, but still very useful: https://cart.nap.edu/cart/naprelated/ . Can anyone suggest a more permanent place to put this link? Clayoquot ( talk | contribs) 18:11, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
I am writing WikiProject Medicine to ask participants here to support Wikimedia community proposals for project teams to receive grants from the Wikimedia Foundation. I am listing here the proposals that I identify as contributing to the development of medical content in Wikimedia projects.
To review the background, about twice a year the Wikimedia Foundation issues a call for proposals to award grants. All the grants are at meta:Grants:Start, and the below proposals are in a subclass described at meta:Grants:Project. Proposals happen in public with wiki-style community discussion. For a project to get funded it should have Wikipedia community support. Since these are medical projects, support from WikiProject Medicine is especially helpful. See all the projects in meta:Category:Project/Proposals/Proposed.
Thanks, if I missed any projects useful to medicine then add them. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:41, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
An editor, claiming to be a published author on the subject, has twice replaced most of the content of Menstrual psychosis with their own take on the condition. I'm sorry to discourage possible experts once again, but I have serious concerns about this editor's contributions, which read more like a lecture presentation for an advocacy group than an encyclopedia article. I've restored the prior content and outlined my concerns at Talk:Menstrual psychosis, but I suspect that we are going to need more eyes on the issue. Cheers -- RexxS ( talk) 15:31, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Same issues with the same editor at Psychiatric disorders of childbirth, discussion at Talk:Psychiatric disorders of childbirth. Their sources are self-published. -- RexxS ( talk) 16:56, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
How long has Procarbazine, Lomustine (CCNU) and Vincristine been used on brain Tumors (in years)? Wname1 ( talk) 10:41, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks! Wname1 ( talk) 20:22, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
I have nominated Chagas disease for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:46, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
173,490 pageviews in February, daily average this month of 10,000+ views, 1800+ Watchers... Article will need a major re-write to keep its WP:FA status, references are outdated (+ some refs have gone dead), prose needs serious attention, etc.. Before this FAR the previous FAR was over 13 years ago, see 2007. Present FAR is at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Asperger syndrome/archive4. Shearonink ( talk) 19:51, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, but I do not know where else to ask: Does anyone still produce Chlorpropamide?
It is needed for a Nephrogenic diabetes insipidus case, for which no other effective medicine is known.
Any producer/seller name, anywhere in the world, would be immensely appreciated. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.177.96.37 ( talk) 11:44, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
chlorpropamide
https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cder/ob/index.cfm you will get a list of the dozen manufacturers approved to market this drug in the US. I don't know what the equivalent resource is in your country.
WhatamIdoing (
talk)
06:18, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Hi Wikipedians, for my undergrad Technical and Professional editing course we are working on editing two Wikipedia articles that could use some help. I'm working on Basic life support and 2009 flu pandemic in Australia , which both have some pretty big issues. We're encouraged to seek help from experienced Wiki editors so if anyone has any tips or would like to collab on transforming these pages, let me know! Astrokassie ( talk) 16:47, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Some may remember a collaboration I was involved in with the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group, where tables were added to a number of articles summarising evidence of treatment effectiveness. The study (RCT) has now been published with a CC-BY 4.0 licence in BMJ Open: https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/10/2/e033655.long
Only one outcome was significant, but the exercise was worthwhile and hopefully will lead to more collaborations between WMMED and academic groups. -- RexxS ( talk) 12:49, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
I started an RfC concerning pointing to the template namespace in the COVID 19 navbox. See Template talk:COVID-19#RfC on linking to template namespace. Bait30 Talk? 05:16, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
I wanted to look up our article on the 1957 flu pandemic to check my old memories of its impact and spread, but could find only short mentions at Influenza pandemic#Asian Flu (1957–1958) and Influenza A virus subtype H2N2#Asian flu. The information there is outdated - the CDC estimates the number of US deaths at 116,000 [1] and a review paper estimates that 25% of the US population became infected. [2] I did find the information I was looking for at the CDC (page 14 of the pdf has a nice set of maps showing the spread), but it would be nice if someone who had access to the medical literature would write an article on the subject. StarryGrandma ( talk) 01:27, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
References
On WikiProject Medicine's front page at Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine we present a report from user:HotArticlesBot.
Imagine that a non-Wikipedia editor were looking at this graph. Could I ask that anyone here volunteer to comment and interpret this for a general audience? I intend to bring this to The Signpost and I would like to showcase comments about this from WikiProject Medicine. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:46, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi everyone. I'm working on the Basic life support page and I'm confused about the difference between the European Resuscitation Council and the Resuscitation Council (UK). Are they different certifying bodies? Google isn't really helping me find the answer. Astrokassie ( talk) 18:04, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Tourette syndrome is Wikipedia:Today's featured article on the Main Page. Congratulations to User:SandyGeorgia, User:Colin, User:Outriggr, User:Ceoil, User:SUM1, User:Markworthen, User:Casliber, User:Adrian J. Hunter, and the others who have spent the last two months polishing up the article. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 20:44, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
When I wrote Georges Gilles de la Tourette back in 2006, whonamedit.com seemed like a decent source. In updating content before and during the Tourette syndrome TFA, I found enough problems with whonamedit.com that I am concerned about how widely it is used in medical content, and what we can do about it.
The entry on Georges not only has basic typos, but it says he died on 26 May, when he actually died on 22 May (with published obituaries on 24 May), and then to add insult to injury, later the same article states that he died in June. It says he was shot in the head, when he was shot in the neck. The misinformation I added to Georges' bio more than ten years ago, from this source, has now spread across other language Wikipedias.
For further evidence of how bad this site is, have a look at the entry on Tourette syndrome. (While I frequently nitpick misinformation about TS, that is pretty much the worst I have ever seen.)
While it may be appropriate to use this site strictly as a source of eponymous names, it is not possible to tell how many of the thousand articles listed above use it for more than that, and it is not a reliable source for medical information. Factchecking is abysmal; it has demonstrably wrong information. It appears to be a one-person hobby site.
Can Headbomb add it to his script, and is anyone up for checking through articles above to see how often this source is misused? I think anything beyond "this condition was named after that person" is suspect. Is it possible for some tech-knowledgeable person to find a way to target and label every use of the two whonamedit templates so that they will be flagged in every article? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:43, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
Would an admin please see Cyprinid herpesvirus 4? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 17:31, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
I'm new to Wikipedia, and I'm here to improve the quality of health-related information on Wikipedia. I would be contributing to the Cochrane-Wikipedia project Dellyjacobs ( talk) 09:53, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
It appears there is a lot to learn. Honestly, navigating through the pages is quite difficult for me. It took me some time to even know how to navigate to this page to respond to your reply. I really hope I can do this. I am still going through the videos and articles that provides instructions for new editors Dellyjacobs ( talk) 09:59, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Battered woman syndrome ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Battered person syndrome ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
There are WP:Content fork concerns regarding these articles. In 2017, SlimVirgin redirected the Battered person syndrome article to Battered woman syndrome. In 2019, a new account restored it with additions. Flyer22 Frozen ( talk) 01:26, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
"the literature shows that "battered woman syndrome" and "battered person syndrome" are not distinguished", then either title should be as good for the medical condition. Anyone searching for "battered woman syndrome" as a medical condition is just one click away from the current article on the medical condition.
