![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 55 | Archive 56 | Archive 57 | Archive 58 | Archive 59 | Archive 60 | → | Archive 65 |
Having a discussion about it for the presentation of anxiety disorder here. My concern is that the articles discuss anxiety rather than anxiety disorder. Do people consider that sufficient? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 19:59, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
"Mindfulness-based (ie, nonjudgmental observation of moment to moment experiences) psychotherapies have been shown to be efficacious in decreasing anxiety symptoms in an uncontrolled study of individuals with GAD and panic disorder. Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) combines mindfulness with acceptance of internal states and orientation of actions towards valued goals....A preliminary randomized trial of 16 patients supports the efficacy of an ACT approach for GAD."
hi, im helping out on the dyslexia article [1] (after it had some issues [see above]) however I myself could use some help, whether its editing, proofreading , etc, theres no one else at the article (additionally I do the ebola/west Africa article), thank you for your time-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 14:18, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Eoxin could use some love.
@ Jfdwolff or anyone interested: The pathway map - File:Eicosanoid synthesis.svg (to the right) - should probably be updated at some point; see Eoxin#Human biosynthesis. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 02:56, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
In the box "Recent changes in Medicine" I have reordered the bullets, now Articles are in top. I added a new link for Medicine navigation templates (ca. 625!). This should help editors who follow changes in that area. There is activity in Template talk:Medicine navs. - DePiep ( talk) 13:56, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello again, medical experts. Here's an AfC draft with an active editor. I'm sure it's a notable topic, but there are a lot of statements that need verifying. I have helped with formatting the references, but that's as much as I can do. — Anne Delong ( talk) 20:41, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Further thoughts here Talk:Hearing_loss#Changes? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 21:46, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
There is a layout problem - the bullet points are superimposed on the image. Does anyone know how to fix this? Thanks. Matthew Ferguson 57 ( talk) 10:39, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
-hover
" from the gallery tag (leave "packed", or the size setting will stop working correctly).
WhatamIdoing (
talk)
22:11, 2 January 2015 (UTC)They also look fine in Firefox, what version of IE are you using? Not sure which versions are supported by MediaWiki ( main page). Maybe it should be brought up there seeing as most browsers are displaying it properly it shouldn't be an issue with the template but rather with the rendering of something like Module:HtmlBuilder that doesn't work with certain version of IE. -- CFCF 🍌 ( email) 23:58, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
This is a WP:MED High-importance & level-4 vital article page split.
Insert your 2¢ if you have any. If anyone objects, propose an alternative; I'm going to follow through with some action to address the problem within a month since I won't let that travesty of an article remain as is. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 13:29, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Over at this page, offering free 1 year subs to Elsevier Science Direct, the initial applications seem to have been processed, and some readers have had good news & some not. I've been told in my joining page "Already Elsevier has agreed to expand the donation of accounts based on the fantastic editor enthusiasm.", and I would urge any editors who have not applied & think it is too late to sign up on the pending/waiting list. So far there only seem to be about 4 further unrejected applicants for the Health & Life sciences section. Applications appear to be being judged strictly on perceived and presented merit, as evidenced by track record, rather than order of signing-up, so take a little time to blow your trumpet, and say clearly which option you are applying for. I helped run the very similar applications process for the Royal Society journals last spring, and everyone suitable who applied within a reasonable time ended with an offer. Wiki CRUK John ( talk) 15:43, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
There is currently an upgrade discussion effort at Talk page for User:Zad68 for the Dyslexia medical article following the ICD-10 reclassification. Interested editors are invited to join the discussion there. Cheers. FelixRosch ( TALK) 17:29, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
those that are interested, can now go down to the "Dyslexia" section, towards the bottom of this page to contribute. thank you-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 17:57, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Evaluative diversity was linked from neurodiversity, and when I checked the freely available sources, some of them never mentioned either term, and one was a small primary study. If anyone has time and access to more of the sources, I suspect that the majority of evaluative diversity may be original researach/synth. And/or a general pushing of Simon Baron-Cohen theories, using sources that never mention the terms. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:37, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello, there is an RFC related to traditional Chinese medicine: RfC: Is the Nature article an appropriate source for the claim it is attached to?. Diego ( talk) 12:47, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Fight-or-flight response (in humans)#Humans. A WP:Permalink for the discussion is here. Flyer22 ( talk) 04:45, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Anyone know anything about this? Only source is in German. Is this distinct from chiropractic, and is it in fact "an integral part of mainstream scientific medicine" in Germany? Doesn't sound promising. Basie ( talk) 11:22, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
This article has been created based on primary sources and news articles. As per that there are no WP:MEDRS sources, which begs the question if the article should exist at all? -- CFCF 🍌 ( email) 14:39, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Sleeping illness was recently created based on a news item that seems to be getting recent western coverage: BBC, Daily Mail but see also e.g. Siberian Times. Not sure if it's already mentioned somewhere or if a dedicated article is warranted, but there seems to be no consistent common name for the condition: sleeping sickness, illness, disorder, etc. are variously used in press, and certainly MED:MOS sources should be consluted. --Animalparty-- ( talk) 06:37, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
A wide-ranging cleanup effort of many navboxes under WPMED and WPANT is planned. Discussions include regarding titles, colours and more. If interested please contribute here. Also feel free to identify any navboxes under the scope of WPMED that need some cleanup here. -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 22:59, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Two months or so back I started a major rewrite of this article (still only half done). As summarized on the article Talk page, there are now some objections to some of these edits. Would appreciate the groups input. I think the arguments for and against are well summarized on the article Talk page and so will not attempt to influence anyone by further comments here. Thanks. Formerly 98 ( talk) 22:16, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#.22Lunatic_charlatans.22_and_MEDRS, MEDRS, WP medical style, medical research .... Wiki CRUK John ( talk) 13:43, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
could use some eyes on this article. a study was published last week about some mouse studies done with an old compound - huge hype about a "new diet drug" and resulting pressure to write that up in WP. oy. Jytdog ( talk) 21:38, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Point of clarification:
These are completely separate considerations, and the presence or absence of the {{ WPMED}} banner does not tell you anything about the applicability of the two guidelines. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 23:15, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
A user is repeatedly adding a 1986 review [3] which does not appear to be supported by more recent articles.
Discussion is here [4] Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 07:07, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
At d:Wikidata:WikiProject Medicine a common skill among volunteers is being able to manage databases and hierarchies. It is less common for the volunteers to have experience in the fields of information which they are managing.
