This page 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. |
The article Rehabilitation center is currently devoid of content - it used to be a re-direct to the disambiguation page Rehabilitation. Can someone help start this article? Thanks in advance, X Ottawahitech ( talk) 21:29, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
The WikiProject Medicine banner was added to the talkpage of assisted living a long time ago. In 2007 it was assessed as start-class mid-importance by this project and retains the same rating in 2013. I was just trying to draw some attention to it, since it seems to be the choice solution for alzheimer’s patients in the USA today. But I will leave this for now since there seems to be no interest in this topic here. X Ottawahitech ( talk) 14:30, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
This article is getting a lot of readers and a lot of editors lately. It is our 8th most viewed article. Have recently updated the health effects to secondary sources. Most of which says "it has been poorly studied" and there fore we do not know what benefits / harms they might have. People keep trying to add primary sources or use primary sources to refute the secondary ones. Help appreciated. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:10, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
I am unsure if this is an appropriate redirect, to Optic papillitis. My understanding of "foliate papillitis" is inflammation of the foliate papillae, not to do with this. 2 out of the three hits for "foliate papillitis" is about the tongue, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=%22Foliate+papillitis%22 and the last is not clear from the abstract, but it is clear it is a primary source.
P.S. Also looks like I found another potential stub candidate for merging to its parent article. Lesion ( talk) 23:20, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
With regard to the Labiaplasty article, the Placik matter was brought up before; see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 31#Labiaplasty. As a result of that discussion, most of Placik's edits were removed from the article (though even before then, as noted in that discussion, there had been slow WP:Edit warring that involved removing and restoring some of his edits). Basically, there is concern that his edits are often problematic. A little earlier today, an IP showed up to restore the Placik material. And considering that this person (the IP), using the same IP range, has consistently restored Placik's material, and has shown up today not long after Placik showed up to edit today (with Pacik editing the Breast augmentation and Free flap breast reconstruction articles, as seen and here and here, after a hiatus that he returned from on August 5th), I'm convinced that the IP is Pacik. The IP has also finally taken the editing matter concerning the Labiaplasty article to Talk:Labiaplasty. I know a lot about female anatomy, but I do not, as of yet, know a lot about labiaplasty, breast augmentation and free flap breast reconstruction. And so I've brought this matter to you all. Placik should not be making any "corrections" that are not supported by sources in any of these articles. And whether this bit ("rectum" where "perineum" should be) that was corrected was added by Placik or not, it is clearly wrong (unless speaking of some inner tissue)...but is now back in the Labiaplasty article (along with whatever other anatomy inaccuracies that I have not assessed with regard to that article). Flyer22 ( talk) 23:51, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Is it just me or do moving images, such as the one at acquired brain injury, make it hard for readers to focus on the prose? And how is a lay reader going to get any meaning on acquired brain injury from this image? I remember seeing one article that had an option to activate a moving image, with the default set for it to be frozen. Any ideas on how to apply that here? I tend to think moving images such as this should be generally deactivated until a reader clicks on them to turn them on. Biosthmors ( talk) 12:08, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
... at neurodiversity, to multiple issues mentioned on talk, and also to Aspie Quiz, per the earlier discussion here of problems with some open access sources. A "walled garden" of POV autism articles was cleaned up waaaaay back in 2007 ... it seems to be cropping up again, and I will be quite busy through August. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:05, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
We have a number of users removing secondary sources and replacing them with primary sources and the popular press at this article. Further comments welcome. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:59, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia's article titled Medial is a disambiguation page listing a lot of articles about mathematics and linguistics.
But most of the links to that article are about anatomy. They should link to lateral and medial.
(And usually nothing should link to a disambiguation page except redirects and hatnotes. (And maybe occasionally another disambiguation page with broader coverage?))
Could people help fix all these links? Michael Hardy ( talk) 16:22, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
I wikilink anatomical terms of location to the main page, e.g.:
[[Anatomical terms of location#Superior and inferior|superior]] [[Anatomical terms of location#Superior and inferior|inferior]] [[Anatomical terms of location#Anterior and posterior 2|anterior]] [[Anatomical terms of location#Anterior and posterior 2|posterior]] [[Anatomical terms of location#Left and right (lateral), and medial2|medial]] [[Anatomical terms of location#Left and right (lateral), and medial2|lateral]]
Arguably the lateral and medial article is more specific to those terms, but I only found out about this page when you posted it here. Lesion ( talk) 18:04, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
A deletion review for Post-Finasteride Syndrome has been opened here. It could use more input from people who are familiar with MEDRS and fringe guidelines. The ability to view deleted content is a plus. Mark Arsten ( talk) 17:42, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Template:Reliable sources for medical articles generates this -
Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline
Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically
review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about WikiProject Medicine/Archive 37.
|
A robot has put this template on the talk pages of many health articles. The goal behind this was to give users who visit the talk pages of health articles a recommended search which would assist them in finding appropriate scholarly articles which they could use to develop the Wikipedia article. The template does a search in a United States government health database, and the search is for the article's name.
Previous discussion of this template happened in the following places:
Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:18, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
why is this happening? This Trip database identifies primary sources ... why are we encouraging new editors to source incorrectly? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:44, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
I think the template is great, and it is probably one of the best ways of encouraging wise editing. I have nevertheless noticed that in the case of Huntington's disease it makes a strange thing saying potentially useful sources of information about Huntington%26%2339%3Bs+disease . I suppose it will not be the only case. Can it be fixed?-- Garrondo ( talk) 20:23, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Why is this thing being installed by bot, and does anyone know how to make the bot STOP ??? I don't have time to sort it ... but this seems to be another chapter in the Build An Encyclopedia Via Bot While Making Editorial Decisions By People With Brains Harder and Harder. I do not want this misleading info on talk pages of articles I edit; if someone wants to deal with primary sources on another article, or if the list for a particular article is sound, they can install it on talk-- why is it being done with automated tools? The links for the articles I primarily edit are not generally articles we should be encouraging new editors to use, and it is not hard to see that this blanket referral of articles will lead to problems with new editors who use sources inappropriately. Again, those who want to deal with that can and should by adding the link, but will someone PLEASE stop the bot (preferably the person who started it)-- this should not be an automated task. Editorial discretion should be used. The template is labeling frequent primary sources (simply because free full text is available) as sources we should be using ... I can't wait to deal with new editors on that. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:25, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Okay so I started this template. Consensus for it was developed on this page as linked above. TRIP database shows secondary sources first (they are in green and they label these as secondary sources). I am sure we can get rid of the primary source if people wish. Pubmed does a good job of linking to secondary sources. If you are seeing stuff that is not secondary sources in these pubmed links please let me know. Discussion for improvement can occur here as well Template_talk:Reliable_sources_for_medical_articles
Yes there is not going to be free content for every search. But not everyone has access to full no free sources and thus why it was added. Sorry about the strange text in the name. I have fixed it by changing PAGENAMEU to PAGENAME.
With respect to building an encyclopedia by bot these edits are not being made to the main space of any article and they of course never will be. This is simply to help editors find sources. All content edits still require humans.
What we link to can be adjusted. Is it a bad idea to try to direct people to high quality searches for evidence? I fo not think so. This is better than a google search which would otherwise be the default. Nowhere in the evidence box does it say that an editor can through away their brain and just use whatever is provided blindly. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:00, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
I disagree with SandyGeorgia and Looie this time: the template even if not 100% perfect in the sources it points out, can be a good start point for interested users. Moreover, it has the advantage that it gives a link to MEDRS at every medical talk page, and also says how to find potentially useful (bolded mine, but maybe there is a way to remark that they are only potential). I would say that damage the template can bring is minimal, whereas benefit still has to be seen (although as Looie says it will probably not be huge).-- Garrondo ( talk) 06:34, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for, at least, the correction to remove the primary sources from the list (which was a surprising oversight that leads to concern about how many experienced eyes are following WT:MED these days). Using a bot to recommend sourcing is still sub-optimal for a multitude of reasons I don't have time to outline today, but which I am certain editors will experience once the university term starts. This discussion was split to my talk page: [5] At minimum, I do not want automation taking over on talk pages where real brains, real eyes, and real editor discussion is needed, and anyone who thinks POV pushers and unknowledgeable students won't use these lists to advantage has perhaps not spent enough time editing articles where same dominate. Please stop the bot addition to talk pages and allow those editors who can ascertain that the list is useful to manually install the template on talk pages of articles they watch. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 11:20, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Have the primary sources been removed now, or not? The template language still indicates they are there:
For a list of review articles from the last 5 years at PubMed, click here (limit to free articles or to systematic reviews)
Part of the problem was that the inclusion of "free articles" resulted in primary sources. If that has been addressed, the template text is wrong. If it hasn't been addressed, we still have a problem. The language (and the "or") is confusing ... is it reviews only? Is it reviews "or" free full text (which was the problem before that yielded primary sources). Please clarify the text. Also, since the template was not subst'd, will the corrected text show on articles, or does the bot need to fix them all? <groan> ... In addition to the problem of "who is minding the store" these days, since no one apparently noticed during the bot test that we were recommending primary sources on article talk pages. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 12:00, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Additionally we will be looking at the number of the TRIP link generates so we can determine if anyone uses them. If the answer is "no one" than of course we can pull them. I however sort of like having a link to WP:MEDRS on every article talk page. I know I post it on enough IPs talk pages. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:24, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm glad things are advancing here (tip of the hat to Blue Rasberry's reasoned post above), but anyone who thinks "last five years" works in many/most cases perhaps hasn't had the pleasure of dealing with student editors on obscure stubs like klazomania. As rasberry points out, we'll need to see the consequences of this template in practice, and we will likely see it once the next university term starts On the articles I edit, the links are not helpful. As another example of the drive for automation (where our infobox forces us to link to articles with known inaccuracies), I hope editor knowledge and discretion and discussion are not replaced by automation and bots. Editors knowledgeable in given topics know the best sources: if we see issues as a result of these lists, I hope we will adjust (although in my experience, once something automated like an infobox is installed, it is difficult to gain consensus to remove them no matter the issues and inaccuracies). SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 12:49, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
I think this template is useful (sorry Sandy!) as it does what MEDRS advises wrt a PubMed search for recent reviews on the subject. If the students I've run across had used this, they'd have got off to a better start. The Trip results for Asperger returns a case study as the first result so something's not quite right there. Although the template might be lost within the other talk page template clutter, it is something we could point newbies at to help them with their first sourcing queries. I don't see the bot addition of this template as nearly as bad as the bot-automated edits of article text. The problem doesn't seem to be in the queries the links execute (which are the sort of queries we recommend). Human brain is required to review the query results. Sandy, if you were advising someone to read the literature for TS, isn't the suggested PubMed search a good place to begin? -- Colin° Talk 13:09, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
To Sandy: for me, MEDDATE is probably the most flexibly interpreted aspect of MEDRS. Agree last five years is sometimes difficult, but rarely impossible, related to the nature of the subject and how much research interest there has been in it. I will not remove a secondary source that is not too far outside 5 yrs old if it is doing a good job and I can't be bothered/can't find a more modern source. I would move that MEDDATE becomes more of an ideal target rather than an absolute inflexible rule, and maybe increase to 10 years to help on the topics with fewer reliable sources ... but I've seen how hard it is to get any changes to MEDRS. When you mention inaccuracies in infoboxes, do you mean links like emedicine? As I understand it, not all fields in the infobox have to be populated... can just remove a particular link and leave an explanation on the talk page as to your reasoning. "Editors knowledgeable in given topics know the best sources" whilst sounds perfectly logical, to me has hints of article ownership. Highlighting sourcing policy on the talk page for anyone who visits that page is a good thing... as pointed out above, better a well meaning editor uses these links than google.