"The Battered woman syndrome article should cover both legal and medical aspects"and I disagree strongly. They are very distinct topics and there is absolutely no reason to try to merge an obviously legal topic with an obviously medical topic. Have you actually read the article about the legal defence, Battered woman syndrome? It is 1510 words, readable prose size, with 23 references (compare that to the medical article, which is 753 words with 15 references - half the size). Ninety-nine percent of the legal article does not belong in a medical article. It would be totally UNDUE. Your sources, PMID 12349358, PMID 8668013, PMID 10696359, and PMID 17189503 discuss both the medical issues and legal issues, and make a point of distinguishing between them, so is suitable for use in both articles. But just because two different articles may have some sources in common, it doesn't mean we should merge them. Do you believe that all 23 sources used in the legal article should be in your proposed merged article?
"I don't agree that the Battered person syndrome article is a medical topic. You spent considerable time explaining how it's tagged for WP:Psych and medical sources. Why have you changed your mind now? Anybody reading the article can see it's a medical topic.
"We should go with the common name". No we shouldn't. WP:NCMED requires that The article title should be the scientific or recognised medical name. ICD9 recognises "battered person syndrome".
"The literature simply does not show that. I don't need to read the poor Wikipedia article about the legal defense."A shameful admission. The article on the legal defence dwarfs the medical article in both size and referencing. It is an entirely different topic, and you've now made clear your disdain for the efforts of other editors on that important subject.
*your both taking up space here, this discussion should be at talk/article,thank you--
Ozzie10aaaa (
talk) 02:11, 9 March 2020 (UTC)...I give up--
Ozzie10aaaa (
talk)
03:04, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
____
References
Hello medical experts! I toned down and expanded this article about an endocrinologist, and added some newspaper references. Since I'm not familiar with this topic, can someone with medical knowledge please check it out to make sure I haven't introduced any incorrect information? Thanks.— Anne Delong ( talk) 19:15, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
I've had a look at the death-grip syndrome article, and I'm quite concerned at the state of the it. For an article about a "syndrome", there is a remarkable lack of WP:MEDRS; at least one of the cites does not appear to support the statement it is attached to, there are a bunch of hard-to-check cites from books, and in general the whole article has a feeling of WP:SYNTHESIS. I think at the very least, it needs a thorough inspection by medically knowledgable editors, if not a rewrite. -- The Anome ( talk) 23:13, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
I recently blanked and redirected Medical use of MDMA and now I see it's part of a student effort on various, mostly medical, topics. [11] I see Cannabidiol as a treatment for anxiety has recently appeared as a result of this too. I'm not sure how this is meant to work but aren't student editors made aware of WP:MEDRS when then embark on medical topics? Anyway, more eyes probably needed ... Alexbrn ( talk) 15:23, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Some of the same instructors' earlier courses may need to be checked and referred to WP:ENB if there are problems:
SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:22, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Given the unfortunate but real possibility that some of our medical editors might be getting very busy dealing with the coronavirus in real life, does anyone want to suggest regular wiki tasks that they're currently doing, but might need others to take over if crisis hits? Clayoquot ( talk | contribs) 19:22, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
I've created a draft article at Draft:Tropical ataxic neuropathy. The sources cited are not brilliant, though I may well have missed some good sources. There's a BMJ review — from 1968. There's some 21st-century reviews; while Pubmed categorizes them as reviews, and they do review past work extensively, they also present their own new data. And finally, different studies contradict one another. There just does not seem to be much known about TAN(s), whatever it is (or they are). Who said that science was the practice of carefully documenting your ignorance?
This is clearly a topic that should be covered in Wikipedia, but I have refrained from mainspacing it, and I'd be reassured by reviews. I would also be very happy if people more knowledgeable than me would make any improvements they think good. HLHJ ( talk) 00:02, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
Posting this here because it's been a month with no third-party replies on a merger discussion of Late onset congenital adrenal hyperplasia to Congenital adrenal hyperplasia.
· • SUM1 • · ( talk) 18:24, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
This article is... well, read it for yourself.
But I've yet to see an article so-deeply based on primary sources of a complete quack/nutjob/predatory nature. There's at least 4 predatory journals, plus classics like NeuroQuantology, Entropy (journal), and Journal of Consciousness Exploration & Research. There's certainly some WP:ABOUTSELF stuff, but the extent of it is mind-bogling, with very little balance to make it clear those ideas are completely without support in the scientific community. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 19:20, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
There is a long list of articles in the Wikipedia:Good article nominations process. Some of these have existing reviewers and could use a nudge or a helping hand; others need a reviewer. If you are interested in starting a review but are holding back because you think you'll do it wrong, then please WP:Be bold. Step #1 is well within your ability: just read the article. You don't even need to click the "start review" button until you've done that. Several of us here have done GA reviews before and can walk you through the whole thing. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 02:52, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
There is a number of commonly used medications that might in theory affect infection risk or the risk of severe disease.. I tried to find data regarding baseline medication (unrelated to COVID-19 treatment efforts) but could not find anything. Did anyone have more luck? Richiez ( talk) 20:16, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Alcoholics Anonymous is in the news [13] [14] because Cochrane decided there is evidence that it helps (some) people (with alcohol but not drug problems). I'd expect to see some editing at those articles.
Also, it's been declared cost-effective because it's "free", but it is only free if you ignore the enormous amount of volunteer labor involved. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 02:26, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
Discussion on going regarding giving the pandemic more prominence on the main page. In my opinion a good idea. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 15:04, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
In 1812 there seems to have been a significant plague outbreak in the Ottoman Empire, which seems to have begun in Constantinople and traveled to other parts of the empire including Egypt, and later also spread outside of the empire's borders.
It seems to have had a massive impact, but it is barely covered on Wikipedia. There's an article about Caragea's plague which hit Wallachia (then an Ottoman vassal) in 1813–14, and I am currently in the process of writing an article on the 1813–14 Malta plague epidemic. Both seem to have derived from the 1812 Constantinople outbreak (it arrived in Malta via Egypt).
I think it would be useful if there would be an article covering the entire outbreak - would any members of this WikiProject be willing to help out? A source about the outbreak in Odessa can be found here.
I am also making this request on other WikiProjects including WP History, WP Turkey and WP Egypt.
Xwejnusgozo ( talk) 15:24, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Are Emerging infectious diseases, "high consequence infectious diseases" and "high consequence infectious pathogens" synonymous? Thinking of link to "high consequence infectious diseases". Whispyhistory ( talk) 08:44, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#Medical_(best)_practices_of_countries_during_the_COVID-19_outbreak. 2607:FEA8:1DDF:FEE1:5DD6:AF90:39E8:BC8E ( talk) 22:18, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Social distancing has received an explosion of views recently ( check out this hockey stick curve), and I expect it will receive even more now that it is wikilinked from the intros to COVID-19 and 2019-20 coronavirus pandemic. It's still a C-class article, though, and there's a lot of low-hanging fruit in terms of areas for improvement. Please come help get it to a higher level of quality! Sdkb ( talk) 05:44, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I am writing to invite anyone to review edits from Touro College's physical therapy program. Here is the list of their edits in the meta:Programs and Events Dashboard.