A typical discussion is happening now and needs comment. Users are seeking a term for "surgical procedure that makes a temporary incision in the musculoskeletal system" so that all such surgical procedures which have Wikipedia articles in any language may be grouped together. Right now the term being used is "musculoskeletal otomy", which might be a made-up term, or might be a term used in technical sorting or by non-English speakers. Anyone who has input into this discussion can comment at d:Talk:Q15636253. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:30, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
It's a bit of a trainwreck, with longstanding debris from a COI/selfcite/copypaste/spammer, 2009 class editing, primary sourcing, and you name it. There are recent review sources available, so there's hope it can be fixed if someone will take it on... LeadSongDog come howl! 21:53, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Does anyone know how to fix these categories? [5] There is a category with a capital S and a low case s. Not sure how to merge. Need to fix this to get this table to work [6] Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 11:00, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi I am a relatively new editor and I would like to do a draft page for Evidence Aid and have someone experienced look at it before it goes public. How/where can I do this, thanks! AmyEBHC ( talk) 12:38, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
I just opted to try out this new Contributors link on medical articles. Right now it's awful. The problem is that you're relying on XTools, which is an incredibly flaky tool. Sometimes a person is lucky and can connect to it but more often the connection hangs or doesn't display everything.
Even if the connectivity problems to XTools are resolved, the contributors - which are supposed to be the main reason for the link - are displayed way at the bottom of the page. If you're going to display all of the article stats then it would be better to call the link "Article stats" because "Contributions" is misleading.
Honestly, if you must have a Contributions link (and I'm not convinced that it's necessary), you'd be better off having an overlay come up populated by something that works all the time. Ca2james ( talk) 21:34, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Background links on this are here:
Agree that work is required before it is expanded beyond a single article. We need to rearrange the page in question to put authorship/editor stats first and we need work to make it more reliable. I have a programer who is interested in this work but we have not had the time to develop it further yet. Even though we have universal support within this project Wikipedia wide support has been lukewarm. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 00:11, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
"in reality there are 5965 articles affected." I looked at a few of the articles listed, but I did not find a "Contributors" link. Did you actually look at any articles and find such a link? Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:41, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello everyone!
You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!
Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.
Harej ( talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
An editor is insisting that material cited to this position statement by the American Association for Cancer Research and American Society of Clinical Oncology needs to be either removed or qualified because a minority of the authors have previously received money or honoraria from various pharmaceutical companies (see this diff for an example of what they are proposing). I have never seen this done before, can we have some outside input as to whether this is appropriate? Thanks. Yobol ( talk) 04:34, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
A fairly amazing discussion regarding "position statements" from major organizations not being usable on WP Talk:Electronic_cigarette#Policy_Statement_from_the_American_Association_for_Cancer_Research_and_the_American_Society_of_Clinical_Oncology Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 06:55, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
This article was recently deleted because it was mistakenly believed to be a neologism. Nonetheless, this word appears in several books written by medical doctors that were published several years ago.
Will it be possible to undelete this article at any time in the future? Jarble ( talk) 03:53, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello Wikipedians,
We’d like to invite you to participate in a study that aims to explore how WikiProject members coordinate activities of distributed group members to complete project goals. We are specifically seeking to talk to people who have been active in at least one WikiProject in their time in Wikipedia. Compensation will be provided to each participant in the form of a $10 Amazon gift card.
The purpose of this study is to better understanding the coordination practices of Wikipedians active within WikiProjects, and to explore the potential for tool-mediated coordination to improve those practices. Interviews will be semi-structured, and should last between 45-60 minutes. If you decide to participate, we will schedule an appointment for the online chat session. During the appointment you will be asked some basic questions about your experience interacting in WikiProjects, how that process has worked for you in the past and what ideas you might have to improve the future.
You must be over 18 years old, speak English, and you must currently be or have been at one time an active member of a WikiProject. The interview can be conducted over an audio chatting channel such as Skype or Google Hangouts, or via an instant messaging client. If you have questions about the research or are interested in participating, please contact Michael Gilbert at (206) 354-3741 or by email at mdg@uw.edu.
We cannot guarantee the confidentiality of information sent by email. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryzhou ( talk • contribs) 19:06, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Request for comment on what if any additional weight to put on sexual side effects and persistence of same post treatment. This has been a long running debate and it would be helpful to get enough outside input to reach a firm conclusion. Issues well described on Talk page. Thnx Formerly 98 ( talk) 03:25, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
The AUA and EAU guidelines each dedicate 2 sentences to the subject of sexual side effects, describing them as uncommon and declining on continued treatment. Neither makes any mention of "persistent" sexual side effects. I would suggest we follow their example. Alternatively we could include at most a single sentence/phrase stating that there have been a small number of case reports of persistent side effects (which is what we have now). I don't know if we have any policies on this subject but I am not aware of any other articles in which we dedicate more than a single carefully worded sentence to AEs that have only been described in case reports, especially when non-fatal. In this case there are about 50 of them out of millions of patient years of treatment. Even assuming the usual 10:1 ratio of adverse events to reports, we're really down in the weeds here and could equally warn our readers about the risk of dying in a car accident on their way to pick up their prescription. Formerly 98 ( talk) 14:38, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Since Wikiversity Journal of Medicine is not yet acceptable as a reference itself, its main function is now to be an entry point for texts and images that qualify for inclusion in Wikipedia in their own right. I think that qualification is best discussed even before publication in this journal, and therefore I will now make entries on Wikipedia talk:Wikiversity for new submissions to the journal, starting with the most recently peer reviewed submission, Table of pediatric medical conditions and findings named after foods. Please join its discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Wikiversity#Include "Conditions and findings named after foods"?. Mikael Häggström ( talk) 05:50, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
The WP:MED page has some welcome templates for new editors. Some of these give out of date information, and in any case, I see no reason to have so many with so little variation. I am removing these from the project page and marking them as deprecated.