To Colin: PubMed marks "a case report and review of the literature" as a review. Also occasionally it will not mark a review paper as a review. This is more issues with PubMed, or how journals supply metadata about their publications I think. Lesion ( talk) 13:21, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
On the five years, in the topic area I edit, it is often necessary to go much older than that to find a review.
On the issue you raise of "own", we routinely weigh the quality of sources (impact factor of the journal, known biases and criticism of authors or obscure journals, and many other factors). We shouldn't replace discussion, discretion and knowledge with automation. We will see how this works in practice once the new university term starts. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 13:34, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
(tangent from above discussion) Nothing wrong, imo, with a minimalist infobox like this: angular cheilitis. ICD-10 and 9 codes only. Of course, in this example there are no other fields included simply because no-one has included then rather than there being any identified inaccuracy in the links. Lesion ( talk) 15:29, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Just throwing ideas around. It didn't occur to me before that infoboxes were a source of problems. Sure I noticed emedicine gave some weird info on one occasion. So, I sense that some people would want the infobox reduced to an image and a caption, with no following ICD codes etc or ELs. Since the title of the infobox is mostly the same as the title of the page, may as well scrap that too... then you are left with just an image and a caption ... so basically there would be reason to have an infobox at all, and instead just have an image embedded in the lead.
I agree that in some cases the ELs in the infobox might be inappropriate and fail ELNO... and maybe they should be in the EL section if they are included at all.
I disagree that ICD codes should go entirely. This is an attempt at an international standard and we should give this info to be encyclopedic. Potentially they could be moved somewhere else in the page, but I think a collapsible section in the infobox is a valid option. Don't see why mirror sites should discourage this (I thought we didn't like mirrors anyway?). Lesion ( talk) 15:26, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
I am generally in favor of the infobox we have for diseases even though most were created before I arrived. Emedicine is sometimes useful and easily accessible even though it has issues. Pubmed is not always right but is easy to read. ICD codes help structure content as does MeSH. It is not like we have huges amount of content in these boxes. I do not think attempting to summarize the article in a infobox is either a good idea or possible. Most conditions have many causes, treatments and preventions. These are all nuanced discussions that are not properly summarized in a couple of words. Numbers and links fit well in boxes prose does not. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:42, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
A few quick thoughts:
I think what was suggested was that simply because there are fields in the template then editors may feel obliged to fill them regardless of the qualities of the EL. Not so much automation but "automatic" editing by living editors. I've never seen a bot fill out an infobox either, but I could be wrong. Lesion ( talk) 21:52, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
I think we need to be careful to not allow these differences of opinions regarding infoboxes to over-shadow the much larger issue facing WP:MED. Here we are more than 12 years out and less than 1% of all medical articles have passed peer review (196 out of 26,350). The number of new GAs/FAs in the last 6 months is 4 or 5 with a couple of them only tangentially related to medicine. A number of previous GAs/FAs, while they retain the title, have fallen out of date and additionally would no longer pass current criteria due to extensive primary sourcing. While readership is amazing and growing I would not call the quality of our content a rousing success. The number of people actively editing medical content remains small and efforts to recruit have as of yet had limited positive impact (with certain efforts having a negative one). Anyway chronic obstructive pulmonary disease is poor quality so back to work... Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:43, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
I guess the overriding question is what do we want these boxes to contain: 1) a summary of key features of the disease in point form 2) information pertaining to classification and a couple of links to sources. We could also have both but that would be too much IMO. I support choice number two. Would be happy to see a RfC created on issue if other wish. Our fellow French Wikipedians are having the same discussion here [8] Attempting to get consistecy acress languages is not something I am going to attempth though. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:03, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Catching up, multiple ... yes, delete all mentioned from infobox, but that includes Medline, which is awful.
Could someone please give me a clue stick-- what is "Wikidata" referring to in these discussions? Found,
Wikidata, another WMF venture, hopefully better planned than the new notifications system or the new Visual editor, but not likely ... probably behind all the current problems driving poor editor behavior on issues like infoboxes.
SandyGeorgia (
Talk)
15:12, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
However, it could be argued that an article is incomplete if it does not have an EL section? What about a new template which lists DiseaseDB, emedicine, etc links inside the EL section? If they are wanted and don't fail ELNO that is... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lesion ( talk • contribs)
It can NOT be argued that an article is incomplete if it does not have an EL section-- quite the opposite. The absence of an EL section in a Featured or Good article is desirable, as it indicates the article is comprehensive and there is nothing left for an EL to say about it. Stubs may have ELs, but we gradually hope to migrate articles away from them. Please do NOT create templates of ELs-- they are notorious for causing problems, and the presence of absence of ELs is a function of how well developed the article is.
On DMOZ, I am one of the editors who has long advocated inclusion because it gives us a place to send the insistent and persistent who want to create link farms-- we can tell them DMOZ already contains all of that claptrap. Eliminating DMOZ results in increased editing for those of us ... who do all the work in here ... because we have to deal with more editors wanting to add useless links. If consensus is to eliminate DMOZ, I won't strongly object, but it has served a purpose in my editing. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 13:35, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
IMO, up-to-date MeSH links are genuinely useful on Wikipedia pages. In reality, we're not writing just for a profilable "average" user, but for a wide range of general users, many of whom who come to Wikipedia as an orientative first port of call. These include, school and university students, doctors with their patients, and a wide variety of professional people, ranging from biochemists to economists, and from translators to statisticians, etc etc... For some of these people, ready access to the term in the MeSH browser straight from a Wikipedia page may feel natural and convenient. And the MeSH (and ICD) terms also provide independent information about how the topic of the page is classified. [@Colin:] In my view, that's genuinely useful encyclopedic information. 86.161.251.139 ( talk) 11:12, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
I have added very few ICDs as most are already there. So others must find them useful to. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:09, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
I made a comment further up but it seem to have got lost. WP:EL does not permit mediocre external links as long as the article is crap too. All external links on all articles have to meet or exceed the quality we'd expect of a featured article on the topic. And the links we do add are hidden in a code like ""neuro/386 derm/438 ped/2796 radio/723"". Absolutely nobody is going to click on those links. Especially not after they clicked on the ICD ones above and got negative information. So really it is time to get the broom and sweep them away and move the category codes out of the lead. Colin° Talk 07:35, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
So, as I see it there are few Qs that ppl are raising here. Would be good to move towards a clear consensus on each issue:
My opinions on these issues are:
Mine:
SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:38, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Keep the ICD/MESH codes and their links but in a new template box ("Disease categories" or something like that). This can go in the External links section. Remove all other external links from info box as they encourage mindless addition rather than thoughtful policy-based inclusion of relevant links. There never was any key data of lead-importance in the info box disease so it can just be deleted and replaced with a captioned image. This change could be done by a bot initially -- the category code stuff is just moving things around. The other external links would really benefit from being replaced by meaningful names rather the code. This could be simply the name of the external web site and the article title but would probably be better done by scraping the web page title -- something that would need a fairly intelligent bot. I agree there is no point in editors doing this mass change by hand. We could, though, deprecate Infobox disease and create the new one, as a step in the right direction. Colin° Talk 20:29, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Mine:
-- WS ( talk) 10:58, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
|prevalence=
Rare disease
or |prevalence=common
(e.g., common cold) or even |prevalence=Most common form of cancer
(e.g., non-melanoma skin cancer). You can summarize complicated things in infoboxes: IMO the only sensible entry at
Autism (where I personally would leave it blank) would be |prevalence=Disputed
.Agreed most people go through gatekeepers in primary care before they see a specialist, and this weakens the argument that the specialty is useful info. Still potentially encyclopedic though... What about a surgical sieve term, does no-one like this idea? Similar implementation problems with any constructive change to infoboxes... arguments about how to classify things (already starting here?) ... need to change the template ... need to program a bot to help fill out the new template fields.
Having said this, I like idea of a classification template with ICD and MeSH, this would take these "codes" out of the top of the article when most people will not be interested in them. Also support moving EL out of infobox to EL section, potentially in a template or just an old fashioned bullet list. So far the only thing everyone has agreed upon is that EL policy extends to EL in the infobox, and since this was already part of policy, there is nothing to change based upon that individual consensus. Lesion ( talk) 16:33, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
I forgot to ask at the beginning of this thread: is there any reason we are keeping ICD-9 codes? Lesion ( talk) 13:57, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Proposed split | Current use | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
Here's a quick mockup of what we'd get if we split the box into two. The second box would presumably go under ==Classification==, a section that is (1) about how the disease is subdivided (e.g., subtypes of leukemia in the article Leukemia), not about how the disease relates to other diseases, (2) normally the first section, and thus immediately underneath the existing infobox, and (3) not present in a majority of disease-related articles. Given that there's no place to put it in most articles and it takes up more screen real estate, I'm not very excited about this option, but I can't say that I really care much one way or the other. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 02:20, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
For what it is worth, here's a crude mock up of the bottom of Tuberous sclerosis. It includes the already present navigation templates and categories. Note how it fits nicely here :-) I've shown all external links for comparison with above, without judgement as to whether they are suitable.