The ongoing log of their events is at WP:Touro. This school has been a great sport for Wikipedia editing now in their 4th year. Also, they are doing physical therapy content, which otherwise is an unrepresented perspective in Wikipedia's medical articles. I just did a workshop with them today, virtually of course because of COVID-19. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:43, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
I've created WikiProject COVID-19 as a temporary or permanent WikiProject and invite editors to use this space for discussing ways to improve coverage of the ongoing 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic. Please bring your ideas to the project/talk page. Stay safe, --- Another Believer ( Talk) 16:44, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
And.... {{ WikiProject COVID-19}} has been created. Sigh. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 20:04, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Quick note: If you're interested in this subject, then you might want to look at the country-by-country articles. Readers want information about their own area, especially at the very start of an outbreak (when fewer other sources are available). WhatamIdoing ( talk) 19:50, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
A suggestion: would it be possible to have a Corona-related WP:MED article as
WP:TFA very soon? A possible candidate is
Virus
(found in
this list). It was TFA in 2009. Of course, having such a TFA would make extreme relevance. Hurdles to take: 1. Argue for a second TFA listing of this article (which is not prohibited a priory anyway);
talk here. 2. Propose to jump que into March 2020, or at least April. 3. Check & improve for possible quality degrading. -
DePiep (
talk)
14:32, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Additional argument: I have been gathering data on March 2020 TFAs, and apparently our readers appreciate medical topics. But, since TFA already ran a medical topic in March, it might be early to request another one. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:03, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Mainpage pageviews (TFA plus three days) |
Article | Mainpage dates |
---|---|---|
55,704 | König-class battleship | March 1 to 4 |
68,846 | Palmyra | March 2 to 5 |
90,959 | Tourette syndrome | March 3 to 6 |
57,555 | A Wizard of Earthsea | March 4 to 7 |
45,201 | J. R. Kealoha | March 5 to 8 |
47,322 | Water pipit | March 6 to 9 |
32,072 | Interstate 675 (Michigan) | March 7 to 10 |
38,504 | Inter-Allied Women's Conference | March 8 to 11 |
47,543 | Hurricane Hattie | March 9 to 12 |
144,729 | Bombing of Tokyo (10 March 1945) | March 10 to 13 |
64,029 | Coffin Stone | March 11 to 14 |
Thanx to all for your contributions. I note:
So my suggestion might be worth proposing it appropriately. - DePiep ( talk) 22:54, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Graham, is there anything the rest of us can be doing to help on the virus suite? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 23:44, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
See discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article#Proposal to re-run virus-related TFAs during Coronavirus pandemic SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:31, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
To look over Introduction to viruses, to be proposed for WP:TFA. Graham Beards has updated to include mention of coronavirus. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 06:28, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Thank you to DePiep for advancing the idea, Graham Beards for updating the article, Wehwalt for changing out the already scheduled TFA, and a big shout-out to Ergo Sum for agreeing to give up the birthday of Samuel Mulledy so Introduction to viruses could be scheduled instead. Please give the article a good read before 27 March, and add it to your watchlist for anticipated edits on mainpage day. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:00, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
This article is in the process of being nominated for FA. However, there are many of Style (MOS)] issues that need to be rectified. Any help is very much appreciated. Thank you! Cerevisae ( talk) 12:41, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Talk:2019–20_coronavirus_pandemic#How_can_we_get_this_talk_page_under_control?.
Sdkb (
talk)
04:47, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Hello, WP Medicine,
Over the past few days, I have put most of the coronavirus-related pages on my Watchlist and I find many of them are being edited throughout the day, usually changing totals of people diagnosed with no accompanying change in sources. I have spot-checked a few but if we could get a few more eyes on them, actually any of the pages in Category:2019–20 coronavirus outbreak, that would be helpful. I think inflating the number of those afflicted with this virus is not helpful for readers who might be consulting these articles, looking for information about this health crisis. Thanks! Liz Read! Talk! 00:39, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
93
9<!-- PLEASE do not change this number without updating the reference. BNO is not a reliable source. -->3
.Hi as a matter of urgency we need to populate the wiki medicine related to COVID 19 so it’s the goto page for reliable info.There is so much misinformation . This will save lives . SabziK ( talk) 14:47, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
I noticed Red light therapy because it appeared in the robot report for new physics-related articles. It looks like it could use better sourcing, at the very least. XOR'easter ( talk) 20:54, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Nice to see some public acknowledgement of this WikiProject's great work on Wired. Thanks for your vigilance! Liz Read! Talk! 20:51, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Bluerasberry — Amazing! It's fun to see our work being appreciated. I think we could do more to coordinate the COVID-efforts and to bring editors here, see my post
Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Many_new_editors_in_the_wake_of_the_COVID-19_pandemic
Carl Fredrik
talk
16:26, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
While it certainly isn't positive for anyone, the coronavirus pandemic has brought in many quite active new editors. I have created the following text for use on new editors pages. Feel free to use it!
Carl Fredrik talk 15:24, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Carl you seem like a fun guy for outreach. How would you feel about doing more online live and recorded events? There is
but in general I think now is the time for wiki medicine to plan and make video for lots of things, and to do online events. I have sort of done a lot but in some way I think it is timely to make plans for outreach through video at scale. COVID-19 is one path, disaster management is the big picture as is massive global shift to online collaboration. Not sure how to connect, but when you talk of welcoming people with this template, I am thinking of more organization to onboard. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:59, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
This seems to be some quack HuffPo writer which boats to have been recognized as one of "America's Top Doctors" (a listing by Castle Connolly [17]). Extra eyes are needed there, I think. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 21:39, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I've created a draft for COVID-19 Drug Repurposing Research as it is:
Can someone help me make the draft better? Then potentially get it reviewed? I've done my best as a graduate student to link very credible sources, but at some point things need more than my (tired) eyes.
I'm also currently trying to update the Drug Repurposing page since it seems quite bare.
I've posted in the WikiProject COVID-19 as well, but I figured editors here could guide me to other medical articles that are similar to my draft or the Drug Repurposing Page. Thanks so much.
/info/en/?search=Draft:COVID-19_Drug_Repurposing_Research
ProbablyAndrewKuznetsov ( talk) 21:17, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
It has since been moved out of draft ProbablyAndrewKuznetsov ( talk) 23:20, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
I'm looking at WP:MED? (where we list what kinds of articles we want to support, and what we don't), and I'm wondering whether that list is still accurate. Do we want to support:
As a group, we get to decide what we want to work on. We haven't had a discussion about what should/shouldn't be brought to us for a long time. My impression is that people aren't very interested in biographies or businesses. If we don't want to support those articles, it's okay. We should just make that decision and adjust our documentation and templates accordingly.
What do you think? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 16:50, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
WPMED should support all of the above; we don't restrict posts to projects on topics that are within our knowledge base. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:20, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
On summary of spread of COVID19 Talk:2019–20_coronavirus_pandemic#RfC_on_first_sentence_on_spread_of_the_disease Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 15:16, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi guys, if you're interested in cells, could you please have a look at the proposal here ? Your opinion would be appreciated. Thanks! Dr. Vogel ( talk) 14:17, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Can I solicit input at Talk:Coronavirus_disease_2019#Forks_focusing_on_early_research? Bondegezou ( talk) 10:56, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Also of interest to this wikiproject may be this FTN thread: WP:FTN § Hydroxychloroquine and Azithromycin. Thanks, — Paleo Neonate – 15:37, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Thoughts Talk:2019–20_coronavirus_pandemic#RfC_on_second_sentence_regarding_spread
Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 18:14, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Dear project members, your input at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 23#NCoV (SARS) would be appreciated. -- BDD ( talk) 18:42, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
I have nominated Huntington's disease for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. b uidh e 22:12, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi everyone,
I saw this come up at the fringe theories noticeboard and felt I should mention it here. Here is the discussion. Crossroads -talk- 15:36, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
They are dicoverers of named syndromes. In Wikidata, there are many queries about their academic articles. Please link these queries about their academic articles to these authors. -- Sharouser ( talk) 17:02, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia is important for sharing health information because lots of people read Wikipedia. Everyone here please remember that, because people who are not Wikipedia editors do not know this!