I put these in Category:WikiProject Medicine archives. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:53, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
I would like to propose the creation of a bot to first replace the {{cite PMID}} template with {{cite journal}} template on all medical articles. And than to regularly run on medical articles to make the change when new ones are added. We previously replaced these on our top 1500 most viewed articles per consensus here. User:Boghog previous developed the bot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doc James ( talk • contribs) 18:39, January 15, 2015
Can someone please review this edit that I've been slow edit warring over. Thanks SmartSE ( talk) 21:23, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
It has been proposed to add a line for: causes, affected regions, treatments, further developments and prevention to the infobox disease. Have started discussion here [9] Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 01:13, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
A proposal to rename the above navboxes has been made here. Your input is welcome. Boghog ( talk) 11:05, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
[10] ..seems to show a discrepancy between the WHO 3,000 fatality count [11] and the objective numbers it offers-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 20:46, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Looking more closely. WHO says 3062 deaths in SL. [12] Telegraph says "Sierra Leone is now the worst-infected of all the West African nations hit by the Ebola epidemic, with 3,062 of the 8,429 deaths across west Africa so far" What is the issue exactly? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 01:10, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Some of you doubtless helped this young man in his quest: http://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/01/16/high-school-student-cancer-test/ WhatamIdoing ( talk) 06:45, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm currently looking at our article on noopept, and it brings me back to a problem I've perceived several times before. There are a substantial number of Russian "patent medicines" that were invented in Russia and are backed only by Russian literature that makes dubious claims for their efficacy. For many of them there are good reasons why they're unlikely to work as advertised -- some for example are homeopathic. Of course there is some Russian literature that is perfectly fine, but it's clear that there is also a boatload of Russian literature that is extremely dubious. It's hard to find any systematic way of distinguishing the good from the bad, though. Basically I'm wondering whether there is any policy-compliant way of getting these facts across in an article. Has there ever, for example, been a high-quality review of the quality of the Russian pharmacology literature? (It's not just Russia, by the way -- Ukraine and other former-Soviet nations also.) Looie496 ( talk) 14:43, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Saquinavir and ritonavir are historically important drugs, as their back-to-back approvals marked the beginning of the age of HAART and was immediately followed by a plummet in the U.S. AIDS death rate by roughly 2/3s. Prior to these approvals deaths were running at 50K per year and increasing at an annual rate of about 5,000 per year.
With the advent of better protease inhibitors, and of non-nucleoside pol inhibitors with an increased barrier to resistance development, the use of each of these protease inhibitors as antivirals has fallen to near zero. Ritonavir is still used as a pharmacokinetic booster at doses of 25% or less those formerly used for HIV treatment, and saquinavir utilization appears to be essentially zero, irrespective of whether one is referring to developed or developing countries. In spite of this our articles on these two drugs look much as they would if they had been written in 1998, when these drugs were mainstays of HIV therapy.
I propose to rewrite these two articles as follows:
Feedback in advance of these proposed edits would be appreciated. Formerly 98 ( talk) 21:26, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
So is your position that if even 1 person somewhere is still using this drug, that MEDMOS dominates its historical importance as the birth of the HAART paradigm that is now the basis of ALL HIV treatment? God help us if we had an equally adamant History Project with its own style guide. ;-) Formerly 98 ( talk) 01:49, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Yup, we are on the same page on ritonavir as being used mainly as a PK booster. But the ref shows most developing world pts who use a PI being on lopinavir, which is a superior drug and also generic. So aside from the fsct that saquinavir is not mentioned individually in the article, it also is inferior to other generic PIs, so hard to imagine getting much use. I'd say its historical significance greatly outweighs its current medical significance. Is there an established procedure for removing drugs from the WHO list? Hasit ever been done? Formerly 98 ( talk) 01:28, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
This 2013 paper says "Our results support WHO guidelines6 for selection of second-line antiretroviral therapy using ritonavir-boosted lopinavir plus two or three NtRTIs. The results also support an alternative strategy of switching to an NtRTI-free regimen of ritonavir-boosted lopinavir plus raltegravir." [16] Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 02:40, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
This ref from 2009 says "Ritonavir-boosted saquinavir is a frequently used and widely available protease inhibitor (PI) for the initial and salvage treatment of HIV disease." [17] Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 01:12, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
This is not a medicine issue but it is in the field of genetic analysis, which many of us deal with. I'm in a sourcing dispute about population genetics or maybe better, Genetic genealogy with another editor and have opened a thread at RSN here: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Secondary_vs_primary_sources_for_population_genetics_in_Mexicans_of_European_descent. Please comment. Thanks! Jytdog ( talk) 16:31, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Dear medical experts: Here's another health-related AfC submission which will soon be deleted as a stale draft. Is this worth improving instead? — Anne Delong ( talk) 04:33, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Dear medical experts: This draft was never submitted to be added to the encyclopedia. A lot of work has been put into it, but to me it doesn't seem much like an encyclopedia article. Is this something that should be kept instead of being deleted shortly as a stale draft? — Anne Delong ( talk) 01:47, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Special:Contributions/75.82.147.215 did some funny edits, verging on outing and WP:BLP violations. He/she may have a point that Wilson and Carnes have a WP:COI in respect to those articles, and it is not so much that I disagree with the ideas of this editor, but I find his/her way of doing it troublesome. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 20:20, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Could some editors from this WikiProject please have a look at the website http://cortisone-info.com and the edits from Linotte01 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? It came across as inappropriate linking to me, but I think it would be a good idea to have some additional opinions. Thank you. Deli nk ( talk) 11:46, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
There seem to be two issues about the use of the website in Wikipedia.
Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:00, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Linotte01 (
talk) 18:02, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
hello everybody. Thanks for all your comments. All of this is a bit new to me and it is not totally clear. I understand that I cited to much pages from cortisone-info.com but most of the links I added were to illustrate data that were mostly unsourced. It is a good idea to link the website as an external ressource instead of citations. I will try to do that this next week-end. Not sure that I will succeed but I will try.... — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Linotte01 (
talk •
contribs)
18:00, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
and thanks Axl for your help! I am sure that User:Trizek will be very helpful
Hello everyone,
The Wiki Education Foundation has gone ahead with some changes to the student training. Of particular interest is the addition of a new section intended for students who may touch medical articles, including psychology.
This section of the training is now live, here.
Thanks to BlueRasberry for contributing to this project, and we are, as always, looking for further suggestions and feedback!
Eryk (Wiki Ed) ( talk) 23:55, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
For those of you that missed it on the news yesterday, a CT surgeon at the Brigham in Boston was shot and killed by the son of a patient. I feel we should have a page about him, since he's been on the front page of CNN, etc, and it doesn't look like we have one. Here's a good article about the shooting from a few hours ago from Forbes.
As a physician who works across the street from where the shooting took place, I feel I'm a little involved to be completely objective about this, but I'd like to help. BakerStMD T| C 16:16, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
There are multiple options here. Perhaps a biography is warranted. If the focus is on his death, though, it's probably going to be named "Death of Davidson" (maybe later being moved to "Murder of" if the shooter is convicted). It's possible to add a paragraph about this incident to the article about the location where he was killed; this would be most appropriate if that changes policies at the hospital. Finally, it might be appropriate to see whether we have enough information to build a list of healthcare workers killed by patients of their families. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 23:08, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Bakerstmd, I'm quite in agreeance that Wikipedia does have articles where a person is notable because of their death. The problem is that if that death just recently occurred, we need to wait a bit for the reasons I mentioned above. That'll let the sources settle down and let further developments be documented before someone goes to actively start writing it up. We're supposed to be behind the ball as an encyclopedia, so best to let things develop first. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 23:17, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
I just came across the template for Talk pages, guiding folks to good sources. (there is so much i am ignorant of in WP still.) What a great tool! i want to use this everywhere. But it discusses "medical" content, and I think it might be better if it mentioned "health" instead.