External links
V·T·E | Diseases of the skin and appendages by morphology | [ show ] |
---|
V·T·E | Phakomatosis ( Q85, 759.5–759.6) | [ show ] |
---|
V·T·E | Deficiencies of intracellular signaling peptides and proteins | [ show ] |
---|
Scheme | Code | Category |
---|---|---|
ICD-9 | 759.5 |
Congenital Anomalies → Other and unspecified congenital anomalies → → Tuberous sclerosis |
ICD-10 | Q85.1 |
Congenital malformations, deformations and chromosomal abnormalities → Phakomatoses, not elsewhere classified → → Tuberous sclerosis |
MESH | D014402 | Tuberous sclerosis |
Categories: Genes on chromosome 9 Genes on chromosome 16 Autosomal dominant disorders Genodermatoses Rare diseases
Colin° Talk 12:39, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Independent of the outcome of this discussion I think it is important that the data is copied to Wikidata first. The various codes ensure that the interwiki-links are set right, that duplicate articles can be flagged, that duplicate codes can be flagged, etc. In addition we are starting this: links between genes/proteins, diseases, and drugs. So please give us just one or two more months to acquire the data. So everyone can check on the progress I made this table which I promise to update once a week: d:Wikidata:Medicine_task_force#Data_aquisition_progress. -- Tobias1984 ( talk) 08:27, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes, strongly support this. In the long run, I would imagine wikidata to provide a much better interface for accessing these data, e.g. as a tab on a wikipedia article or something similar and preference settings for if you want to see infoboxes at all or not. In the short run, it also makes it easier to move any parameters outside of the infobox, you could set up a template such that if you add it, it automatically takes the value from wikidata (e.g. you could add {{ICD_box}} to the end of the article without having to specify the codes there). -- WS ( talk) 11:08, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
So, before this dissappears into the archives, is there consensus for any change? -- WS ( talk) 20:11, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Well there seems to be consensus on one point, namely that WP:EL should apply to external links in the infobox (and further almost consensus to move them to the external links section). The most crucial things to be considered from EL are: included can be:
Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues,[3] amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons.
And (to be avoided):
Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article.
So, going through those:
Based on this, I would propose dropping diseasesdb and medlineplus altogether, keep OMIM and GeneReviews, and decide for eMedicine on a case-to-case basis. Furthermore, would be good to hear some more opinions on whether to move the links to the external links section or keep them in the infobox ( WP:EL allows for both).-- WS ( talk) 13:38, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
LT90001 ( talk) 10:07, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello all; as you may know I and Lesion have been working on integrating the multitude of lichen planus articles that are one-two sentences into the main article. I've found a similar issue on sarcoidosis and several other topics. In fact a full list can be found here, in an active user's 2009 creates (based on the WP:DERM policy). I left a message on the user's talk page requesting comment, this user has made many valuable edits and remains an active member of Wikipedia and Wikiproject Med, so it would be great to have their comments. My request for discussion is:
I feel it's unhelpful and troublesome to users to have a dispersed diaspora of different articles 1-2 sentences when these could be displayed in main articles; plus there is always the potential to recreate separate articles at a future time if needed. Kind Regards LT90001 ( talk) 11:09, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Thank you all for your contributions. It seems like consensus has been reached that there are indeed a huge about of 1-2 line dermatological stubs that haven't been significantly edited in years and that, if due caution is exercised and the merge progress followed, where possible these can be merged into their relevant parent article. LT90001 ( talk) 22:08, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Care to comment on this submission? Thanks! FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 18:03, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
I have been working on Genital wart for some time and would like to nominate it for GA review soon. I am working through the last remaining parts (Management and Epidemiology) and feel like I could use some comments on the remainder of the article in preparation for formal review (If that's necessary? a bit unclear on that.)
Thanks. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/ talk ]# ▄ 08:04, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Problem = Have 2 MeSH IDs for the same wikipedia article due to merges. I want to include both, tried this didn't work as one was ignored and not translated from the source.
| MeshID = D008010
| MeshID2 = D017676
Any ideas? Article is Lichen planus btw. Lesion ( talk) 11:58, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Most of what this user has added is copy and paste user:Seppi333. Would others help look through it. I am heading out for a few days. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:07, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
I personally don't see a problem with direct quoting of sources, especially say the conclusions of a cochrane review which are very carefully worded deliberately, and as long as it is made clear where the quote came from and that it is a direct quote. E.g. see Temporomandibular_joint_dysfunction#Occlusal adjustment/reorganization the text which is directly quoted is clearly separated from the other text, using blockquote and quotation marks. Lesion ( talk) 12:26, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
What do people feel about these sort of images with links to videos in the caption? [26]. Should the expectation be that they are on commons and under a free license? The still image adds little and my concern is that this is simply a way of getting around our open content policy. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:18, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Sample for discussion: for years, there were complaints that the Tourette syndrome article had no visual for tics. Tics cannot be captured in an image, since they are a movement or a sound, and we got frequent queries along the lines of "what does a tic look like". Someone (I can't recall who) got the TSA and HBO to release a video clip to us ... included at Tourette syndrome#Characteristics. I was not fond of the idea of having a video clip in text, but it has served its purpose well here ... no more complaints or queries about what is a tic, and the video was properly released to Wikipedia. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 12:31, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello all, I've been considering creating a new taskforce (or at least categorisation) for med articles and I'd like your opinions. A link is available on 'taskforce:talk'.
Summary: I propose a new taskforce, the Society & Medicine taskforce, which would include medically-related events, people, organisations and publications (journals, almanacs, etc). My original name was "OPP" (Organisations, people & publications). Rationale: WikiMed covers articles about the practice of medicine, and also about medicine in society (organisations, events, famous doctors). I think is is useful to demarcate these. These two types of articles are fundamentally different:
WikiMed | Society & Medicine taskforce: | |
---|---|---|
Articles covered | current set of articles | Articles already part of WikiMed that refer to: organisations, events, doctors & patients, journals, publications, and textbooks. |
Likely infoboxes | Disease, Symptom, Diagnostic, Intervention | Other |
Likely editors | Doctors & Scientists | Historians, sociographers, laypeople |
Classified according to | ICD | Notoriety |
Theoretical extent | Finite number (ICD is finite) | Infinite number (history is ongoing) |
Likely organisation | Heirachically organised (organ - disease - subtype) | Categorised by characteristics (country, year, etc.) |
I hope I have illustrated just how different these articles are. I suspect a significant amount of WikiMed's current 35,000 active articles are, in fact, relating to Society & Medicine. If there is a way to get them out of the pool, medical-practice related editors can get on with the job with a lot less clutter. Topics I am sure will come up:
Opinions? LT90001 ( talk) 07:21, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
{{WPMED |class= |importance=}}
on to the talk pages. This is a pretty easy task, and it really is helpful, because then these articles will turn up automatically in our lists if they get sent to AFD or tagged with a problem.
WhatamIdoing (
talk)
15:39, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
LT910001, have you seen WP:WikiProject Hospitals? We dumped all of the hospital articles on them a while ago. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 15:40, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments. I won't persist with creating this taskforce unless there is a sudden an unexpected show of support :D. Is there any way to view how med articles are categorised? (eg. diseases, physicians, etc?). I think this is a useful metric which, if not developed, I will find a way to construct. LT90001 ( talk) 10:09, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
I think these articles should be merged to Vertically transmitted infection, because neither is long enough to justify being split into a separate article as is. Besides, there is currently no article for Prenatal infection to accommodate fetal infections acquired before 22 completed weeks of gestation (which is the earliest limit of the start of the perinatal period) which is the period of greatest risk for e.g. congenital rubella syndrome. So, instead of having at least 3 small articles ( Perinatal infection, Prenatal infection (before 22 weeks) and Vertical transmission) I suggest that we have one article, Vertically transmitted infection to cover it all. The ICD infobox in Perinatal infection can be put at the top of it, since it says in ICD-10 "includes infections acquired in utero or during birth", which implies infections before 22 weeks as well. Also, the term "perinatal infection" does not necessarily mean that the infection can spread to the child, but all the text in the Perinatal infection article refers to this risk, so the article name Vertically transmitted infection better reflects the article content. Mikael Häggström ( talk) 14:30, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Please consider commenting over there. -- Scray ( talk) 06:42, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
There have been some major changes at Neuroaid in the last hours. Particularly distrubing are the changes to the table of ingridients, where the animal substances Contained have been deleted without explanation. There has also been a removal of secondary sources and exchange for primary sources. These newly introduced sources are misquoted and misrepresented, for example this study, which distintly states " Statistical difference was not detected between the treatment groups for any of the secondary outcomes. Subgroup analyses showed no statistical heterogeneity for the primary outcome" is quoted in the revision as "The data of the trial showed that patients treated by NeuroAiD had positive benefits with an increase of 11%in the Odd Ratio (OR) of achieving functional independence at acute stage. This improvement rate increased to an OR of39% (CI 95% 0.97-1.98) when NeuroAiD was initiated more than 48 hours after stroke onset, when the variability of patients post stroke condition is smaller than at the acute stage. Authors of the paper conclude that “it is plausible that with a larger study population, such a moderate clinically relevant treatment effect may be detected with statistical significance". Some experienced eyes might be good on this. Ochiwar ( talk) 07:29, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
The article Maharishi Vedic Approach to Health appears to be filled with very large medical claims and is written from the pseudoscience perspective. e.g
TLDR summary: no mainstream rebuttals are provided for any claim, als this seems to be full of marketspeak for people selling products by filling the article with pseudoscience, IRWolfie- ( talk) 19:28, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Have a look at this, this, this and this with regard to the Phimosis article. As can be seen, it's a matter that has to do with cisgender/gender identity. While I understand where transgender and/or intersex people are coming from on this matter, it is most assuredly WP:Undue weight to state "individuals with penises" instead of "men" or "males," or "people" instead of "men" or "males." Secondly, sources on this matter do not state "individuals with penises" or simply "people"; thus the addition is WP:Unsourced. The sources state "men" or "males" (or even "boys"). Thirdly, the word people could include anyone. Not surprisingly, Lesion started a discussion about this at Talk:Phimosis. But for a similar matter, see the following late 2012 discussion that was had at the Human penis article: Talk:Human penis/Archive 1#"male humans" should be changed to "humans assigned male at birth". It was decided by WP:Consensus that we should not state "The human penis is an external sexual organ of humans assigned male at birth." because the wording is WP:Undue weight and is not supported by sources. However, my suggestion of "The human penis is an external male sex organ." had support, including from those who feel that the wording "The human penis is an external sexual organ of male humans." is ignorant of transgender and/or intersex people. Some transgender people are okay if we employ the sex and gender distinction, using the term male since it is more so a biological matter while the term man is more so a sociological matter. I thought that the sex and gender distinction is why Lesion used males, but, as can be seen, even that was reverted.
Is there anything that this project thinks should be specifically done about matters such as these, such as perhaps amending Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)? Or is it unnecessary to amend Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) just for this, especially since that guideline is clear that it's about what the sources state and what type of sources to use? I'm bringing this matter here because it is a subject that is sporadically, but more frequently, coming up at articles noting sex anatomy and especially at articles specifically about sex anatomy. See, for example, this discussion section and this edit (both from 2011) with regard to the Human male reproductive system article (some of those changes have been removed since then). A similar section was also started at the Human male reproductive system article by the same editor, where it's gotten one reply thus far. All of this is why I will next leave a note about these matters at WP:Anatomy. However, since WP:Anatomy is very inactive, I believe it will take the help of WP:MED to address this matter. Flyer22 ( talk) 17:17, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
I posted a couple of requests, inappropriately, at WT:MEDRS, which I'm repeating here now.
I would be grateful if any editor who thoroughly understands WP:MEDRS could find time to look at the relevant sections of Epimedium. There have been constant attempts to add material based on Chinese medical use, but even when these are removed, some of the remaining information seems inappropriate to me.