At meta:traffic reporting there is documentation about how Wikipedia can measure pageviews. meta:Pageviews Analysis is the tool which is available through the "history" tab of any page. A shortcoming of this tool is that previously, it could not count redirects. "Pageviews" has several variations for running variations of the one-article report. Previously, "redirect views" was a tool for counting redirected views, but there has always been a demand for people to search for one article and simply get a total.
Now we can get easy reports of total traffic to a given Wikipedia article including redirects. Thanks user:MusikAnimal (WMF) for adding this feature.
Everyone check it out, applied to 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic for the period 1 January - today
In the context of COVID-19 people are going to have all the usual criticism of Wikipedia, saying in various ways that Wikipedia does not matter. If you hear this, the response is that we have the data to demonstrate that Wikipedia is a low cost way to deliver information to large numbers of people who need it. All the other communication options rely on global-scale investment in commercial communications or the extraordinary cost of negotiations to get special access to unique communication channels. Wikipedia also has the advantage of transparency when various governments around the world are right now behaving badly and themselves promoting misinformation.
Advocates of high quality source material have a great ally in Wikipedia and we have the evidence to show that our content reaches a large part of the informatio-seeking public. Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:24, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
...the actual number of people arriving at this article: I should clarify the definition of a pageview. This is basically each request to the page, not the number of people. In most cases editors are going to trigger at least 2 pageviews -- once on the first view, and again after saving. 36 million is still a lot, though! :) — MusikAnimal talk 02:41, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
The page Draft:Hyperbolastic Functions seems purely mathematical but it suggests the topic has a wide range of applications, mostly in medicine. Please see if it possibly is in the scope of this WikiProject. -- CiaPan ( talk) 19:06, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
I just tried to suggest you, participants of the WikiProject, might want to consider putting the template {{
WikiProject Medicine}} at the page's talk.
CiaPan (
talk)
20:04, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
See Talk:List_of_countries_by_hospital_beds#Useful_data_from_WHO/WB. I found a reliable source (WHO/WB statistics) but editing this table seems like a pain. I tried code and visual editor and neither makes it easy. Is there any way to make it friendly? (I tried adding data for India from 2011 but I cannot figure out how to easily add a row, need to edit 40+ lines of code separately...). -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:02, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi, A question came up within WikiJournals about if/how we might assist with the COVID articles on Wikipedia. Some possible points:
We're having a meeting at
7pm UTC 25 March 2020. Let me know if you'd like to drop in on the meeting itself and I'll also check back here to raise any points discussed here.
T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)
talk
00:03, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Also posted at
Talk:COVID19 and
Talk:WikiJournal_User_Group.
T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)
talk
00:03, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
We just had the WikiJournals meeting regarding this and people seemed keen to be able to assist with the parts we have experience in (academia-wikipedia interactions). I'll put the minutes on-wiki at this link the next 48 hours. An additional idea that was raised was hosting translations of journal articles (and getting those translations checked for accuracy) since such items wouldn't necessarily have a logical hoe on Wikipedia itself. Is the translations taskforce of WP:MED still very active? T.Shafee(Evo&Evo) talk 02:11, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I have moved a medical editing cheat sheet that a few from this group collaborated on to the help section (linked in the title of this section). If anyone has any more ideas, wants to help improve this, or wants to share this, that would be great. JenOttawa ( talk) 23:59, 25 March 2020 (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 130 | Archive 131 | Archive 132 | Archive 133 | Archive 134 | Archive 135 | → | Archive 140 |
Amazing study, I recommend everyone here read it
The literature positions Wikipedia as a prominent health information resource in various contexts for the public, patients, students, and practitioners seeking health information online. Wikipedia’s health content is accessed frequently, and its pages regularly rank highly in Google search results. While Wikipedia itself is well into its second decade, the academic discourse around Wikipedia within the context of health is still young and the academic literature is limited when attempts are made to understand Wikipedia as a health information resource. Possibilities for future research will be discussed.
Wikimedia Foundation grant service paid the open access fee of about US$1500 so it has a CC-By-4.0 license.
Thanks Mcbrarian of McMaster University for doing and publishing this powerful research paper. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:27, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
General assessments of quality. General assessments of the quality of Wikipedia’s health information, those that do not take into consideration the impact of its quality on a specific population, comprise approximately 18% (n = 16) of the articles included in this review (S3 Appendix, Table 5). Despite claims that English Wikipedia’s health content is written in plain, accessible language, assessments of its quality, regardless of context, share a common finding: while Wikipedia does well to remain current [26,41,44], its medical content uses technical terms that result in readability levels too low to accommodate the very people it stands to benefit most. The readability of the easiest articles has been reported to be around ninth grade [25,30,40]. Some studies find that Wikipedia’s medical content requires at least a college reading level or is considered highly difficult [34,43]. Other studies simply report Wikipedia’s readability as higher than that of other health information sources such as WebMD, MedlinePlus, or MayoClinic [44,64].
Johnbod ( talk) 19:15, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
I am surprised no one has spotted or mentioned the serious howlers in this paper (particularly considering we wouldn't accept such howlers in our medical content). SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:34, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
I've just submitted a project grant that will fund our library's efforts to get faculty and researchers on board with contributing their expertise to Wikipedia's medical content. If you're thinking what I'm thinking, which is, health professionals, particularly academic ones, don't have incentive. Well, DORA, which was recently signed by a major health research funder (CIHR), could change that, and I'll be teaching our faculty all about it. Mcbrarian ( talk) 21:34, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
A new article recently published on Wikipedia medical content:
Barring the odd grammar of the title, the article has some useful bulk analysis on change in total size, references and number of medical terms in en.wp. Sadly, there isn't much granular breakdown of different sections, trends or linking with the wider literature. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo) talk 03:06, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Video games came up twice recently in medicine so I wanted to share the situations here
We have a discussion live now (please comment) on including drug prices. The video game community has similar discussed including video game console prices. I invited that WikiProject to the drug price RfC.
Various sources are reporting that coronavirus affects video game sales. Previously journalists reported in many ways that a 2011 earthquake greatly affected video game culture.
Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:25, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Hi-- I have a conflict of interest so I cannot edit the US Cochrane Center article however the information it contains is largely inaccurate now. Just wondering if someone wants to update it who is not conflicted like I am. Essentially the US Cochrane Center in Baltimore has closed and been replaced by a A US Cochrane network of 12 (and growing) US Cochrane affiliate sites scattered across the nation. See https://www.hcinnovationgroup.com/clinical-it/evidence-based-care/news/21084692/cochrane-launches-network-of-us-institutions-to-promote-evidencebased-healthcare Rdellavalle ( talk • contribs) 16:59, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Annual Reviews, an independent, nonprofit scholarly research publisher, seeks an enthusiastic Wikipedian-in-Residence (WIR).