I started a discussion here. thx. Jytdog ( talk) 16:35, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
The target of uploading 100,000 high resolution historical images from the Wellcome Library to Wikimedia Commons was hit last month and there is a Foundation blog post telling the story of out today. Fill your boots! Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:42, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
So I learned something today that might interest some of you:
The Android app for Wikipedia (NB: not the mobile view that you get in a browser) has some interesting features. For example, you can save copies of Wikipedia articles to read when you're offline. (I hear the sound of some people with travel-heavy jobs clicking to the Android app store; we'll wait for them to get back.)
The Android app also has a different page layout, which is fine, I guess, but it's got one quirk that matters to us: the first image on the page, no matter what that image is, will be displayed as the top third of the first screenful. Recently, if you went to an execution-related page, you would see, as if it were the "lead image", a map of a particular country, which leaves the reader with a sour, non-neutral association, as if this were the only place in the world where this mattered. You can see the difficulty: open up an article about any crime, and put put some WP:BLP's image as the first one on the page, and it's now "the lead image" on the Android app, even if it's actually at the end of the page. Even with a caption like "Alice is a professor of law enforcement who studied this crime", it's still going to have an undesirable, non-neutral effect on the article over all.
This is particularly complicated for medicine-related articles, because we sometimes explicitly do not want to shock readers with gory or highly technical images as their first (and very large) impression of a subject. We want them to learn, not to run away, and most of us know how to find the scientific research that proves that neither strong emotions of disgust nor feeling overwhelmed and discouraged is conducive to learning. Also, if your image is highly relevant to a later section, then the image won't be present in the section where you are referring to it, because it will have been swiped for the pseudo-lead image.
The solution is pretty easy: add another image, anywhere above the one that you want to keep in the lower section. I think that most of our articles are probably fine, because we tend towards images of cells or anatomy drawings in the infoboxes, but I encourage you to keep an eye out for articles that might benefit from the addition of images that comply with WP:LEADIMAGE even if the image isn't explicitly placed in the lead. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 20:54, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
There are other problems, too, such as images cropping badly; see screenshots in Commons:Category:Wikipedia mobile app beta bugs - 2014-12-18. I [raised this https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/mobile-l/2014-December/008441.html with the developers] on the mailing list, during beta testing, but they seemed unconcerned, and released the app anyway. (Some heuristics are applied, to exclude things like (IIRC) maps and coats of arms.) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:56, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Acupuncture closed by motion on 12 January 2015. The result is that all articles and all edits about complementary and alternative medicine, "broadly defined", are now covered by Wikipedia:Discretionary sanctions.
This is going to affect thousands of articles, including a few hundred supported by this WikiProject.
If you're not familiar with this system, this is a "one strike and you're (maybe) out" system that applies to everyone, as a result of the bad behavior of other, previous editors. If an editor causes even a small problem at an article, and the editor has already been officially warned about the existence of the sanctions (this message doesn't count, because no one could prove that anyone else read it), then he can be blocked, topic-banned, or otherwise punished by any single uninvolved admin.
Discretionary sanctions are supposed to be applied even-handedly according to editor behavior, not according to an editor's beliefs or viewpoints. It is not supposed to matter whether the editor's work is pro-science or pro-altmed or anything else.
It is likely that we will see an increase in the number of formal RFCs and other efforts and dispute resolution as a result, and I hope that uninvolved editors will be willing and able to keep responding to them. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 03:22, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm unsure what to do about this edit. Will someone knowledgeable about this subject check it out, and the other edits by the IP? -- Brangifer ( talk) 02:54, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
This article was recently created. I am posting about it here because I want to see what other medical editors think about it. Everymorning talk 02:18, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
There is already an article over at Electrodiagnosis, and I suggest we merge them. Electrodiagnosis is an important and substantial part primarily of clinical neurophysiology. The Electrodiagnostic medicine article doesn't mention ECG at all, though electrodiagnosis does. ECGs aren't the first thing that pops to mind, even though they build upon the same phenomena I would think electrodiagnosis normally refers to nerve-cell function? If we merge the articles I'm not sure if ECG should be in the hat-note or have a separate section? Any ideas? -- CFCF 🍌 ( email) 09:57, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Please take a look at Nicorette. I think that more information is needed on the efficacy (that will probably be very close to NRT) and not just vs. placebo but other non-nicotine medicine (like cytisine and other). -- Bbarmadillo
Can I interest anyone here in taking a look at Sophora flavescens? Though it is an article about a plant, I think members of this WikiProject are well suited to fixing its problems because most of the content is about its potential medical uses. The article has been marked with a "factual accuracy is disputed" tag for about 4 years and the problem has never been dealt with. Most of the medical-related content seems to be in violation of WP:MEDRS. If no one here wants to try to deal with the article, I will (but you WP:MED experts would probably do a better job). Gnome de plume ( talk) 22:16, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Is occurring here Talk:Autism#Discussion Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 04:59, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Hey All. We have a medical illustrator who has recently. Please welcome User:VHenryArt Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 09:02, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Here's a rather interesting issue that's come up that is at least partially relevant to folks here. Essentially, the folks over at Wikiproject Dr. Who want to redirect the term "the doctor" to Doctor (Doctor Who) whenever someone searches for that specific term. [18] Currently, searching for either "doctor" or "the doctor" will lead to the same disambiguation page, Doctor. Does anyone here see issues with having the two terms lead to different disambiguation pages? One disambiguation could eventually lead to a single primary topic, but that's not really the question I'm posing right now at least. It seems like a silly distinction at first (I thought so too) but it seems like something that could use a look by the wider community. Discussion on this question is at Talk:Doctor#Propose_splitting_out_all_.22The_Doctor.22_terms. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 22:52, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
At Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 January 25#Template:MUNAnatomy, we are talking about deleting links to the Memorial University of Newfoundland, because they are dead and unarchived, as far as we can tell. If anyone knows if there is another source for these pages, a comment at that discussion would be appreciated. Thanks. —PC -XT + 06:57, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi All - I'm a Canadian pharmacist and pharmacy prof at the University of Waterloo. I'm learning how to edit Wikipedia. I'd like to eventually teach my students to contribute their knowledge as well. I'm open to any tips and tricks and welcome any feedback. Kagpharm ( talk) 16:07, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
An RFC at Talk:Autism, related to books authored by women. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:40, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Intimate partner violence#"Gender symmetry". A WP:Permalink to the discussion is here. Flyer22 ( talk) 03:21, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 55 | Archive 56 | Archive 57 | Archive 58 | Archive 59 | Archive 60 | → | Archive 65 |
Having a discussion about it for the presentation of anxiety disorder here. My concern is that the articles discuss anxiety rather than anxiety disorder. Do people consider that sufficient? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 19:59, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
"Mindfulness-based (ie, nonjudgmental observation of moment to moment experiences) psychotherapies have been shown to be efficacious in decreasing anxiety symptoms in an uncontrolled study of individuals with GAD and panic disorder. Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) combines mindfulness with acceptance of internal states and orientation of actions towards valued goals....A preliminary randomized trial of 16 patients supports the efficacy of an ACT approach for GAD."
hi, im helping out on the dyslexia article [1] (after it had some issues [see above]) however I myself could use some help, whether its editing, proofreading , etc, theres no one else at the article (additionally I do the ebola/west Africa article), thank you for your time-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 14:18, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Eoxin could use some love.