If anyone has time to look at Galactagogue, I think it needs attention in relation to WP:MEDRS standards.
Peter coxhead ( talk) 18:52, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
please see Talk:ABCD² score. Skookum1 ( talk) 06:24, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
This was an article full of mostly-unsourced material around the topic of vitamin C megadosage and the like. The sources it had didn't use the term "redox therapy" at all, and there was a focus on Linus Pauling.
After cutting back, I have tried to rebuild a small article based on good sources. However, it seems that "redox therapy" is the term used for a legitimate novel line of therapeutic research, and that it enjoys a historical usage (and altmed usage) as a shorthand for vitamin megadosage. I am not sure how/whether a line should be drawn ... do we for instance need a "Redox therapy (alternative medicine)" article. Or is the current research on the same continuum as the altmed usage?
Expert advice/thoughts welcome! Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 09:21, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Greetings, all. I write to inform the members of this project that the analogous Wiktionary:Wiktionary:WikiProject Medicine has a great deal of development to be done ahead of it. We would like to create the world's premier online medical dictionary, as a complement to the world's premier online medical encyclopedia. Cheers! bd2412 T 01:12, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
See Talk:Roundup (herbicide)#RfC: Un-merge from Glyphosate?. The previous article contained health claims before it was merged, so is of relevance to this board [28]. Cheers, IRWolfie- ( talk) 23:50, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
There's a question at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions#Unsupported_medical_statement that I noticed. Someone here might have a chance to address it before I do. Biosthmors ( talk) 08:53, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi. I've been floating around Wikipedia for a few years now and I've seen some funny stuff, but the other day when looking into an ANI complaint ( Wikipedia:ANI#Herbxue ( permalink) I noticed some misrepresentation of references which looks about as bad as what we had going on in the Jagged 85 debacle but appears to me to be more deliberate and possibly more dishonest. I just pinged a few of the old veterans from around here to see if they can give their input and provide social pressure, but I'd welcome some comments. Source misrepresentation is a subtle, difficult, and relatively uncommon problem which needs to be taken seriously when it is discovered, as it is just as unfair to the authors of sources as it is to the readers. I've spent some time cleaning up the misrepresentation conducted by Jagged 85 in his 80,000+ edits and I can tell you that it is extremely time-consuming. The misrepresentation here is from the anti alternative medicine perspective, which is good in that it runs against the typical misrepresentation or poor sourcing by newbies and vandals, but also means it may be more difficult to spot. Anyway, I would love to hear from neutral editors. Maybe I'm just naive or missing something and this is not a big deal, in which case I want to know that too. I summarized the situation in my first comment to the topic. II | ( t - c) 09:20, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Hey folks, just an announcement that the evidence-based systematic review library, Cochrane Collaboration, has a WIR position open for applicants. Wiki Project Med Foundation] is coordinating the process. Cochrane is a fantastic organization, and the position is both paid and remote. More info here: Cochrane/WIR. Check it out and sign up! Cheers, Ocaasi ( talk) 14:03, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Do any of you mind weighing in on this matter? We definitely need some members of WP:MED to comment on it. Flyer22 ( talk) 21:03, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
As stated in my taskforce attempt, I've been working on straightening out Category:Medicine. I hope the current state is more satisfactory and useful. I've also been trying to reduce the cross-linking of medical categories (and have a more hierarchical organization).
Next thing I would love to do is see if the task force assessment or something similar can also be used on categories - that is, {{Task force assessment|Medicine}}
Cheers, LT90001 ( talk) 03:52, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Proactiv was recently nominated for GA. Not really medicine but more marketing IMO. Thoughts? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:43, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
13:58, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
19:33, 6 August 2013 (UTC)According to the current guidelines, medications should be tagged with both wpmed and wppharm. Personally, I don't think adding multiple projects is very helpful or productive; it only adds to the work of keeping ratings up-to-date which are already often outdated. I would suggest we tag medications only with wppharm, just like we do with anatomy articles. -- WS ( talk) 10:38, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Here is a list of links to 77 medical categories at Alltop, all the top stories.
If this list of links is deemed to be useful to this WikiProject, then it can be copied to
Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Alltop stories. (Even if news sites are not reliable sources of medical information, they can still alert editors to search for reliable sources elsewhere.) I hope that participants in related WikiProjects are watching this talk page, because I prefer not to spend time in posting various subsets of this list to additional talk pages.
—
Wavelength (
talk)
00:35, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello all. I just created Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Missing aka WP:MEDMISS. Feel free to drop anything you observe that should be created there. Thanks. Biosthmors ( talk) 10:10, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
A new article. Needs looking at by someone familiar with the subject. Language is probably far too technical for Wikipedia, and seems only to cite the author of the article as a source. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 13:29, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello,
I am Professor Rothbart. I have been a researcher and clinican for over 40 years. I am credited with discovering and publishing on a previously unrecognized abnormal inherited foot structure, the PreClinical Clubfoot Deformity. I first published on this foot structure in a peer reviewed medical journal in 2002. And have subsequently published several other papers on this foot structure in Podiatry Review (Podiatric peer review journal).
As the discoverer of this foot structure, I believe that I am the expert on this foot subject. My research suggests that this foot structure is one of the most common causes of chronic muscle and joint pain. Both my research and clinical practice provide data that substantiates this statement.
The language is technical, because the subject matter is technical. The language can be geared more towards the layperson in future revisions.
Professor Rothbart — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.250.162.178 ( talk) 14:23, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Frequent urination and Overactive bladder are both very low quality articles that appear to have overlapping information. In a random fit of trying to get away from articles that infuriate me, I'm putting myself out on another little personal project, and the first of the two came up as a high importance stub-class article. I've downgraded it to a mid-class as my first step in improvement, but it seems likely that we could merge these two articles and we'd have one poor quality article that I'll work on rather than two poor quality articles that are somewhat redundant and potentially conflicting. 71.231.186.92 ( talk) 02:35, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
OK, I concede that these are different articles. The parent article here is lower urinary tract symptoms. I have marked frequent urination and overactive bladder for merge and we can continue discussion about them on their talk pages. LT90001 ( talk) 23:39, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
A user there keeps insisting that their particular interpretation of an NIH consensus document says what they want it to say. They are persistent, and appear to be ignoring consensus. Or at least that's my interpretation, and I am certainly involved there. There is lots of talk page discussion that goes absolutely nowhere.
Additional eyes would be welcome. I have already mentioned this at WP:FRINGE/N. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/ talk ]# ▄ 02:52, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
See ANI discussion concerning a dispute at labiaplasty, incl. a proposal that plastic surgeon Otto Placik be topic-banned from plastic surgery articles and/or community-banned. Andreas JN 466 06:12, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Library is an open research hub, a place for organizing our amazing community of research and reference experts to collaborate and help improve the encyclopedia.
We are working together towards 5 big goals:
Sign up to receive announcements and news about resource donations and partnerships:
Sign up
Come and create your profile, and see how we can leverage your talent, expertise, and dedication:
Join in
-Hope to see you there, Ocaasi t | c 14:59, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Torus fracture is under discussion at WP:RFD ; from the discussion it seems this should have an article? -- 76.65.128.222 ( talk) 01:20, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
As promised a quick update about the Wikidata activities:
As usual all questions are welcome, even if you never heard of Wikidata before. -- Tobias1984 ( talk) 20:54, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi, in lieu of there being a wikiproject nutrition this seems the most relevant wikiproject. I'm interested in updating Whey_protein#Whey_protein_and_muscle_building with some review/meta-analysis etc (mainly out of a personal interest to find out more about the impact of whey protein if any). Is anyone aware of what the most reliable journals/books would be in this area? IRWolfie- ( talk) 11:49, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Recently I tried to figure out what http://www.who.int/entity/3by5/en/HIVtestkit.pdf seems to say about the bulk procurement of HIV tests, and realized I knew about as much as what the WHO seems to say about bulk procurement of birth control and family planning materials: contact them and maybe if you're lucky they will reply. Is that an accurate summary of the procedure the pertinent articles should describe? 192.81.0.147 ( talk) 23:29, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Some of you may be interested in this deletion proposal: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_August_22#Professionals. Regards, Ottawahitech ( talk) 13:43, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
The page Fox–Fordyce disease is named after George Henry Fox and John Addison Fordyce, AND YET the wikipedia page uses as "long dash" instead of a hyphen. Comments? pitch forks? flaming torches? Lesion ( talk) 18:38, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi to all. Requesting medical advice on talk pages seems to be pretty prevalent, and, in my opinion, pretty dangerous (for poster and responder, if responder is a medical practitioner). To spell out dangers (in case it's not clear enough):
In my mind, it's therefore very important that requesters are told to seek medical advice, and not to wait for wikipedia advice, and also to discourage inter-Wikipedia responses. I've been playing around with a box we can put around requests for advice, along the lines of:
The following comment seeks medical advice. This is not a suitable place. Please seek a real-world medical professional.
|
---|
Wikipedia is not a forum for medical advice. Comments from well-meaning Wikipedians may not represent best practice in the poster's country of origin, and there is a danger that best practice may be misrepresented or, at worst, deliberately distorted. No further edits should be made to this discussion. |
(with Poster's original question here) |
What do you think? We could have med template along the lines of {{medical advice box}} and {{close medical advice box}} . I think this is a good way to standardise and minimise responses to medical advice. Thoughts? LT90001 ( talk) 03:09, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
The following comment seeks medical advice.
Wikipedia does not give medical advice. Please seek a real-world medical professional. Wikipedia is
not a forum for medical advice. Comments from well-meaning Wikipedians may not represent best practice in the poster's country of origin, and there is a danger that best practice may be misrepresented or, at worst, deliberately distorted. No further edits should be made to this discussion. See also
Guidelines on medical advice
|
---|
Thank you for your input. I have created the template {{medical advice}} . I have made the change to 'real-world' as suggested, and also changed to 'wikipedia does not provide medical advice' as suggested. I think keeping this low-key is best.