The aim of this role is to improve Wikipedia’s coverage of the sciences by citing expert articles from Annual Reviews’ journals. The WIR will engage with Wikipedia editors across life, biomedical, physical, and social science articles and WikiProjects to help ensure responsible and valuable expansion of content.
This is a temporary position for 10 hours/week, paid at $30/hour USD, and is anticipated to last for up to 1 year. This position can only be based remotely from the following states: CA, OR, OH, NV, NC, WA, WI, CO, MA, PA, NY, HI, or MT.
PLEASE APPLY! https://annualreviewsnews.org/2020/02/25/seeking-a-wikipedian-in-residence/
Cheers, Jake Ocaasi t | c 18:10, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
To avoid an edit war, a consensus is being sought at Talk:Rhinoplasty as to whether an article section entitled 'Ultrasonic_rhinoplasty' should be retained or deleted. I am out of my depth, medically, and the few commenters there are mostly new accounts who have edited nowhere else. Experienced "eyes on" would be most welcome. See discussion here. Many thanks, Nick Moyes ( talk) 23:13, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
Could somebody check and improve generaly this draft article "Anaplastic oligodendroglioma"? Wname1 ( talk) 20:27, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
It could be good when a seconde User check and improve generaly this draft article "Draft:Anaplastic oligodendroglioma" like User:Ozzie10aaaa. Wname1 ( talk) 18:37, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
I have become aware of efforts to drive Wikipedia internet traffic towards the website Semantic Scholar via Citation bot, and I would like to raise the issue to make sure this topic receives more scrutiny and consideration. I have recently noticed multiple Semantic Scholar links in deep vein thrombosis, which I am rewriting and updating. I have just gone through and removed all Semantic Scholar links that either A. link free PDF versions while the publisher's website does not offer free access (examples: [1] [links to pdf at "View PDF"], [2] [links to pdf under "Alternate Sources"], [3] [links to pdf at "View PDF"]) or B. simply (or mostly) just replicate metadata found at the doi or PubMed. One example of this is here, which happened to also display Table 1 and Table 2 of the article. Per Trappist the monk, "There was a recent discussion at User talk:Citation bot/Archive 19 § Semantic scholar 2 that spawned a current discussion at Help talk:Citation Style 1 § Request to add Semantic Scholar IDs to the citation template..." [4] My main concern and the potential harm I see in using this website relates to how PMC identifiers operate and because of this how we and our readership are conditioned to expect Wikipedia to operate. With a PMC id, the title of a journal article becomes a url link that takes one to a free version of the article without any copyright concerns. However, the preponderance of url links in the deep vein thrombosis article did neither of these desirable things. Biosthmors ( talk) 17:56, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
Opinions are needed on the following: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles#Proposed change to title guideline. A permalink for it is here. It stems from this discussion at Talk:Sex reassignment surgery, where Google search results were used in a problematic way. As for the WP:OR part, while WP:OR doesn't apply to talk pages, it's still obviously the case that the OR on talk pages should not be applied to articles or used to otherwise affect articles. So given this and the fact that the Sex reassignment surgery article was almost moved per flawed Google search results, is it best to remove "rather than conduct original research" from the title aspect of MOS:MED? If the footnote needs amending, we can obviously amend that.
Pinging RexxS since, in the aforementioned move discussion, RexxS extensively debated the editor who proposed to move the article. Flyer22 Frozen ( talk) 00:25, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
This is Chrome browser extension for finding reports from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine that are relevant to a particular Wikipedia article. It’s technically In Beta, but still very useful: https://cart.nap.edu/cart/naprelated/ . Can anyone suggest a more permanent place to put this link? Clayoquot ( talk | contribs) 18:11, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
I am writing WikiProject Medicine to ask participants here to support Wikimedia community proposals for project teams to receive grants from the Wikimedia Foundation. I am listing here the proposals that I identify as contributing to the development of medical content in Wikimedia projects.
To review the background, about twice a year the Wikimedia Foundation issues a call for proposals to award grants. All the grants are at meta:Grants:Start, and the below proposals are in a subclass described at meta:Grants:Project. Proposals happen in public with wiki-style community discussion. For a project to get funded it should have Wikipedia community support. Since these are medical projects, support from WikiProject Medicine is especially helpful. See all the projects in meta:Category:Project/Proposals/Proposed.
Thanks, if I missed any projects useful to medicine then add them. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:41, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
An editor, claiming to be a published author on the subject, has twice replaced most of the content of Menstrual psychosis with their own take on the condition. I'm sorry to discourage possible experts once again, but I have serious concerns about this editor's contributions, which read more like a lecture presentation for an advocacy group than an encyclopedia article. I've restored the prior content and outlined my concerns at Talk:Menstrual psychosis, but I suspect that we are going to need more eyes on the issue. Cheers -- RexxS ( talk) 15:31, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Same issues with the same editor at Psychiatric disorders of childbirth, discussion at Talk:Psychiatric disorders of childbirth. Their sources are self-published. -- RexxS ( talk) 16:56, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
How long has Procarbazine, Lomustine (CCNU) and Vincristine been used on brain Tumors (in years)? Wname1 ( talk) 10:41, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks! Wname1 ( talk) 20:22, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
I have nominated Chagas disease for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:46, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
173,490 pageviews in February, daily average this month of 10,000+ views, 1800+ Watchers... Article will need a major re-write to keep its WP:FA status, references are outdated (+ some refs have gone dead), prose needs serious attention, etc.. Before this FAR the previous FAR was over 13 years ago, see 2007. Present FAR is at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Asperger syndrome/archive4. Shearonink ( talk) 19:51, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, but I do not know where else to ask: Does anyone still produce Chlorpropamide?
It is needed for a Nephrogenic diabetes insipidus case, for which no other effective medicine is known.
Any producer/seller name, anywhere in the world, would be immensely appreciated. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.177.96.37 ( talk) 11:44, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
chlorpropamide
https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cder/ob/index.cfm you will get a list of the dozen manufacturers approved to market this drug in the US. I don't know what the equivalent resource is in your country.
WhatamIdoing (
talk)
06:18, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Hi Wikipedians, for my undergrad Technical and Professional editing course we are working on editing two Wikipedia articles that could use some help. I'm working on Basic life support and 2009 flu pandemic in Australia , which both have some pretty big issues. We're encouraged to seek help from experienced Wiki editors so if anyone has any tips or would like to collab on transforming these pages, let me know! Astrokassie ( talk) 16:47, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Some may remember a collaboration I was involved in with the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group, where tables were added to a number of articles summarising evidence of treatment effectiveness. The study (RCT) has now been published with a CC-BY 4.0 licence in BMJ Open: https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/10/2/e033655.long
Only one outcome was significant, but the exercise was worthwhile and hopefully will lead to more collaborations between WMMED and academic groups. -- RexxS ( talk) 12:49, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
I started an RfC concerning pointing to the template namespace in the COVID 19 navbox. See Template talk:COVID-19#RfC on linking to template namespace. Bait30 Talk? 05:16, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
I wanted to look up our article on the 1957 flu pandemic to check my old memories of its impact and spread, but could find only short mentions at Influenza pandemic#Asian Flu (1957–1958) and Influenza A virus subtype H2N2#Asian flu. The information there is outdated - the CDC estimates the number of US deaths at 116,000 [1] and a review paper estimates that 25% of the US population became infected. [2] I did find the information I was looking for at the CDC (page 14 of the pdf has a nice set of maps showing the spread), but it would be nice if someone who had access to the medical literature would write an article on the subject. StarryGrandma ( talk) 01:27, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
References
On WikiProject Medicine's front page at Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine we present a report from user:HotArticlesBot.