@ Jfdwolff or anyone interested: The pathway map - File:Eicosanoid synthesis.svg (to the right) - should probably be updated at some point; see Eoxin#Human biosynthesis. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 02:56, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
In the box "Recent changes in Medicine" I have reordered the bullets, now Articles are in top. I added a new link for Medicine navigation templates (ca. 625!). This should help editors who follow changes in that area. There is activity in Template talk:Medicine navs. - DePiep ( talk) 13:56, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello again, medical experts. Here's an AfC draft with an active editor. I'm sure it's a notable topic, but there are a lot of statements that need verifying. I have helped with formatting the references, but that's as much as I can do. — Anne Delong ( talk) 20:41, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Further thoughts here Talk:Hearing_loss#Changes? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 21:46, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
There is a layout problem - the bullet points are superimposed on the image. Does anyone know how to fix this? Thanks. Matthew Ferguson 57 ( talk) 10:39, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
-hover
" from the gallery tag (leave "packed", or the size setting will stop working correctly).
WhatamIdoing (
talk)
22:11, 2 January 2015 (UTC)They also look fine in Firefox, what version of IE are you using? Not sure which versions are supported by MediaWiki ( main page). Maybe it should be brought up there seeing as most browsers are displaying it properly it shouldn't be an issue with the template but rather with the rendering of something like Module:HtmlBuilder that doesn't work with certain version of IE. -- CFCF 🍌 ( email) 23:58, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
This is a WP:MED High-importance & level-4 vital article page split.
Insert your 2¢ if you have any. If anyone objects, propose an alternative; I'm going to follow through with some action to address the problem within a month since I won't let that travesty of an article remain as is. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 13:29, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Over at this page, offering free 1 year subs to Elsevier Science Direct, the initial applications seem to have been processed, and some readers have had good news & some not. I've been told in my joining page "Already Elsevier has agreed to expand the donation of accounts based on the fantastic editor enthusiasm.", and I would urge any editors who have not applied & think it is too late to sign up on the pending/waiting list. So far there only seem to be about 4 further unrejected applicants for the Health & Life sciences section. Applications appear to be being judged strictly on perceived and presented merit, as evidenced by track record, rather than order of signing-up, so take a little time to blow your trumpet, and say clearly which option you are applying for. I helped run the very similar applications process for the Royal Society journals last spring, and everyone suitable who applied within a reasonable time ended with an offer. Wiki CRUK John ( talk) 15:43, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
There is currently an upgrade discussion effort at Talk page for User:Zad68 for the Dyslexia medical article following the ICD-10 reclassification. Interested editors are invited to join the discussion there. Cheers. FelixRosch ( TALK) 17:29, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
those that are interested, can now go down to the "Dyslexia" section, towards the bottom of this page to contribute. thank you-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 17:57, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Evaluative diversity was linked from neurodiversity, and when I checked the freely available sources, some of them never mentioned either term, and one was a small primary study. If anyone has time and access to more of the sources, I suspect that the majority of evaluative diversity may be original researach/synth. And/or a general pushing of Simon Baron-Cohen theories, using sources that never mention the terms. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:37, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello, there is an RFC related to traditional Chinese medicine: RfC: Is the Nature article an appropriate source for the claim it is attached to?. Diego ( talk) 12:47, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Fight-or-flight response (in humans)#Humans. A WP:Permalink for the discussion is here. Flyer22 ( talk) 04:45, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Anyone know anything about this? Only source is in German. Is this distinct from chiropractic, and is it in fact "an integral part of mainstream scientific medicine" in Germany? Doesn't sound promising. Basie ( talk) 11:22, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
This article has been created based on primary sources and news articles. As per that there are no WP:MEDRS sources, which begs the question if the article should exist at all? -- CFCF 🍌 ( email) 14:39, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Sleeping illness was recently created based on a news item that seems to be getting recent western coverage: BBC, Daily Mail but see also e.g. Siberian Times. Not sure if it's already mentioned somewhere or if a dedicated article is warranted, but there seems to be no consistent common name for the condition: sleeping sickness, illness, disorder, etc. are variously used in press, and certainly MED:MOS sources should be consluted. --Animalparty-- ( talk) 06:37, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
A wide-ranging cleanup effort of many navboxes under WPMED and WPANT is planned. Discussions include regarding titles, colours and more. If interested please contribute here. Also feel free to identify any navboxes under the scope of WPMED that need some cleanup here. -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 22:59, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Two months or so back I started a major rewrite of this article (still only half done). As summarized on the article Talk page, there are now some objections to some of these edits. Would appreciate the groups input. I think the arguments for and against are well summarized on the article Talk page and so will not attempt to influence anyone by further comments here. Thanks. Formerly 98 ( talk) 22:16, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#.22Lunatic_charlatans.22_and_MEDRS, MEDRS, WP medical style, medical research .... Wiki CRUK John ( talk) 13:43, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
could use some eyes on this article. a study was published last week about some mouse studies done with an old compound - huge hype about a "new diet drug" and resulting pressure to write that up in WP. oy. Jytdog ( talk) 21:38, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Point of clarification:
These are completely separate considerations, and the presence or absence of the {{ WPMED}} banner does not tell you anything about the applicability of the two guidelines. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 23:15, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
A user is repeatedly adding a 1986 review [3] which does not appear to be supported by more recent articles.
Discussion is here [4] Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 07:07, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
At d:Wikidata:WikiProject Medicine a common skill among volunteers is being able to manage databases and hierarchies. It is less common for the volunteers to have experience in the fields of information which they are managing.