Like any box template, the box surrounds text. A second template needs to come after the text: {{cob}} . For example: {{medical advice}} then text then {{cob}} Will create this:
This comment has been hidden, as
Wikipedia does not provide medical advice.
|
---|
Wikipedia does not provide medical advice. The following comment seeks medical advice. This is not a suitable place. Please seek a real-life medical professional. Comments from well-meaning Wikipedians may not represent best practice in the poster's country of origin, and there is a danger that best practice may be misrepresented or, at worst, deliberately distorted. No further edits should be made to this discussion. |
then text then |
This template was created and deleted in 2007, but I think that there is a place in a Wikipedia that has grown in users by 10-100x since then. I hope this is useful! LT90001 ( talk) 10:19, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
I've made the change to the above message. Enjoy! LT90001 ( talk) 03:06, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
This page 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. |
The article Rehabilitation center is currently devoid of content - it used to be a re-direct to the disambiguation page Rehabilitation. Can someone help start this article? Thanks in advance, X Ottawahitech ( talk) 21:29, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
The WikiProject Medicine banner was added to the talkpage of assisted living a long time ago. In 2007 it was assessed as start-class mid-importance by this project and retains the same rating in 2013. I was just trying to draw some attention to it, since it seems to be the choice solution for alzheimer’s patients in the USA today. But I will leave this for now since there seems to be no interest in this topic here. X Ottawahitech ( talk) 14:30, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
This article is getting a lot of readers and a lot of editors lately. It is our 8th most viewed article. Have recently updated the health effects to secondary sources. Most of which says "it has been poorly studied" and there fore we do not know what benefits / harms they might have. People keep trying to add primary sources or use primary sources to refute the secondary ones. Help appreciated. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:10, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
I am unsure if this is an appropriate redirect, to Optic papillitis. My understanding of "foliate papillitis" is inflammation of the foliate papillae, not to do with this. 2 out of the three hits for "foliate papillitis" is about the tongue, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=%22Foliate+papillitis%22 and the last is not clear from the abstract, but it is clear it is a primary source.
P.S. Also looks like I found another potential stub candidate for merging to its parent article. Lesion ( talk) 23:20, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
With regard to the Labiaplasty article, the Placik matter was brought up before; see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 31#Labiaplasty. As a result of that discussion, most of Placik's edits were removed from the article (though even before then, as noted in that discussion, there had been slow WP:Edit warring that involved removing and restoring some of his edits). Basically, there is concern that his edits are often problematic. A little earlier today, an IP showed up to restore the Placik material. And considering that this person (the IP), using the same IP range, has consistently restored Placik's material, and has shown up today not long after Placik showed up to edit today (with Pacik editing the Breast augmentation and Free flap breast reconstruction articles, as seen and here and here, after a hiatus that he returned from on August 5th), I'm convinced that the IP is Pacik. The IP has also finally taken the editing matter concerning the Labiaplasty article to Talk:Labiaplasty. I know a lot about female anatomy, but I do not, as of yet, know a lot about labiaplasty, breast augmentation and free flap breast reconstruction. And so I've brought this matter to you all. Placik should not be making any "corrections" that are not supported by sources in any of these articles. And whether this bit ("rectum" where "perineum" should be) that was corrected was added by Placik or not, it is clearly wrong (unless speaking of some inner tissue)...but is now back in the Labiaplasty article (along with whatever other anatomy inaccuracies that I have not assessed with regard to that article). Flyer22 ( talk) 23:51, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Is it just me or do moving images, such as the one at acquired brain injury, make it hard for readers to focus on the prose? And how is a lay reader going to get any meaning on acquired brain injury from this image? I remember seeing one article that had an option to activate a moving image, with the default set for it to be frozen. Any ideas on how to apply that here? I tend to think moving images such as this should be generally deactivated until a reader clicks on them to turn them on. Biosthmors ( talk) 12:08, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
... at neurodiversity, to multiple issues mentioned on talk, and also to Aspie Quiz, per the earlier discussion here of problems with some open access sources. A "walled garden" of POV autism articles was cleaned up waaaaay back in 2007 ... it seems to be cropping up again, and I will be quite busy through August. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:05, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
We have a number of users removing secondary sources and replacing them with primary sources and the popular press at this article. Further comments welcome. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:59, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia's article titled Medial is a disambiguation page listing a lot of articles about mathematics and linguistics.
But most of the links to that article are about anatomy. They should link to lateral and medial.
(And usually nothing should link to a disambiguation page except redirects and hatnotes. (And maybe occasionally another disambiguation page with broader coverage?))
Could people help fix all these links? Michael Hardy ( talk) 16:22, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
I wikilink anatomical terms of location to the main page, e.g.:
[[Anatomical terms of location#Superior and inferior|superior]] [[Anatomical terms of location#Superior and inferior|inferior]] [[Anatomical terms of location#Anterior and posterior 2|anterior]] [[Anatomical terms of location#Anterior and posterior 2|posterior]] [[Anatomical terms of location#Left and right (lateral), and medial2|medial]] [[Anatomical terms of location#Left and right (lateral), and medial2|lateral]]
Arguably the lateral and medial article is more specific to those terms, but I only found out about this page when you posted it here. Lesion ( talk) 18:04, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
A deletion review for Post-Finasteride Syndrome has been opened here. It could use more input from people who are familiar with MEDRS and fringe guidelines. The ability to view deleted content is a plus. Mark Arsten ( talk) 17:42, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Template:Reliable sources for medical articles generates this -
Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline
Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically
review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about WikiProject Medicine/Archive 37.
|
A robot has put this template on the talk pages of many health articles. The goal behind this was to give users who visit the talk pages of health articles a recommended search which would assist them in finding appropriate scholarly articles which they could use to develop the Wikipedia article. The template does a search in a United States government health database, and the search is for the article's name.
Previous discussion of this template happened in the following places:
Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:18, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
why is this happening? This Trip database identifies primary sources ... why are we encouraging new editors to source incorrectly? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:44, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
I think the template is great, and it is probably one of the best ways of encouraging wise editing. I have nevertheless noticed that in the case of Huntington's disease it makes a strange thing saying potentially useful sources of information about Huntington%26%2339%3Bs+disease . I suppose it will not be the only case. Can it be fixed?-- Garrondo ( talk) 20:23, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Why is this thing being installed by bot, and does anyone know how to make the bot STOP ??? I don't have time to sort it ... but this seems to be another chapter in the Build An Encyclopedia Via Bot While Making Editorial Decisions By People With Brains Harder and Harder. I do not want this misleading info on talk pages of articles I edit; if someone wants to deal with primary sources on another article, or if the list for a particular article is sound, they can install it on talk-- why is it being done with automated tools? The links for the articles I primarily edit are not generally articles we should be encouraging new editors to use, and it is not hard to see that this blanket referral of articles will lead to problems with new editors who use sources inappropriately. Again, those who want to deal with that can and should by adding the link, but will someone PLEASE stop the bot (preferably the person who started it)-- this should not be an automated task. Editorial discretion should be used. The template is labeling frequent primary sources (simply because free full text is available) as sources we should be using ... I can't wait to deal with new editors on that. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:25, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Okay so I started this template. Consensus for it was developed on this page as linked above. TRIP database shows secondary sources first (they are in green and they label these as secondary sources). I am sure we can get rid of the primary source if people wish. Pubmed does a good job of linking to secondary sources. If you are seeing stuff that is not secondary sources in these pubmed links please let me know. Discussion for improvement can occur here as well Template_talk:Reliable_sources_for_medical_articles
Yes there is not going to be free content for every search. But not everyone has access to full no free sources and thus why it was added. Sorry about the strange text in the name. I have fixed it by changing PAGENAMEU to PAGENAME.
With respect to building an encyclopedia by bot these edits are not being made to the main space of any article and they of course never will be. This is simply to help editors find sources. All content edits still require humans.
What we link to can be adjusted. Is it a bad idea to try to direct people to high quality searches for evidence? I fo not think so. This is better than a google search which would otherwise be the default. Nowhere in the evidence box does it say that an editor can through away their brain and just use whatever is provided blindly. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:00, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
I disagree with SandyGeorgia and Looie this time: the template even if not 100% perfect in the sources it points out, can be a good start point for interested users. Moreover, it has the advantage that it gives a link to MEDRS at every medical talk page, and also says how to find potentially useful (bolded mine, but maybe there is a way to remark that they are only potential). I would say that damage the template can bring is minimal, whereas benefit still has to be seen (although as Looie says it will probably not be huge).-- Garrondo ( talk) 06:34, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for, at least, the correction to remove the primary sources from the list (which was a surprising oversight that leads to concern about how many experienced eyes are following WT:MED these days). Using a bot to recommend sourcing is still sub-optimal for a multitude of reasons I don't have time to outline today, but which I am certain editors will experience once the university term starts. This discussion was split to my talk page: [5] At minimum, I do not want automation taking over on talk pages where real brains, real eyes, and real editor discussion is needed, and anyone who thinks POV pushers and unknowledgeable students won't use these lists to advantage has perhaps not spent enough time editing articles where same dominate. Please stop the bot addition to talk pages and allow those editors who can ascertain that the list is useful to manually install the template on talk pages of articles they watch. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 11:20, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Have the primary sources been removed now, or not? The template language still indicates they are there:
For a list of review articles from the last 5 years at PubMed, click here (limit to free articles or to systematic reviews)
Part of the problem was that the inclusion of "free articles" resulted in primary sources. If that has been addressed, the template text is wrong. If it hasn't been addressed, we still have a problem. The language (and the "or") is confusing ... is it reviews only? Is it reviews "or" free full text (which was the problem before that yielded primary sources). Please clarify the text. Also, since the template was not subst'd, will the corrected text show on articles, or does the bot need to fix them all? <groan> ... In addition to the problem of "who is minding the store" these days, since no one apparently noticed during the bot test that we were recommending primary sources on article talk pages. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 12:00, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Additionally we will be looking at the number of the TRIP link generates so we can determine if anyone uses them. If the answer is "no one" than of course we can pull them. I however sort of like having a link to WP:MEDRS on every article talk page. I know I post it on enough IPs talk pages. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:24, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm glad things are advancing here (tip of the hat to Blue Rasberry's reasoned post above), but anyone who thinks "last five years" works in many/most cases perhaps hasn't had the pleasure of dealing with student editors on obscure stubs like klazomania. As rasberry points out, we'll need to see the consequences of this template in practice, and we will likely see it once the next university term starts On the articles I edit, the links are not helpful. As another example of the drive for automation (where our infobox forces us to link to articles with known inaccuracies), I hope editor knowledge and discretion and discussion are not replaced by automation and bots. Editors knowledgeable in given topics know the best sources: if we see issues as a result of these lists, I hope we will adjust (although in my experience, once something automated like an infobox is installed, it is difficult to gain consensus to remove them no matter the issues and inaccuracies). SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 12:49, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
I think this template is useful (sorry Sandy!) as it does what MEDRS advises wrt a PubMed search for recent reviews on the subject. If the students I've run across had used this, they'd have got off to a better start. The Trip results for Asperger returns a case study as the first result so something's not quite right there. Although the template might be lost within the other talk page template clutter, it is something we could point newbies at to help them with their first sourcing queries. I don't see the bot addition of this template as nearly as bad as the bot-automated edits of article text. The problem doesn't seem to be in the queries the links execute (which are the sort of queries we recommend). Human brain is required to review the query results. Sandy, if you were advising someone to read the literature for TS, isn't the suggested PubMed search a good place to begin? -- Colin° Talk 13:09, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
To Sandy: for me, MEDDATE is probably the most flexibly interpreted aspect of MEDRS. Agree last five years is sometimes difficult, but rarely impossible, related to the nature of the subject and how much research interest there has been in it. I will not remove a secondary source that is not too far outside 5 yrs old if it is doing a good job and I can't be bothered/can't find a more modern source. I would move that MEDDATE becomes more of an ideal target rather than an absolute inflexible rule, and maybe increase to 10 years to help on the topics with fewer reliable sources ... but I've seen how hard it is to get any changes to MEDRS. When you mention inaccuracies in infoboxes, do you mean links like emedicine? As I understand it, not all fields in the infobox have to be populated... can just remove a particular link and leave an explanation on the talk page as to your reasoning. "Editors knowledgeable in given topics know the best sources" whilst sounds perfectly logical, to me has hints of article ownership. Highlighting sourcing policy on the talk page for anyone who visits that page is a good thing... as pointed out above, better a well meaning editor uses these links than google.