Imagine that a non-Wikipedia editor were looking at this graph. Could I ask that anyone here volunteer to comment and interpret this for a general audience? I intend to bring this to The Signpost and I would like to showcase comments about this from WikiProject Medicine. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:46, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi everyone. I'm working on the Basic life support page and I'm confused about the difference between the European Resuscitation Council and the Resuscitation Council (UK). Are they different certifying bodies? Google isn't really helping me find the answer. Astrokassie ( talk) 18:04, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Tourette syndrome is Wikipedia:Today's featured article on the Main Page. Congratulations to User:SandyGeorgia, User:Colin, User:Outriggr, User:Ceoil, User:SUM1, User:Markworthen, User:Casliber, User:Adrian J. Hunter, and the others who have spent the last two months polishing up the article. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 20:44, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
When I wrote Georges Gilles de la Tourette back in 2006, whonamedit.com seemed like a decent source. In updating content before and during the Tourette syndrome TFA, I found enough problems with whonamedit.com that I am concerned about how widely it is used in medical content, and what we can do about it.
The entry on Georges not only has basic typos, but it says he died on 26 May, when he actually died on 22 May (with published obituaries on 24 May), and then to add insult to injury, later the same article states that he died in June. It says he was shot in the head, when he was shot in the neck. The misinformation I added to Georges' bio more than ten years ago, from this source, has now spread across other language Wikipedias.
For further evidence of how bad this site is, have a look at the entry on Tourette syndrome. (While I frequently nitpick misinformation about TS, that is pretty much the worst I have ever seen.)
While it may be appropriate to use this site strictly as a source of eponymous names, it is not possible to tell how many of the thousand articles listed above use it for more than that, and it is not a reliable source for medical information. Factchecking is abysmal; it has demonstrably wrong information. It appears to be a one-person hobby site.
Can Headbomb add it to his script, and is anyone up for checking through articles above to see how often this source is misused? I think anything beyond "this condition was named after that person" is suspect. Is it possible for some tech-knowledgeable person to find a way to target and label every use of the two whonamedit templates so that they will be flagged in every article? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:43, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
Would an admin please see Cyprinid herpesvirus 4? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 17:31, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
I'm new to Wikipedia, and I'm here to improve the quality of health-related information on Wikipedia. I would be contributing to the Cochrane-Wikipedia project Dellyjacobs ( talk) 09:53, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
It appears there is a lot to learn. Honestly, navigating through the pages is quite difficult for me. It took me some time to even know how to navigate to this page to respond to your reply. I really hope I can do this. I am still going through the videos and articles that provides instructions for new editors Dellyjacobs ( talk) 09:59, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Battered woman syndrome ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Battered person syndrome ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
There are WP:Content fork concerns regarding these articles. In 2017, SlimVirgin redirected the Battered person syndrome article to Battered woman syndrome. In 2019, a new account restored it with additions. Flyer22 Frozen ( talk) 01:26, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
"the literature shows that "battered woman syndrome" and "battered person syndrome" are not distinguished", then either title should be as good for the medical condition. Anyone searching for "battered woman syndrome" as a medical condition is just one click away from the current article on the medical condition.
"The Battered woman syndrome article should cover both legal and medical aspects"and I disagree strongly. They are very distinct topics and there is absolutely no reason to try to merge an obviously legal topic with an obviously medical topic. Have you actually read the article about the legal defence, Battered woman syndrome? It is 1510 words, readable prose size, with 23 references (compare that to the medical article, which is 753 words with 15 references - half the size). Ninety-nine percent of the legal article does not belong in a medical article. It would be totally UNDUE. Your sources, PMID 12349358, PMID 8668013, PMID 10696359, and PMID 17189503 discuss both the medical issues and legal issues, and make a point of distinguishing between them, so is suitable for use in both articles. But just because two different articles may have some sources in common, it doesn't mean we should merge them. Do you believe that all 23 sources used in the legal article should be in your proposed merged article?
"I don't agree that the Battered person syndrome article is a medical topic. You spent considerable time explaining how it's tagged for WP:Psych and medical sources. Why have you changed your mind now? Anybody reading the article can see it's a medical topic.
"We should go with the common name". No we shouldn't. WP:NCMED requires that The article title should be the scientific or recognised medical name. ICD9 recognises "battered person syndrome".
"The literature simply does not show that. I don't need to read the poor Wikipedia article about the legal defense."A shameful admission. The article on the legal defence dwarfs the medical article in both size and referencing. It is an entirely different topic, and you've now made clear your disdain for the efforts of other editors on that important subject.
*your both taking up space here, this discussion should be at talk/article,thank you--
Ozzie10aaaa (
talk) 02:11, 9 March 2020 (UTC)...I give up--
Ozzie10aaaa (
talk)
03:04, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
____
References
Hello medical experts! I toned down and expanded this article about an endocrinologist, and added some newspaper references. Since I'm not familiar with this topic, can someone with medical knowledge please check it out to make sure I haven't introduced any incorrect information? Thanks.— Anne Delong ( talk) 19:15, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
I've had a look at the death-grip syndrome article, and I'm quite concerned at the state of the it. For an article about a "syndrome", there is a remarkable lack of WP:MEDRS; at least one of the cites does not appear to support the statement it is attached to, there are a bunch of hard-to-check cites from books, and in general the whole article has a feeling of WP:SYNTHESIS. I think at the very least, it needs a thorough inspection by medically knowledgable editors, if not a rewrite. -- The Anome ( talk) 23:13, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
I recently blanked and redirected Medical use of MDMA and now I see it's part of a student effort on various, mostly medical, topics. [11] I see Cannabidiol as a treatment for anxiety has recently appeared as a result of this too. I'm not sure how this is meant to work but aren't student editors made aware of WP:MEDRS when then embark on medical topics? Anyway, more eyes probably needed ... Alexbrn ( talk) 15:23, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Some of the same instructors' earlier courses may need to be checked and referred to WP:ENB if there are problems:
SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:22, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Given the unfortunate but real possibility that some of our medical editors might be getting very busy dealing with the coronavirus in real life, does anyone want to suggest regular wiki tasks that they're currently doing, but might need others to take over if crisis hits? Clayoquot ( talk | contribs) 19:22, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
I've created a draft article at Draft:Tropical ataxic neuropathy. The sources cited are not brilliant, though I may well have missed some good sources. There's a BMJ review — from 1968. There's some 21st-century reviews; while Pubmed categorizes them as reviews, and they do review past work extensively, they also present their own new data. And finally, different studies contradict one another. There just does not seem to be much known about TAN(s), whatever it is (or they are). Who said that science was the practice of carefully documenting your ignorance?
This is clearly a topic that should be covered in Wikipedia, but I have refrained from mainspacing it, and I'd be reassured by reviews. I would also be very happy if people more knowledgeable than me would make any improvements they think good. HLHJ ( talk) 00:02, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
Posting this here because it's been a month with no third-party replies on a merger discussion of Late onset congenital adrenal hyperplasia to Congenital adrenal hyperplasia.
· • SUM1 • · ( talk) 18:24, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
This article is... well, read it for yourself.