A typical discussion is happening now and needs comment. Users are seeking a term for "surgical procedure that makes a temporary incision in the musculoskeletal system" so that all such surgical procedures which have Wikipedia articles in any language may be grouped together. Right now the term being used is "musculoskeletal otomy", which might be a made-up term, or might be a term used in technical sorting or by non-English speakers. Anyone who has input into this discussion can comment at d:Talk:Q15636253. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:30, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
It's a bit of a trainwreck, with longstanding debris from a COI/selfcite/copypaste/spammer, 2009 class editing, primary sourcing, and you name it. There are recent review sources available, so there's hope it can be fixed if someone will take it on... LeadSongDog come howl! 21:53, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Does anyone know how to fix these categories? [5] There is a category with a capital S and a low case s. Not sure how to merge. Need to fix this to get this table to work [6] Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 11:00, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi I am a relatively new editor and I would like to do a draft page for Evidence Aid and have someone experienced look at it before it goes public. How/where can I do this, thanks! AmyEBHC ( talk) 12:38, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
I just opted to try out this new Contributors link on medical articles. Right now it's awful. The problem is that you're relying on XTools, which is an incredibly flaky tool. Sometimes a person is lucky and can connect to it but more often the connection hangs or doesn't display everything.
Even if the connectivity problems to XTools are resolved, the contributors - which are supposed to be the main reason for the link - are displayed way at the bottom of the page. If you're going to display all of the article stats then it would be better to call the link "Article stats" because "Contributions" is misleading.
Honestly, if you must have a Contributions link (and I'm not convinced that it's necessary), you'd be better off having an overlay come up populated by something that works all the time. Ca2james ( talk) 21:34, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Background links on this are here:
Agree that work is required before it is expanded beyond a single article. We need to rearrange the page in question to put authorship/editor stats first and we need work to make it more reliable. I have a programer who is interested in this work but we have not had the time to develop it further yet. Even though we have universal support within this project Wikipedia wide support has been lukewarm. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 00:11, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
"in reality there are 5965 articles affected." I looked at a few of the articles listed, but I did not find a "Contributors" link. Did you actually look at any articles and find such a link? Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:41, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello everyone!
You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!
Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.
Harej ( talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
An editor is insisting that material cited to this position statement by the American Association for Cancer Research and American Society of Clinical Oncology needs to be either removed or qualified because a minority of the authors have previously received money or honoraria from various pharmaceutical companies (see this diff for an example of what they are proposing). I have never seen this done before, can we have some outside input as to whether this is appropriate? Thanks. Yobol ( talk) 04:34, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
A fairly amazing discussion regarding "position statements" from major organizations not being usable on WP Talk:Electronic_cigarette#Policy_Statement_from_the_American_Association_for_Cancer_Research_and_the_American_Society_of_Clinical_Oncology Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 06:55, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
This article was recently deleted because it was mistakenly believed to be a neologism. Nonetheless, this word appears in several books written by medical doctors that were published several years ago.
Will it be possible to undelete this article at any time in the future? Jarble ( talk) 03:53, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello Wikipedians,
We’d like to invite you to participate in a study that aims to explore how WikiProject members coordinate activities of distributed group members to complete project goals. We are specifically seeking to talk to people who have been active in at least one WikiProject in their time in Wikipedia. Compensation will be provided to each participant in the form of a $10 Amazon gift card.
The purpose of this study is to better understanding the coordination practices of Wikipedians active within WikiProjects, and to explore the potential for tool-mediated coordination to improve those practices. Interviews will be semi-structured, and should last between 45-60 minutes. If you decide to participate, we will schedule an appointment for the online chat session. During the appointment you will be asked some basic questions about your experience interacting in WikiProjects, how that process has worked for you in the past and what ideas you might have to improve the future.
You must be over 18 years old, speak English, and you must currently be or have been at one time an active member of a WikiProject. The interview can be conducted over an audio chatting channel such as Skype or Google Hangouts, or via an instant messaging client. If you have questions about the research or are interested in participating, please contact Michael Gilbert at (206) 354-3741 or by email at mdg@uw.edu.
We cannot guarantee the confidentiality of information sent by email. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryzhou ( talk • contribs) 19:06, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Request for comment on what if any additional weight to put on sexual side effects and persistence of same post treatment. This has been a long running debate and it would be helpful to get enough outside input to reach a firm conclusion. Issues well described on Talk page. Thnx Formerly 98 ( talk) 03:25, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
The AUA and EAU guidelines each dedicate 2 sentences to the subject of sexual side effects, describing them as uncommon and declining on continued treatment. Neither makes any mention of "persistent" sexual side effects. I would suggest we follow their example. Alternatively we could include at most a single sentence/phrase stating that there have been a small number of case reports of persistent side effects (which is what we have now). I don't know if we have any policies on this subject but I am not aware of any other articles in which we dedicate more than a single carefully worded sentence to AEs that have only been described in case reports, especially when non-fatal. In this case there are about 50 of them out of millions of patient years of treatment. Even assuming the usual 10:1 ratio of adverse events to reports, we're really down in the weeds here and could equally warn our readers about the risk of dying in a car accident on their way to pick up their prescription. Formerly 98 ( talk) 14:38, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Since Wikiversity Journal of Medicine is not yet acceptable as a reference itself, its main function is now to be an entry point for texts and images that qualify for inclusion in Wikipedia in their own right. I think that qualification is best discussed even before publication in this journal, and therefore I will now make entries on Wikipedia talk:Wikiversity for new submissions to the journal, starting with the most recently peer reviewed submission, Table of pediatric medical conditions and findings named after foods. Please join its discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Wikiversity#Include "Conditions and findings named after foods"?. Mikael Häggström ( talk) 05:50, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
The WP:MED page has some welcome templates for new editors. Some of these give out of date information, and in any case, I see no reason to have so many with so little variation. I am removing these from the project page and marking them as deprecated.