To Colin: PubMed marks "a case report and review of the literature" as a review. Also occasionally it will not mark a review paper as a review. This is more issues with PubMed, or how journals supply metadata about their publications I think. Lesion ( talk) 13:21, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
On the five years, in the topic area I edit, it is often necessary to go much older than that to find a review.
On the issue you raise of "own", we routinely weigh the quality of sources (impact factor of the journal, known biases and criticism of authors or obscure journals, and many other factors). We shouldn't replace discussion, discretion and knowledge with automation. We will see how this works in practice once the new university term starts. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 13:34, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
(tangent from above discussion) Nothing wrong, imo, with a minimalist infobox like this: angular cheilitis. ICD-10 and 9 codes only. Of course, in this example there are no other fields included simply because no-one has included then rather than there being any identified inaccuracy in the links. Lesion ( talk) 15:29, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Just throwing ideas around. It didn't occur to me before that infoboxes were a source of problems. Sure I noticed emedicine gave some weird info on one occasion. So, I sense that some people would want the infobox reduced to an image and a caption, with no following ICD codes etc or ELs. Since the title of the infobox is mostly the same as the title of the page, may as well scrap that too... then you are left with just an image and a caption ... so basically there would be reason to have an infobox at all, and instead just have an image embedded in the lead.
I agree that in some cases the ELs in the infobox might be inappropriate and fail ELNO... and maybe they should be in the EL section if they are included at all.
I disagree that ICD codes should go entirely. This is an attempt at an international standard and we should give this info to be encyclopedic. Potentially they could be moved somewhere else in the page, but I think a collapsible section in the infobox is a valid option. Don't see why mirror sites should discourage this (I thought we didn't like mirrors anyway?). Lesion ( talk) 15:26, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
I am generally in favor of the infobox we have for diseases even though most were created before I arrived. Emedicine is sometimes useful and easily accessible even though it has issues. Pubmed is not always right but is easy to read. ICD codes help structure content as does MeSH. It is not like we have huges amount of content in these boxes. I do not think attempting to summarize the article in a infobox is either a good idea or possible. Most conditions have many causes, treatments and preventions. These are all nuanced discussions that are not properly summarized in a couple of words. Numbers and links fit well in boxes prose does not. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:42, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
A few quick thoughts:
I think what was suggested was that simply because there are fields in the template then editors may feel obliged to fill them regardless of the qualities of the EL. Not so much automation but "automatic" editing by living editors. I've never seen a bot fill out an infobox either, but I could be wrong. Lesion ( talk) 21:52, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
I think we need to be careful to not allow these differences of opinions regarding infoboxes to over-shadow the much larger issue facing WP:MED. Here we are more than 12 years out and less than 1% of all medical articles have passed peer review (196 out of 26,350). The number of new GAs/FAs in the last 6 months is 4 or 5 with a couple of them only tangentially related to medicine. A number of previous GAs/FAs, while they retain the title, have fallen out of date and additionally would no longer pass current criteria due to extensive primary sourcing. While readership is amazing and growing I would not call the quality of our content a rousing success. The number of people actively editing medical content remains small and efforts to recruit have as of yet had limited positive impact (with certain efforts having a negative one). Anyway chronic obstructive pulmonary disease is poor quality so back to work... Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:43, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
I guess the overriding question is what do we want these boxes to contain: 1) a summary of key features of the disease in point form 2) information pertaining to classification and a couple of links to sources. We could also have both but that would be too much IMO. I support choice number two. Would be happy to see a RfC created on issue if other wish. Our fellow French Wikipedians are having the same discussion here [8] Attempting to get consistecy acress languages is not something I am going to attempth though. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:03, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Catching up, multiple ... yes, delete all mentioned from infobox, but that includes Medline, which is awful.
Could someone please give me a clue stick-- what is "Wikidata" referring to in these discussions? Found,
Wikidata, another WMF venture, hopefully better planned than the new notifications system or the new Visual editor, but not likely ... probably behind all the current problems driving poor editor behavior on issues like infoboxes.
SandyGeorgia (
Talk)
15:12, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
However, it could be argued that an article is incomplete if it does not have an EL section? What about a new template which lists DiseaseDB, emedicine, etc links inside the EL section? If they are wanted and don't fail ELNO that is... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lesion ( talk • contribs)
It can NOT be argued that an article is incomplete if it does not have an EL section-- quite the opposite. The absence of an EL section in a Featured or Good article is desirable, as it indicates the article is comprehensive and there is nothing left for an EL to say about it. Stubs may have ELs, but we gradually hope to migrate articles away from them. Please do NOT create templates of ELs-- they are notorious for causing problems, and the presence of absence of ELs is a function of how well developed the article is.
On DMOZ, I am one of the editors who has long advocated inclusion because it gives us a place to send the insistent and persistent who want to create link farms-- we can tell them DMOZ already contains all of that claptrap. Eliminating DMOZ results in increased editing for those of us ... who do all the work in here ... because we have to deal with more editors wanting to add useless links. If consensus is to eliminate DMOZ, I won't strongly object, but it has served a purpose in my editing. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 13:35, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
IMO, up-to-date MeSH links are genuinely useful on Wikipedia pages. In reality, we're not writing just for a profilable "average" user, but for a wide range of general users, many of whom who come to Wikipedia as an orientative first port of call. These include, school and university students, doctors with their patients, and a wide variety of professional people, ranging from biochemists to economists, and from translators to statisticians, etc etc... For some of these people, ready access to the term in the MeSH browser straight from a Wikipedia page may feel natural and convenient. And the MeSH (and ICD) terms also provide independent information about how the topic of the page is classified. [@Colin:] In my view, that's genuinely useful encyclopedic information. 86.161.251.139 ( talk) 11:12, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
I have added very few ICDs as most are already there. So others must find them useful to. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:09, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
I made a comment further up but it seem to have got lost. WP:EL does not permit mediocre external links as long as the article is crap too. All external links on all articles have to meet or exceed the quality we'd expect of a featured article on the topic. And the links we do add are hidden in a code like ""neuro/386 derm/438 ped/2796 radio/723"". Absolutely nobody is going to click on those links. Especially not after they clicked on the ICD ones above and got negative information. So really it is time to get the broom and sweep them away and move the category codes out of the lead. Colin° Talk 07:35, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
So, as I see it there are few Qs that ppl are raising here. Would be good to move towards a clear consensus on each issue:
My opinions on these issues are:
Mine:
SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:38, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Keep the ICD/MESH codes and their links but in a new template box ("Disease categories" or something like that). This can go in the External links section. Remove all other external links from info box as they encourage mindless addition rather than thoughtful policy-based inclusion of relevant links. There never was any key data of lead-importance in the info box disease so it can just be deleted and replaced with a captioned image. This change could be done by a bot initially -- the category code stuff is just moving things around. The other external links would really benefit from being replaced by meaningful names rather the code. This could be simply the name of the external web site and the article title but would probably be better done by scraping the web page title -- something that would need a fairly intelligent bot. I agree there is no point in editors doing this mass change by hand. We could, though, deprecate Infobox disease and create the new one, as a step in the right direction. Colin° Talk 20:29, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Mine:
-- WS ( talk) 10:58, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
|prevalence=
Rare disease
or |prevalence=common
(e.g., common cold) or even |prevalence=Most common form of cancer
(e.g., non-melanoma skin cancer). You can summarize complicated things in infoboxes: IMO the only sensible entry at
Autism (where I personally would leave it blank) would be |prevalence=Disputed
.Agreed most people go through gatekeepers in primary care before they see a specialist, and this weakens the argument that the specialty is useful info. Still potentially encyclopedic though... What about a surgical sieve term, does no-one like this idea? Similar implementation problems with any constructive change to infoboxes... arguments about how to classify things (already starting here?) ... need to change the template ... need to program a bot to help fill out the new template fields.
Having said this, I like idea of a classification template with ICD and MeSH, this would take these "codes" out of the top of the article when most people will not be interested in them. Also support moving EL out of infobox to EL section, potentially in a template or just an old fashioned bullet list. So far the only thing everyone has agreed upon is that EL policy extends to EL in the infobox, and since this was already part of policy, there is nothing to change based upon that individual consensus. Lesion ( talk) 16:33, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
I forgot to ask at the beginning of this thread: is there any reason we are keeping ICD-9 codes? Lesion ( talk) 13:57, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Proposed split | Current use | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
Here's a quick mockup of what we'd get if we split the box into two. The second box would presumably go under ==Classification==, a section that is (1) about how the disease is subdivided (e.g., subtypes of leukemia in the article Leukemia), not about how the disease relates to other diseases, (2) normally the first section, and thus immediately underneath the existing infobox, and (3) not present in a majority of disease-related articles. Given that there's no place to put it in most articles and it takes up more screen real estate, I'm not very excited about this option, but I can't say that I really care much one way or the other. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 02:20, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
For what it is worth, here's a crude mock up of the bottom of Tuberous sclerosis. It includes the already present navigation templates and categories. Note how it fits nicely here :-) I've shown all external links for comparison with above, without judgement as to whether they are suitable.