But I've yet to see an article so-deeply based on primary sources of a complete quack/nutjob/predatory nature. There's at least 4 predatory journals, plus classics like NeuroQuantology, Entropy (journal), and Journal of Consciousness Exploration & Research. There's certainly some WP:ABOUTSELF stuff, but the extent of it is mind-bogling, with very little balance to make it clear those ideas are completely without support in the scientific community. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 19:20, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
There is a long list of articles in the Wikipedia:Good article nominations process. Some of these have existing reviewers and could use a nudge or a helping hand; others need a reviewer. If you are interested in starting a review but are holding back because you think you'll do it wrong, then please WP:Be bold. Step #1 is well within your ability: just read the article. You don't even need to click the "start review" button until you've done that. Several of us here have done GA reviews before and can walk you through the whole thing. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 02:52, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
There is a number of commonly used medications that might in theory affect infection risk or the risk of severe disease.. I tried to find data regarding baseline medication (unrelated to COVID-19 treatment efforts) but could not find anything. Did anyone have more luck? Richiez ( talk) 20:16, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Alcoholics Anonymous is in the news [13] [14] because Cochrane decided there is evidence that it helps (some) people (with alcohol but not drug problems). I'd expect to see some editing at those articles.
Also, it's been declared cost-effective because it's "free", but it is only free if you ignore the enormous amount of volunteer labor involved. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 02:26, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
Discussion on going regarding giving the pandemic more prominence on the main page. In my opinion a good idea. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 15:04, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
In 1812 there seems to have been a significant plague outbreak in the Ottoman Empire, which seems to have begun in Constantinople and traveled to other parts of the empire including Egypt, and later also spread outside of the empire's borders.
It seems to have had a massive impact, but it is barely covered on Wikipedia. There's an article about Caragea's plague which hit Wallachia (then an Ottoman vassal) in 1813–14, and I am currently in the process of writing an article on the 1813–14 Malta plague epidemic. Both seem to have derived from the 1812 Constantinople outbreak (it arrived in Malta via Egypt).
I think it would be useful if there would be an article covering the entire outbreak - would any members of this WikiProject be willing to help out? A source about the outbreak in Odessa can be found here.
I am also making this request on other WikiProjects including WP History, WP Turkey and WP Egypt.
Xwejnusgozo ( talk) 15:24, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Are Emerging infectious diseases, "high consequence infectious diseases" and "high consequence infectious pathogens" synonymous? Thinking of link to "high consequence infectious diseases". Whispyhistory ( talk) 08:44, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#Medical_(best)_practices_of_countries_during_the_COVID-19_outbreak. 2607:FEA8:1DDF:FEE1:5DD6:AF90:39E8:BC8E ( talk) 22:18, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Social distancing has received an explosion of views recently ( check out this hockey stick curve), and I expect it will receive even more now that it is wikilinked from the intros to COVID-19 and 2019-20 coronavirus pandemic. It's still a C-class article, though, and there's a lot of low-hanging fruit in terms of areas for improvement. Please come help get it to a higher level of quality! Sdkb ( talk) 05:44, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I am writing to invite anyone to review edits from Touro College's physical therapy program. Here is the list of their edits in the meta:Programs and Events Dashboard.
The ongoing log of their events is at WP:Touro. This school has been a great sport for Wikipedia editing now in their 4th year. Also, they are doing physical therapy content, which otherwise is an unrepresented perspective in Wikipedia's medical articles. I just did a workshop with them today, virtually of course because of COVID-19. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:43, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
I've created WikiProject COVID-19 as a temporary or permanent WikiProject and invite editors to use this space for discussing ways to improve coverage of the ongoing 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic. Please bring your ideas to the project/talk page. Stay safe, --- Another Believer ( Talk) 16:44, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
And.... {{ WikiProject COVID-19}} has been created. Sigh. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 20:04, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Quick note: If you're interested in this subject, then you might want to look at the country-by-country articles. Readers want information about their own area, especially at the very start of an outbreak (when fewer other sources are available). WhatamIdoing ( talk) 19:50, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
A suggestion: would it be possible to have a Corona-related WP:MED article as
WP:TFA very soon? A possible candidate is
Virus
(found in
this list). It was TFA in 2009. Of course, having such a TFA would make extreme relevance. Hurdles to take: 1. Argue for a second TFA listing of this article (which is not prohibited a priory anyway);
talk here. 2. Propose to jump que into March 2020, or at least April. 3. Check & improve for possible quality degrading. -
DePiep (
talk)
14:32, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Additional argument: I have been gathering data on March 2020 TFAs, and apparently our readers appreciate medical topics. But, since TFA already ran a medical topic in March, it might be early to request another one. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:03, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Mainpage pageviews (TFA plus three days) |
Article | Mainpage dates |
---|---|---|
55,704 | König-class battleship | March 1 to 4 |
68,846 | Palmyra | March 2 to 5 |
90,959 | Tourette syndrome | March 3 to 6 |
57,555 | A Wizard of Earthsea | March 4 to 7 |
45,201 | J. R. Kealoha | March 5 to 8 |
47,322 | Water pipit | March 6 to 9 |
32,072 | Interstate 675 (Michigan) | March 7 to 10 |
38,504 | Inter-Allied Women's Conference | March 8 to 11 |
47,543 | Hurricane Hattie | March 9 to 12 |
144,729 | Bombing of Tokyo (10 March 1945) | March 10 to 13 |
64,029 | Coffin Stone | March 11 to 14 |
Thanx to all for your contributions. I note:
So my suggestion might be worth proposing it appropriately. - DePiep ( talk) 22:54, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Graham, is there anything the rest of us can be doing to help on the virus suite? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 23:44, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
See discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article#Proposal to re-run virus-related TFAs during Coronavirus pandemic SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:31, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
To look over Introduction to viruses, to be proposed for WP:TFA. Graham Beards has updated to include mention of coronavirus. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 06:28, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Thank you to DePiep for advancing the idea, Graham Beards for updating the article, Wehwalt for changing out the already scheduled TFA, and a big shout-out to Ergo Sum for agreeing to give up the birthday of Samuel Mulledy so Introduction to viruses could be scheduled instead. Please give the article a good read before 27 March, and add it to your watchlist for anticipated edits on mainpage day. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:00, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
This article is in the process of being nominated for FA. However, there are many of Style (MOS)] issues that need to be rectified. Any help is very much appreciated. Thank you! Cerevisae ( talk) 12:41, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Talk:2019–20_coronavirus_pandemic#How_can_we_get_this_talk_page_under_control?.
Sdkb (
talk)
04:47, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Hello, WP Medicine,
Over the past few days, I have put most of the coronavirus-related pages on my Watchlist and I find many of them are being edited throughout the day, usually changing totals of people diagnosed with no accompanying change in sources. I have spot-checked a few but if we could get a few more eyes on them, actually any of the pages in Category:2019–20 coronavirus outbreak, that would be helpful. I think inflating the number of those afflicted with this virus is not helpful for readers who might be consulting these articles, looking for information about this health crisis. Thanks! Liz Read! Talk! 00:39, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
93
9<!-- PLEASE do not change this number without updating the reference. BNO is not a reliable source. -->3
.Hi as a matter of urgency we need to populate the wiki medicine related to COVID 19 so it’s the goto page for reliable info.There is so much misinformation . This will save lives . SabziK ( talk) 14:47, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
I noticed Red light therapy because it appeared in the robot report for new physics-related articles. It looks like it could use better sourcing, at the very least. XOR'easter ( talk) 20:54, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Nice to see some public acknowledgement of this WikiProject's great work on Wired. Thanks for your vigilance! Liz Read! Talk! 20:51, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Bluerasberry — Amazing! It's fun to see our work being appreciated. I think we could do more to coordinate the COVID-efforts and to bring editors here, see my post
Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Many_new_editors_in_the_wake_of_the_COVID-19_pandemic
Carl Fredrik
talk
16:26, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
While it certainly isn't positive for anyone, the coronavirus pandemic has brought in many quite active new editors. I have created the following text for use on new editors pages. Feel free to use it!