I put these in Category:WikiProject Medicine archives. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:53, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
I would like to propose the creation of a bot to first replace the {{cite PMID}} template with {{cite journal}} template on all medical articles. And than to regularly run on medical articles to make the change when new ones are added. We previously replaced these on our top 1500 most viewed articles per consensus here. User:Boghog previous developed the bot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doc James ( talk • contribs) 18:39, January 15, 2015
Can someone please review this edit that I've been slow edit warring over. Thanks SmartSE ( talk) 21:23, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
It has been proposed to add a line for: causes, affected regions, treatments, further developments and prevention to the infobox disease. Have started discussion here [9] Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 01:13, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
A proposal to rename the above navboxes has been made here. Your input is welcome. Boghog ( talk) 11:05, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
[10] ..seems to show a discrepancy between the WHO 3,000 fatality count [11] and the objective numbers it offers-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 20:46, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Looking more closely. WHO says 3062 deaths in SL. [12] Telegraph says "Sierra Leone is now the worst-infected of all the West African nations hit by the Ebola epidemic, with 3,062 of the 8,429 deaths across west Africa so far" What is the issue exactly? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 01:10, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Some of you doubtless helped this young man in his quest: http://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/01/16/high-school-student-cancer-test/ WhatamIdoing ( talk) 06:45, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm currently looking at our article on noopept, and it brings me back to a problem I've perceived several times before. There are a substantial number of Russian "patent medicines" that were invented in Russia and are backed only by Russian literature that makes dubious claims for their efficacy. For many of them there are good reasons why they're unlikely to work as advertised -- some for example are homeopathic. Of course there is some Russian literature that is perfectly fine, but it's clear that there is also a boatload of Russian literature that is extremely dubious. It's hard to find any systematic way of distinguishing the good from the bad, though. Basically I'm wondering whether there is any policy-compliant way of getting these facts across in an article. Has there ever, for example, been a high-quality review of the quality of the Russian pharmacology literature? (It's not just Russia, by the way -- Ukraine and other former-Soviet nations also.) Looie496 ( talk) 14:43, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Saquinavir and ritonavir are historically important drugs, as their back-to-back approvals marked the beginning of the age of HAART and was immediately followed by a plummet in the U.S. AIDS death rate by roughly 2/3s. Prior to these approvals deaths were running at 50K per year and increasing at an annual rate of about 5,000 per year.
With the advent of better protease inhibitors, and of non-nucleoside pol inhibitors with an increased barrier to resistance development, the use of each of these protease inhibitors as antivirals has fallen to near zero. Ritonavir is still used as a pharmacokinetic booster at doses of 25% or less those formerly used for HIV treatment, and saquinavir utilization appears to be essentially zero, irrespective of whether one is referring to developed or developing countries. In spite of this our articles on these two drugs look much as they would if they had been written in 1998, when these drugs were mainstays of HIV therapy.
I propose to rewrite these two articles as follows:
Feedback in advance of these proposed edits would be appreciated. Formerly 98 ( talk) 21:26, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
So is your position that if even 1 person somewhere is still using this drug, that MEDMOS dominates its historical importance as the birth of the HAART paradigm that is now the basis of ALL HIV treatment? God help us if we had an equally adamant History Project with its own style guide. ;-) Formerly 98 ( talk) 01:49, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Yup, we are on the same page on ritonavir as being used mainly as a PK booster. But the ref shows most developing world pts who use a PI being on lopinavir, which is a superior drug and also generic. So aside from the fsct that saquinavir is not mentioned individually in the article, it also is inferior to other generic PIs, so hard to imagine getting much use. I'd say its historical significance greatly outweighs its current medical significance. Is there an established procedure for removing drugs from the WHO list? Hasit ever been done? Formerly 98 ( talk) 01:28, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
This 2013 paper says "Our results support WHO guidelines6 for selection of second-line antiretroviral therapy using ritonavir-boosted lopinavir plus two or three NtRTIs. The results also support an alternative strategy of switching to an NtRTI-free regimen of ritonavir-boosted lopinavir plus raltegravir." [16] Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 02:40, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
This ref from 2009 says "Ritonavir-boosted saquinavir is a frequently used and widely available protease inhibitor (PI) for the initial and salvage treatment of HIV disease." [17] Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 01:12, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
This is not a medicine issue but it is in the field of genetic analysis, which many of us deal with. I'm in a sourcing dispute about population genetics or maybe better, Genetic genealogy with another editor and have opened a thread at RSN here: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Secondary_vs_primary_sources_for_population_genetics_in_Mexicans_of_European_descent. Please comment. Thanks! Jytdog ( talk) 16:31, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Dear medical experts: Here's another health-related AfC submission which will soon be deleted as a stale draft. Is this worth improving instead? — Anne Delong ( talk) 04:33, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Dear medical experts: This draft was never submitted to be added to the encyclopedia. A lot of work has been put into it, but to me it doesn't seem much like an encyclopedia article. Is this something that should be kept instead of being deleted shortly as a stale draft? — Anne Delong ( talk) 01:47, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Special:Contributions/75.82.147.215 did some funny edits, verging on outing and WP:BLP violations. He/she may have a point that Wilson and Carnes have a WP:COI in respect to those articles, and it is not so much that I disagree with the ideas of this editor, but I find his/her way of doing it troublesome. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 20:20, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Could some editors from this WikiProject please have a look at the website http://cortisone-info.com and the edits from Linotte01 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? It came across as inappropriate linking to me, but I think it would be a good idea to have some additional opinions. Thank you. Deli nk ( talk) 11:46, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
There seem to be two issues about the use of the website in Wikipedia.
Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:00, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Linotte01 (
talk) 18:02, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
hello everybody. Thanks for all your comments. All of this is a bit new to me and it is not totally clear. I understand that I cited to much pages from cortisone-info.com but most of the links I added were to illustrate data that were mostly unsourced. It is a good idea to link the website as an external ressource instead of citations. I will try to do that this next week-end. Not sure that I will succeed but I will try.... — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Linotte01 (
talk •
contribs)
18:00, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
and thanks Axl for your help! I am sure that User:Trizek will be very helpful
Hello everyone,
The Wiki Education Foundation has gone ahead with some changes to the student training. Of particular interest is the addition of a new section intended for students who may touch medical articles, including psychology.
This section of the training is now live, here.
Thanks to BlueRasberry for contributing to this project, and we are, as always, looking for further suggestions and feedback!
Eryk (Wiki Ed) ( talk) 23:55, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
For those of you that missed it on the news yesterday, a CT surgeon at the Brigham in Boston was shot and killed by the son of a patient. I feel we should have a page about him, since he's been on the front page of CNN, etc, and it doesn't look like we have one. Here's a good article about the shooting from a few hours ago from Forbes.
As a physician who works across the street from where the shooting took place, I feel I'm a little involved to be completely objective about this, but I'd like to help. BakerStMD T| C 16:16, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
There are multiple options here. Perhaps a biography is warranted. If the focus is on his death, though, it's probably going to be named "Death of Davidson" (maybe later being moved to "Murder of" if the shooter is convicted). It's possible to add a paragraph about this incident to the article about the location where he was killed; this would be most appropriate if that changes policies at the hospital. Finally, it might be appropriate to see whether we have enough information to build a list of healthcare workers killed by patients of their families. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 23:08, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Bakerstmd, I'm quite in agreeance that Wikipedia does have articles where a person is notable because of their death. The problem is that if that death just recently occurred, we need to wait a bit for the reasons I mentioned above. That'll let the sources settle down and let further developments be documented before someone goes to actively start writing it up. We're supposed to be behind the ball as an encyclopedia, so best to let things develop first. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 23:17, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
I just came across the template for Talk pages, guiding folks to good sources. (there is so much i am ignorant of in WP still.) What a great tool! i want to use this everywhere. But it discusses "medical" content, and I think it might be better if it mentioned "health" instead.