External links
V·T·E | Diseases of the skin and appendages by morphology | [ show ] |
---|
V·T·E | Phakomatosis ( Q85, 759.5–759.6) | [ show ] |
---|
V·T·E | Deficiencies of intracellular signaling peptides and proteins | [ show ] |
---|
Scheme | Code | Category |
---|---|---|
ICD-9 | 759.5 |
Congenital Anomalies → Other and unspecified congenital anomalies → → Tuberous sclerosis |
ICD-10 | Q85.1 |
Congenital malformations, deformations and chromosomal abnormalities → Phakomatoses, not elsewhere classified → → Tuberous sclerosis |
MESH | D014402 | Tuberous sclerosis |
Categories: Genes on chromosome 9 Genes on chromosome 16 Autosomal dominant disorders Genodermatoses Rare diseases
Colin° Talk 12:39, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Independent of the outcome of this discussion I think it is important that the data is copied to Wikidata first. The various codes ensure that the interwiki-links are set right, that duplicate articles can be flagged, that duplicate codes can be flagged, etc. In addition we are starting this: links between genes/proteins, diseases, and drugs. So please give us just one or two more months to acquire the data. So everyone can check on the progress I made this table which I promise to update once a week: d:Wikidata:Medicine_task_force#Data_aquisition_progress. -- Tobias1984 ( talk) 08:27, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes, strongly support this. In the long run, I would imagine wikidata to provide a much better interface for accessing these data, e.g. as a tab on a wikipedia article or something similar and preference settings for if you want to see infoboxes at all or not. In the short run, it also makes it easier to move any parameters outside of the infobox, you could set up a template such that if you add it, it automatically takes the value from wikidata (e.g. you could add {{ICD_box}} to the end of the article without having to specify the codes there). -- WS ( talk) 11:08, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
So, before this dissappears into the archives, is there consensus for any change? -- WS ( talk) 20:11, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Well there seems to be consensus on one point, namely that WP:EL should apply to external links in the infobox (and further almost consensus to move them to the external links section). The most crucial things to be considered from EL are: included can be:
Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues,[3] amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons.
And (to be avoided):
Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article.
So, going through those:
Based on this, I would propose dropping diseasesdb and medlineplus altogether, keep OMIM and GeneReviews, and decide for eMedicine on a case-to-case basis. Furthermore, would be good to hear some more opinions on whether to move the links to the external links section or keep them in the infobox ( WP:EL allows for both).-- WS ( talk) 13:38, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
LT90001 ( talk) 10:07, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello all; as you may know I and Lesion have been working on integrating the multitude of lichen planus articles that are one-two sentences into the main article. I've found a similar issue on sarcoidosis and several other topics. In fact a full list can be found here, in an active user's 2009 creates (based on the WP:DERM policy). I left a message on the user's talk page requesting comment, this user has made many valuable edits and remains an active member of Wikipedia and Wikiproject Med, so it would be great to have their comments. My request for discussion is:
I feel it's unhelpful and troublesome to users to have a dispersed diaspora of different articles 1-2 sentences when these could be displayed in main articles; plus there is always the potential to recreate separate articles at a future time if needed. Kind Regards LT90001 ( talk) 11:09, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Thank you all for your contributions. It seems like consensus has been reached that there are indeed a huge about of 1-2 line dermatological stubs that haven't been significantly edited in years and that, if due caution is exercised and the merge progress followed, where possible these can be merged into their relevant parent article. LT90001 ( talk) 22:08, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Care to comment on this submission? Thanks! FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 18:03, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
I have been working on Genital wart for some time and would like to nominate it for GA review soon. I am working through the last remaining parts (Management and Epidemiology) and feel like I could use some comments on the remainder of the article in preparation for formal review (If that's necessary? a bit unclear on that.)
Thanks. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/ talk ]# ▄ 08:04, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Problem = Have 2 MeSH IDs for the same wikipedia article due to merges. I want to include both, tried this didn't work as one was ignored and not translated from the source.
| MeshID = D008010
| MeshID2 = D017676
Any ideas? Article is Lichen planus btw. Lesion ( talk) 11:58, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Most of what this user has added is copy and paste user:Seppi333. Would others help look through it. I am heading out for a few days. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:07, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
I personally don't see a problem with direct quoting of sources, especially say the conclusions of a cochrane review which are very carefully worded deliberately, and as long as it is made clear where the quote came from and that it is a direct quote. E.g. see Temporomandibular_joint_dysfunction#Occlusal adjustment/reorganization the text which is directly quoted is clearly separated from the other text, using blockquote and quotation marks. Lesion ( talk) 12:26, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
What do people feel about these sort of images with links to videos in the caption? [26]. Should the expectation be that they are on commons and under a free license? The still image adds little and my concern is that this is simply a way of getting around our open content policy. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:18, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Sample for discussion: for years, there were complaints that the Tourette syndrome article had no visual for tics. Tics cannot be captured in an image, since they are a movement or a sound, and we got frequent queries along the lines of "what does a tic look like". Someone (I can't recall who) got the TSA and HBO to release a video clip to us ... included at Tourette syndrome#Characteristics. I was not fond of the idea of having a video clip in text, but it has served its purpose well here ... no more complaints or queries about what is a tic, and the video was properly released to Wikipedia. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 12:31, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello all, I've been considering creating a new taskforce (or at least categorisation) for med articles and I'd like your opinions. A link is available on 'taskforce:talk'.
Summary: I propose a new taskforce, the Society & Medicine taskforce, which would include medically-related events, people, organisations and publications (journals, almanacs, etc). My original name was "OPP" (Organisations, people & publications). Rationale: WikiMed covers articles about the practice of medicine, and also about medicine in society (organisations, events, famous doctors). I think is is useful to demarcate these. These two types of articles are fundamentally different:
WikiMed | Society & Medicine taskforce: | |
---|---|---|
Articles covered | current set of articles | Articles already part of WikiMed that refer to: organisations, events, doctors & patients, journals, publications, and textbooks. |
Likely infoboxes | Disease, Symptom, Diagnostic, Intervention | Other |
Likely editors | Doctors & Scientists | Historians, sociographers, laypeople |
Classified according to | ICD | Notoriety |
Theoretical extent | Finite number (ICD is finite) | Infinite number (history is ongoing) |
Likely organisation | Heirachically organised (organ - disease - subtype) | Categorised by characteristics (country, year, etc.) |
I hope I have illustrated just how different these articles are. I suspect a significant amount of WikiMed's current 35,000 active articles are, in fact, relating to Society & Medicine. If there is a way to get them out of the pool, medical-practice related editors can get on with the job with a lot less clutter. Topics I am sure will come up:
Opinions? LT90001 ( talk) 07:21, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
{{WPMED |class= |importance=}}
on to the talk pages. This is a pretty easy task, and it really is helpful, because then these articles will turn up automatically in our lists if they get sent to AFD or tagged with a problem.
WhatamIdoing (
talk)
15:39, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
LT910001, have you seen WP:WikiProject Hospitals? We dumped all of the hospital articles on them a while ago. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 15:40, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments. I won't persist with creating this taskforce unless there is a sudden an unexpected show of support :D. Is there any way to view how med articles are categorised? (eg. diseases, physicians, etc?). I think this is a useful metric which, if not developed, I will find a way to construct. LT90001 ( talk) 10:09, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
I think these articles should be merged to Vertically transmitted infection, because neither is long enough to justify being split into a separate article as is. Besides, there is currently no article for Prenatal infection to accommodate fetal infections acquired before 22 completed weeks of gestation (which is the earliest limit of the start of the perinatal period) which is the period of greatest risk for e.g. congenital rubella syndrome. So, instead of having at least 3 small articles ( Perinatal infection, Prenatal infection (before 22 weeks) and Vertical transmission) I suggest that we have one article, Vertically transmitted infection to cover it all. The ICD infobox in Perinatal infection can be put at the top of it, since it says in ICD-10 "includes infections acquired in utero or during birth", which implies infections before 22 weeks as well. Also, the term "perinatal infection" does not necessarily mean that the infection can spread to the child, but all the text in the Perinatal infection article refers to this risk, so the article name Vertically transmitted infection better reflects the article content. Mikael Häggström ( talk) 14:30, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Please consider commenting over there. -- Scray ( talk) 06:42, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
There have been some major changes at Neuroaid in the last hours. Particularly distrubing are the changes to the table of ingridients, where the animal substances Contained have been deleted without explanation. There has also been a removal of secondary sources and exchange for primary sources. These newly introduced sources are misquoted and misrepresented, for example this study, which distintly states " Statistical difference was not detected between the treatment groups for any of the secondary outcomes. Subgroup analyses showed no statistical heterogeneity for the primary outcome" is quoted in the revision as "The data of the trial showed that patients treated by NeuroAiD had positive benefits with an increase of 11%in the Odd Ratio (OR) of achieving functional independence at acute stage. This improvement rate increased to an OR of39% (CI 95% 0.97-1.98) when NeuroAiD was initiated more than 48 hours after stroke onset, when the variability of patients post stroke condition is smaller than at the acute stage. Authors of the paper conclude that “it is plausible that with a larger study population, such a moderate clinically relevant treatment effect may be detected with statistical significance". Some experienced eyes might be good on this. Ochiwar ( talk) 07:29, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
The article Maharishi Vedic Approach to Health appears to be filled with very large medical claims and is written from the pseudoscience perspective. e.g
TLDR summary: no mainstream rebuttals are provided for any claim, als this seems to be full of marketspeak for people selling products by filling the article with pseudoscience, IRWolfie- ( talk) 19:28, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Have a look at this, this, this and this with regard to the Phimosis article. As can be seen, it's a matter that has to do with cisgender/gender identity. While I understand where transgender and/or intersex people are coming from on this matter, it is most assuredly WP:Undue weight to state "individuals with penises" instead of "men" or "males," or "people" instead of "men" or "males." Secondly, sources on this matter do not state "individuals with penises" or simply "people"; thus the addition is WP:Unsourced. The sources state "men" or "males" (or even "boys"). Thirdly, the word people could include anyone. Not surprisingly, Lesion started a discussion about this at Talk:Phimosis. But for a similar matter, see the following late 2012 discussion that was had at the Human penis article: Talk:Human penis/Archive 1#"male humans" should be changed to "humans assigned male at birth". It was decided by WP:Consensus that we should not state "The human penis is an external sexual organ of humans assigned male at birth." because the wording is WP:Undue weight and is not supported by sources. However, my suggestion of "The human penis is an external male sex organ." had support, including from those who feel that the wording "The human penis is an external sexual organ of male humans." is ignorant of transgender and/or intersex people. Some transgender people are okay if we employ the sex and gender distinction, using the term male since it is more so a biological matter while the term man is more so a sociological matter. I thought that the sex and gender distinction is why Lesion used males, but, as can be seen, even that was reverted.
Is there anything that this project thinks should be specifically done about matters such as these, such as perhaps amending Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)? Or is it unnecessary to amend Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) just for this, especially since that guideline is clear that it's about what the sources state and what type of sources to use? I'm bringing this matter here because it is a subject that is sporadically, but more frequently, coming up at articles noting sex anatomy and especially at articles specifically about sex anatomy. See, for example, this discussion section and this edit (both from 2011) with regard to the Human male reproductive system article (some of those changes have been removed since then). A similar section was also started at the Human male reproductive system article by the same editor, where it's gotten one reply thus far. All of this is why I will next leave a note about these matters at WP:Anatomy. However, since WP:Anatomy is very inactive, I believe it will take the help of WP:MED to address this matter. Flyer22 ( talk) 17:17, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
I posted a couple of requests, inappropriately, at WT:MEDRS, which I'm repeating here now.
I would be grateful if any editor who thoroughly understands WP:MEDRS could find time to look at the relevant sections of Epimedium. There have been constant attempts to add material based on Chinese medical use, but even when these are removed, some of the remaining information seems inappropriate to me.