Carl Fredrik talk 15:24, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Carl you seem like a fun guy for outreach. How would you feel about doing more online live and recorded events? There is
but in general I think now is the time for wiki medicine to plan and make video for lots of things, and to do online events. I have sort of done a lot but in some way I think it is timely to make plans for outreach through video at scale. COVID-19 is one path, disaster management is the big picture as is massive global shift to online collaboration. Not sure how to connect, but when you talk of welcoming people with this template, I am thinking of more organization to onboard. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:59, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
This seems to be some quack HuffPo writer which boats to have been recognized as one of "America's Top Doctors" (a listing by Castle Connolly [17]). Extra eyes are needed there, I think. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 21:39, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I've created a draft for COVID-19 Drug Repurposing Research as it is:
Can someone help me make the draft better? Then potentially get it reviewed? I've done my best as a graduate student to link very credible sources, but at some point things need more than my (tired) eyes.
I'm also currently trying to update the Drug Repurposing page since it seems quite bare.
I've posted in the WikiProject COVID-19 as well, but I figured editors here could guide me to other medical articles that are similar to my draft or the Drug Repurposing Page. Thanks so much.
/info/en/?search=Draft:COVID-19_Drug_Repurposing_Research
ProbablyAndrewKuznetsov ( talk) 21:17, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
It has since been moved out of draft ProbablyAndrewKuznetsov ( talk) 23:20, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
I'm looking at WP:MED? (where we list what kinds of articles we want to support, and what we don't), and I'm wondering whether that list is still accurate. Do we want to support:
As a group, we get to decide what we want to work on. We haven't had a discussion about what should/shouldn't be brought to us for a long time. My impression is that people aren't very interested in biographies or businesses. If we don't want to support those articles, it's okay. We should just make that decision and adjust our documentation and templates accordingly.
What do you think? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 16:50, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
WPMED should support all of the above; we don't restrict posts to projects on topics that are within our knowledge base. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:20, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
On summary of spread of COVID19 Talk:2019–20_coronavirus_pandemic#RfC_on_first_sentence_on_spread_of_the_disease Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 15:16, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi guys, if you're interested in cells, could you please have a look at the proposal here ? Your opinion would be appreciated. Thanks! Dr. Vogel ( talk) 14:17, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Can I solicit input at Talk:Coronavirus_disease_2019#Forks_focusing_on_early_research? Bondegezou ( talk) 10:56, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Also of interest to this wikiproject may be this FTN thread: WP:FTN § Hydroxychloroquine and Azithromycin. Thanks, — Paleo Neonate – 15:37, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Thoughts Talk:2019–20_coronavirus_pandemic#RfC_on_second_sentence_regarding_spread
Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 18:14, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Dear project members, your input at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 23#NCoV (SARS) would be appreciated. -- BDD ( talk) 18:42, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
I have nominated Huntington's disease for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. b uidh e 22:12, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi everyone,
I saw this come up at the fringe theories noticeboard and felt I should mention it here. Here is the discussion. Crossroads -talk- 15:36, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
They are dicoverers of named syndromes. In Wikidata, there are many queries about their academic articles. Please link these queries about their academic articles to these authors. -- Sharouser ( talk) 17:02, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia is important for sharing health information because lots of people read Wikipedia. Everyone here please remember that, because people who are not Wikipedia editors do not know this!
At meta:traffic reporting there is documentation about how Wikipedia can measure pageviews. meta:Pageviews Analysis is the tool which is available through the "history" tab of any page. A shortcoming of this tool is that previously, it could not count redirects. "Pageviews" has several variations for running variations of the one-article report. Previously, "redirect views" was a tool for counting redirected views, but there has always been a demand for people to search for one article and simply get a total.
Now we can get easy reports of total traffic to a given Wikipedia article including redirects. Thanks user:MusikAnimal (WMF) for adding this feature.
Everyone check it out, applied to 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic for the period 1 January - today
In the context of COVID-19 people are going to have all the usual criticism of Wikipedia, saying in various ways that Wikipedia does not matter. If you hear this, the response is that we have the data to demonstrate that Wikipedia is a low cost way to deliver information to large numbers of people who need it. All the other communication options rely on global-scale investment in commercial communications or the extraordinary cost of negotiations to get special access to unique communication channels. Wikipedia also has the advantage of transparency when various governments around the world are right now behaving badly and themselves promoting misinformation.
Advocates of high quality source material have a great ally in Wikipedia and we have the evidence to show that our content reaches a large part of the informatio-seeking public. Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:24, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
...the actual number of people arriving at this article: I should clarify the definition of a pageview. This is basically each request to the page, not the number of people. In most cases editors are going to trigger at least 2 pageviews -- once on the first view, and again after saving. 36 million is still a lot, though! :) — MusikAnimal talk 02:41, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
The page Draft:Hyperbolastic Functions seems purely mathematical but it suggests the topic has a wide range of applications, mostly in medicine. Please see if it possibly is in the scope of this WikiProject. -- CiaPan ( talk) 19:06, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
I just tried to suggest you, participants of the WikiProject, might want to consider putting the template {{
WikiProject Medicine}} at the page's talk.
CiaPan (
talk)
20:04, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
See Talk:List_of_countries_by_hospital_beds#Useful_data_from_WHO/WB. I found a reliable source (WHO/WB statistics) but editing this table seems like a pain. I tried code and visual editor and neither makes it easy. Is there any way to make it friendly? (I tried adding data for India from 2011 but I cannot figure out how to easily add a row, need to edit 40+ lines of code separately...). -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:02, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi, A question came up within WikiJournals about if/how we might assist with the COVID articles on Wikipedia. Some possible points:
We're having a meeting at
7pm UTC 25 March 2020. Let me know if you'd like to drop in on the meeting itself and I'll also check back here to raise any points discussed here.
T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)
talk
00:03, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Also posted at
Talk:COVID19 and
Talk:WikiJournal_User_Group.
T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)
talk
00:03, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
We just had the WikiJournals meeting regarding this and people seemed keen to be able to assist with the parts we have experience in (academia-wikipedia interactions). I'll put the minutes on-wiki at this link the next 48 hours. An additional idea that was raised was hosting translations of journal articles (and getting those translations checked for accuracy) since such items wouldn't necessarily have a logical hoe on Wikipedia itself. Is the translations taskforce of WP:MED still very active? T.Shafee(Evo&Evo) talk 02:11, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I have moved a medical editing cheat sheet that a few from this group collaborated on to the help section (linked in the title of this section). If anyone has any more ideas, wants to help improve this, or wants to share this, that would be great. JenOttawa ( talk) 23:59, 25 March 2020 (UTC)