I started a discussion here. thx. Jytdog ( talk) 16:35, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
The target of uploading 100,000 high resolution historical images from the Wellcome Library to Wikimedia Commons was hit last month and there is a Foundation blog post telling the story of out today. Fill your boots! Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:42, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
So I learned something today that might interest some of you:
The Android app for Wikipedia (NB: not the mobile view that you get in a browser) has some interesting features. For example, you can save copies of Wikipedia articles to read when you're offline. (I hear the sound of some people with travel-heavy jobs clicking to the Android app store; we'll wait for them to get back.)
The Android app also has a different page layout, which is fine, I guess, but it's got one quirk that matters to us: the first image on the page, no matter what that image is, will be displayed as the top third of the first screenful. Recently, if you went to an execution-related page, you would see, as if it were the "lead image", a map of a particular country, which leaves the reader with a sour, non-neutral association, as if this were the only place in the world where this mattered. You can see the difficulty: open up an article about any crime, and put put some WP:BLP's image as the first one on the page, and it's now "the lead image" on the Android app, even if it's actually at the end of the page. Even with a caption like "Alice is a professor of law enforcement who studied this crime", it's still going to have an undesirable, non-neutral effect on the article over all.
This is particularly complicated for medicine-related articles, because we sometimes explicitly do not want to shock readers with gory or highly technical images as their first (and very large) impression of a subject. We want them to learn, not to run away, and most of us know how to find the scientific research that proves that neither strong emotions of disgust nor feeling overwhelmed and discouraged is conducive to learning. Also, if your image is highly relevant to a later section, then the image won't be present in the section where you are referring to it, because it will have been swiped for the pseudo-lead image.
The solution is pretty easy: add another image, anywhere above the one that you want to keep in the lower section. I think that most of our articles are probably fine, because we tend towards images of cells or anatomy drawings in the infoboxes, but I encourage you to keep an eye out for articles that might benefit from the addition of images that comply with WP:LEADIMAGE even if the image isn't explicitly placed in the lead. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 20:54, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
There are other problems, too, such as images cropping badly; see screenshots in Commons:Category:Wikipedia mobile app beta bugs - 2014-12-18. I [raised this https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/mobile-l/2014-December/008441.html with the developers] on the mailing list, during beta testing, but they seemed unconcerned, and released the app anyway. (Some heuristics are applied, to exclude things like (IIRC) maps and coats of arms.) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:56, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Acupuncture closed by motion on 12 January 2015. The result is that all articles and all edits about complementary and alternative medicine, "broadly defined", are now covered by Wikipedia:Discretionary sanctions.
This is going to affect thousands of articles, including a few hundred supported by this WikiProject.
If you're not familiar with this system, this is a "one strike and you're (maybe) out" system that applies to everyone, as a result of the bad behavior of other, previous editors. If an editor causes even a small problem at an article, and the editor has already been officially warned about the existence of the sanctions (this message doesn't count, because no one could prove that anyone else read it), then he can be blocked, topic-banned, or otherwise punished by any single uninvolved admin.
Discretionary sanctions are supposed to be applied even-handedly according to editor behavior, not according to an editor's beliefs or viewpoints. It is not supposed to matter whether the editor's work is pro-science or pro-altmed or anything else.
It is likely that we will see an increase in the number of formal RFCs and other efforts and dispute resolution as a result, and I hope that uninvolved editors will be willing and able to keep responding to them. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 03:22, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm unsure what to do about this edit. Will someone knowledgeable about this subject check it out, and the other edits by the IP? -- Brangifer ( talk) 02:54, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
This article was recently created. I am posting about it here because I want to see what other medical editors think about it. Everymorning talk 02:18, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
There is already an article over at Electrodiagnosis, and I suggest we merge them. Electrodiagnosis is an important and substantial part primarily of clinical neurophysiology. The Electrodiagnostic medicine article doesn't mention ECG at all, though electrodiagnosis does. ECGs aren't the first thing that pops to mind, even though they build upon the same phenomena I would think electrodiagnosis normally refers to nerve-cell function? If we merge the articles I'm not sure if ECG should be in the hat-note or have a separate section? Any ideas? -- CFCF 🍌 ( email) 09:57, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Please take a look at Nicorette. I think that more information is needed on the efficacy (that will probably be very close to NRT) and not just vs. placebo but other non-nicotine medicine (like cytisine and other). -- Bbarmadillo
Can I interest anyone here in taking a look at Sophora flavescens? Though it is an article about a plant, I think members of this WikiProject are well suited to fixing its problems because most of the content is about its potential medical uses. The article has been marked with a "factual accuracy is disputed" tag for about 4 years and the problem has never been dealt with. Most of the medical-related content seems to be in violation of WP:MEDRS. If no one here wants to try to deal with the article, I will (but you WP:MED experts would probably do a better job). Gnome de plume ( talk) 22:16, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Is occurring here Talk:Autism#Discussion Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 04:59, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Hey All. We have a medical illustrator who has recently. Please welcome User:VHenryArt Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 09:02, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Here's a rather interesting issue that's come up that is at least partially relevant to folks here. Essentially, the folks over at Wikiproject Dr. Who want to redirect the term "the doctor" to Doctor (Doctor Who) whenever someone searches for that specific term. [18] Currently, searching for either "doctor" or "the doctor" will lead to the same disambiguation page, Doctor. Does anyone here see issues with having the two terms lead to different disambiguation pages? One disambiguation could eventually lead to a single primary topic, but that's not really the question I'm posing right now at least. It seems like a silly distinction at first (I thought so too) but it seems like something that could use a look by the wider community. Discussion on this question is at Talk:Doctor#Propose_splitting_out_all_.22The_Doctor.22_terms. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 22:52, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
At Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 January 25#Template:MUNAnatomy, we are talking about deleting links to the Memorial University of Newfoundland, because they are dead and unarchived, as far as we can tell. If anyone knows if there is another source for these pages, a comment at that discussion would be appreciated. Thanks. —PC -XT + 06:57, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi All - I'm a Canadian pharmacist and pharmacy prof at the University of Waterloo. I'm learning how to edit Wikipedia. I'd like to eventually teach my students to contribute their knowledge as well. I'm open to any tips and tricks and welcome any feedback. Kagpharm ( talk) 16:07, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
An RFC at Talk:Autism, related to books authored by women. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:40, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Intimate partner violence#"Gender symmetry". A WP:Permalink to the discussion is here. Flyer22 ( talk) 03:21, 28 January 2015 (UTC)