If anyone has time to look at Galactagogue, I think it needs attention in relation to WP:MEDRS standards.
Peter coxhead ( talk) 18:52, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
please see Talk:ABCD² score. Skookum1 ( talk) 06:24, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
This was an article full of mostly-unsourced material around the topic of vitamin C megadosage and the like. The sources it had didn't use the term "redox therapy" at all, and there was a focus on Linus Pauling.
After cutting back, I have tried to rebuild a small article based on good sources. However, it seems that "redox therapy" is the term used for a legitimate novel line of therapeutic research, and that it enjoys a historical usage (and altmed usage) as a shorthand for vitamin megadosage. I am not sure how/whether a line should be drawn ... do we for instance need a "Redox therapy (alternative medicine)" article. Or is the current research on the same continuum as the altmed usage?
Expert advice/thoughts welcome! Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 09:21, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Greetings, all. I write to inform the members of this project that the analogous Wiktionary:Wiktionary:WikiProject Medicine has a great deal of development to be done ahead of it. We would like to create the world's premier online medical dictionary, as a complement to the world's premier online medical encyclopedia. Cheers! bd2412 T 01:12, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
See Talk:Roundup (herbicide)#RfC: Un-merge from Glyphosate?. The previous article contained health claims before it was merged, so is of relevance to this board [28]. Cheers, IRWolfie- ( talk) 23:50, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
There's a question at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions#Unsupported_medical_statement that I noticed. Someone here might have a chance to address it before I do. Biosthmors ( talk) 08:53, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi. I've been floating around Wikipedia for a few years now and I've seen some funny stuff, but the other day when looking into an ANI complaint ( Wikipedia:ANI#Herbxue ( permalink) I noticed some misrepresentation of references which looks about as bad as what we had going on in the Jagged 85 debacle but appears to me to be more deliberate and possibly more dishonest. I just pinged a few of the old veterans from around here to see if they can give their input and provide social pressure, but I'd welcome some comments. Source misrepresentation is a subtle, difficult, and relatively uncommon problem which needs to be taken seriously when it is discovered, as it is just as unfair to the authors of sources as it is to the readers. I've spent some time cleaning up the misrepresentation conducted by Jagged 85 in his 80,000+ edits and I can tell you that it is extremely time-consuming. The misrepresentation here is from the anti alternative medicine perspective, which is good in that it runs against the typical misrepresentation or poor sourcing by newbies and vandals, but also means it may be more difficult to spot. Anyway, I would love to hear from neutral editors. Maybe I'm just naive or missing something and this is not a big deal, in which case I want to know that too. I summarized the situation in my first comment to the topic. II | ( t - c) 09:20, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Hey folks, just an announcement that the evidence-based systematic review library, Cochrane Collaboration, has a WIR position open for applicants. Wiki Project Med Foundation] is coordinating the process. Cochrane is a fantastic organization, and the position is both paid and remote. More info here: Cochrane/WIR. Check it out and sign up! Cheers, Ocaasi ( talk) 14:03, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Do any of you mind weighing in on this matter? We definitely need some members of WP:MED to comment on it. Flyer22 ( talk) 21:03, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
As stated in my taskforce attempt, I've been working on straightening out Category:Medicine. I hope the current state is more satisfactory and useful. I've also been trying to reduce the cross-linking of medical categories (and have a more hierarchical organization).
Next thing I would love to do is see if the task force assessment or something similar can also be used on categories - that is, {{Task force assessment|Medicine}}
Cheers, LT90001 ( talk) 03:52, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Proactiv was recently nominated for GA. Not really medicine but more marketing IMO. Thoughts? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:43, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
13:58, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
19:33, 6 August 2013 (UTC)According to the current guidelines, medications should be tagged with both wpmed and wppharm. Personally, I don't think adding multiple projects is very helpful or productive; it only adds to the work of keeping ratings up-to-date which are already often outdated. I would suggest we tag medications only with wppharm, just like we do with anatomy articles. -- WS ( talk) 10:38, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Here is a list of links to 77 medical categories at Alltop, all the top stories.
If this list of links is deemed to be useful to this WikiProject, then it can be copied to
Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Alltop stories. (Even if news sites are not reliable sources of medical information, they can still alert editors to search for reliable sources elsewhere.) I hope that participants in related WikiProjects are watching this talk page, because I prefer not to spend time in posting various subsets of this list to additional talk pages.
—
Wavelength (
talk)
00:35, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello all. I just created Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Missing aka WP:MEDMISS. Feel free to drop anything you observe that should be created there. Thanks. Biosthmors ( talk) 10:10, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
A new article. Needs looking at by someone familiar with the subject. Language is probably far too technical for Wikipedia, and seems only to cite the author of the article as a source. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 13:29, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello,
I am Professor Rothbart. I have been a researcher and clinican for over 40 years. I am credited with discovering and publishing on a previously unrecognized abnormal inherited foot structure, the PreClinical Clubfoot Deformity. I first published on this foot structure in a peer reviewed medical journal in 2002. And have subsequently published several other papers on this foot structure in Podiatry Review (Podiatric peer review journal).
As the discoverer of this foot structure, I believe that I am the expert on this foot subject. My research suggests that this foot structure is one of the most common causes of chronic muscle and joint pain. Both my research and clinical practice provide data that substantiates this statement.
The language is technical, because the subject matter is technical. The language can be geared more towards the layperson in future revisions.
Professor Rothbart — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.250.162.178 ( talk) 14:23, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Frequent urination and Overactive bladder are both very low quality articles that appear to have overlapping information. In a random fit of trying to get away from articles that infuriate me, I'm putting myself out on another little personal project, and the first of the two came up as a high importance stub-class article. I've downgraded it to a mid-class as my first step in improvement, but it seems likely that we could merge these two articles and we'd have one poor quality article that I'll work on rather than two poor quality articles that are somewhat redundant and potentially conflicting. 71.231.186.92 ( talk) 02:35, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
OK, I concede that these are different articles. The parent article here is lower urinary tract symptoms. I have marked frequent urination and overactive bladder for merge and we can continue discussion about them on their talk pages. LT90001 ( talk) 23:39, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
A user there keeps insisting that their particular interpretation of an NIH consensus document says what they want it to say. They are persistent, and appear to be ignoring consensus. Or at least that's my interpretation, and I am certainly involved there. There is lots of talk page discussion that goes absolutely nowhere.
Additional eyes would be welcome. I have already mentioned this at WP:FRINGE/N. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/ talk ]# ▄ 02:52, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
See ANI discussion concerning a dispute at labiaplasty, incl. a proposal that plastic surgeon Otto Placik be topic-banned from plastic surgery articles and/or community-banned. Andreas JN 466 06:12, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Library is an open research hub, a place for organizing our amazing community of research and reference experts to collaborate and help improve the encyclopedia.
We are working together towards 5 big goals:
Sign up to receive announcements and news about resource donations and partnerships:
Sign up
Come and create your profile, and see how we can leverage your talent, expertise, and dedication:
Join in
-Hope to see you there, Ocaasi t | c 14:59, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Torus fracture is under discussion at WP:RFD ; from the discussion it seems this should have an article? -- 76.65.128.222 ( talk) 01:20, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
As promised a quick update about the Wikidata activities:
As usual all questions are welcome, even if you never heard of Wikidata before. -- Tobias1984 ( talk) 20:54, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi, in lieu of there being a wikiproject nutrition this seems the most relevant wikiproject. I'm interested in updating Whey_protein#Whey_protein_and_muscle_building with some review/meta-analysis etc (mainly out of a personal interest to find out more about the impact of whey protein if any). Is anyone aware of what the most reliable journals/books would be in this area? IRWolfie- ( talk) 11:49, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Recently I tried to figure out what http://www.who.int/entity/3by5/en/HIVtestkit.pdf seems to say about the bulk procurement of HIV tests, and realized I knew about as much as what the WHO seems to say about bulk procurement of birth control and family planning materials: contact them and maybe if you're lucky they will reply. Is that an accurate summary of the procedure the pertinent articles should describe? 192.81.0.147 ( talk) 23:29, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Some of you may be interested in this deletion proposal: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_August_22#Professionals. Regards, Ottawahitech ( talk) 13:43, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
The page Fox–Fordyce disease is named after George Henry Fox and John Addison Fordyce, AND YET the wikipedia page uses as "long dash" instead of a hyphen. Comments? pitch forks? flaming torches? Lesion ( talk) 18:38, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi to all. Requesting medical advice on talk pages seems to be pretty prevalent, and, in my opinion, pretty dangerous (for poster and responder, if responder is a medical practitioner). To spell out dangers (in case it's not clear enough):
In my mind, it's therefore very important that requesters are told to seek medical advice, and not to wait for wikipedia advice, and also to discourage inter-Wikipedia responses. I've been playing around with a box we can put around requests for advice, along the lines of:
The following comment seeks medical advice. This is not a suitable place. Please seek a real-world medical professional.
|
---|
Wikipedia is not a forum for medical advice. Comments from well-meaning Wikipedians may not represent best practice in the poster's country of origin, and there is a danger that best practice may be misrepresented or, at worst, deliberately distorted. No further edits should be made to this discussion. |
(with Poster's original question here) |
What do you think? We could have med template along the lines of {{medical advice box}} and {{close medical advice box}} . I think this is a good way to standardise and minimise responses to medical advice. Thoughts? LT90001 ( talk) 03:09, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
The following comment seeks medical advice.
Wikipedia does not give medical advice. Please seek a real-world medical professional. Wikipedia is
not a forum for medical advice. Comments from well-meaning Wikipedians may not represent best practice in the poster's country of origin, and there is a danger that best practice may be misrepresented or, at worst, deliberately distorted. No further edits should be made to this discussion. See also
Guidelines on medical advice
|
---|
Thank you for your input. I have created the template {{medical advice}} . I have made the change to 'real-world' as suggested, and also changed to 'wikipedia does not provide medical advice' as suggested. I think keeping this low-key is best.
Like any box template, the box surrounds text. A second template needs to come after the text: {{cob}} . For example: {{medical advice}} then text then {{cob}} Will create this:
This comment has been hidden, as
Wikipedia does not provide medical advice.
|
---|
Wikipedia does not provide medical advice. The following comment seeks medical advice. This is not a suitable place. Please seek a real-life medical professional. Comments from well-meaning Wikipedians may not represent best practice in the poster's country of origin, and there is a danger that best practice may be misrepresented or, at worst, deliberately distorted. No further edits should be made to this discussion. |
then text then |
This template was created and deleted in 2007, but I think that there is a place in a Wikipedia that has grown in users by 10-100x since then. I hope this is useful! LT90001 ( talk) 10:19, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
I've made the change to the above message. Enjoy! LT90001 ( talk) 03:06, 27 August 2013 (UTC)