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 90 | ← | Archive 95 | Archive 96 | Archive 97 | Archive 98 | Archive 99 | Archive 100 |
I wanted to share two recent publications from schools in NYC which have had student programs to develop medical information on Wikipedia.
I wish to especially point to Salubrious Toxin at Mount Sinai, who gave essential guidance to the Wikimedia chapter in New York about how to better serve student groups at universities and also about how Wikipedians in general can support projects for medical students and physicians to contribute to Wikipedia. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:55, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
So in 2013 85% of the core medical editors had a college degree. 50.4% were from the healthcare field. [1]
This group made 185,529 edits out of a total of 1.1 million medical edits that year. We calculated bytes removed during the first few rounds of the UCSF class. Could need to dig for that data. My concern is that the popular press often emphasizes that WP is written by non experts. That is often not the case (even though it sometimes is). Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 04:57, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello, folks. We've got the above-named draft at Articles for Creation. It appears to be the children's analogue of an already-existing list article for adult medicines. I'm inclined to accept it after some basic clean-up, but I'd like to get your opinions on it first. There is a separate section for comments on the Draft's talk page. Thank you for your assistance. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 18:57, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Please look over Age-related mobility disability and help fix some of the tagged issues. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 09:27, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
It strikes me that Video game addiction could use a combing over to comply with WP:MEDRS by an editor with more experience and inclination than I. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 20:02, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
I am new to Wikipedia as an instructor responsible for facilitating the scholarly activity curriculum for an internal medicine residency program. Several residents would like to get involved by editing a WikiProject Medicine topic to meet one of the scholarly activity requirements. As adult learners, I want them to be able to pick a topic of interest to them and contribute the most to the community. Any suggestions on culling through the high need, stub or lower quality articles to give them a list relevant to general internal medicine? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BMWilsonInstructor ( talk • contribs) 17:24, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Navboxes proposed for deletion by User:Boghog. Discussion here. Input is appreciated. Medgirl131 22:27, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
more eyes would be useful here. thx Jytdog ( talk) 04:21, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi all, just wanted to let you know that you can now sign up for free access to PsychiatryOnline (from the American Psychiatric Association) through The Wikipedia Library! And a reminder that recommendations for databases we don't have available yet are welcomed. Samwalton9 (WMF) ( talk) 19:03, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Gluten-free_diet#Management Jytdog ( talk) 18:20, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Hey All For those who have not noticed board elections have begun. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 21:31, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
There is a discussion going on HERE. Best Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 21:30, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
An RfC is being conducted that will seek consensus for an exception to WP:ELT for Template:Medical resources. The discussion is at Template talk:Medical resources #RfC on placement of Medical condition classification and resources template. Opinions and constructive suggestions are welcome. -- RexxS ( talk) 10:29, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
This article is badly in need of "MEDRS-ing and MEDMOS-ing" if anyone is interested in this topic. Epeefleche perhaps. It would be great to interlink this topic with Stomatitis#Allergic_contact_stomatitis since this seems to define at least part of the condition. Matthew Ferguson ( talk) 19:48, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Well meaning editor wanting to make info on inhaled steroids more findable in the article. Thoughts? (please respond on talk page). 19:39, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Here. Others thoughts? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 22:31, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Looking for opinions on: Talk:Psychiatric pharmacy#Name change. Biochemistry&Love ( talk) 01:37, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Does anyone know whether there's a medical term for (more or less) the opposite of PRN, i.e. when a a medicine is supposed to be taken daily (whether the patient feels they need it that day or not)? -- Philologia ( talk) 17:37, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for all these replies! I've just tried to clarify the significance of "scheduled" as an antonym in the article. As a non-medical expert, it helps me understand PRN better. -- Philologia ( talk) 23:01, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
You are invited to help close a good article effort at Eddie Eagle, a pediatric gun injury prevention program.
In December 2016 an editor warred to:
See also WT:WikiProject_Medicine/Archive_95#Eddie_Eagle from 12 April 2017 (@ Doc James:, @ WhatamIdoing:).
More recently on the verge of a good article nomination the same editor has returned to:
These recent edits are very clearly not improvements to the encyclopedia. Additional participation may be necessary to salvage good article recognition for this editorial effort. Please help. Thank you! 35.163.21.246 ( talk) 15:07, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your collaboration. MEDRS compliant sources removed or summarization curtailed:
In 1992 the Committee on Injury and Poison Prevention of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) adopted a position critical of the program, discouraged its use, cited the lack of evidence demonstrating efficacy, and recommended an absence of guns from children's homes, or trigger locks or gun safes, as more effective alternatives. The AAP renewed its recommendations in 2000 and 2012. [1] [2] [3]
References
Jackman et. al (2001) wrote in Pediatrics that although the Eddie Eagle program "has been promoted heavily, it never has been evaluated formally to prove that it works. If gun safety education gives parents a sense of complacency without fundamentally altering child behavior, then it might do more harm than good." [1]
References
A 2002 survey article by Hardy published in the journal The Future of Children in a special issue on the topic of "Children, Youth, and Gun Violence" identified the Eddie Eagle program as "perhaps the most popular" gun avoidance program for prekindergarten through the sixth grade but said the program "does not give children a reason for avoiding guns (such as that guns are dangerous)" and that "The NRA offers no empirical evidence that its approach is effective." [1]
References
Himle et. al (2004), in the Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, wrote "...few investigations have evaluated the effectiveness of programs designed to teach children appropriate safety skills to use when they find a firearm. The few investigations that have been conducted have shown existing programs to be ineffective..." [1]
References
A 2004 survey of the literature and critical review of prevention strategies for unintended firearms injuries to children in the journal Education and Treatment of Children concluded "existing child-based firearm-safety programs do not reduce children's injury risk...Although knowledge of what one should do may be valuable, research suggests that knowledge of skills often does not correspond with actual behavior." [1]
References
Glatt (2005) in the Journal of Pediatric Nursing wrote of the Eddie Eagle program "The NRA believes that it can be effective by teaching children the simple, straightforward message to stop, do not touch, leave the area, and tell an adult when confronted by the presence of a firearm...This is an unrealistic expectation based on the cognitive abilities of children in this age group." [1]
References
The image is the book cover of the program workbook, Eddie Eagle Kids' Activity Booklet, Pre-K and Kindergarten edition. The use of this image in this article is policy-compliant; the image was reviewed and accepted with a use rationale for use in article Eddie Eagle.
Thank you again. 52.201.205.110 ( talk) 17:57, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
There is a discussion taking place on the talk page of the article Urinary bladder on whether this article should be moved to Human urinary bladder and the content of a new more-generalized article on bladders (located here) be used to replace it. Your input is welcome! KDS4444 ( talk) 22:09, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
IMO, for anatomy articles it is more appropriate to have the human anatomy topic as the sub article, and a more general physiology type article as the main article. For pathology, depends if the topic is more related to humans or other animals. Pbsouthwood agree with you, an encyclopaedia should have encyclopaedic coverage, not partial coverage. Matthew Ferguson ( talk) 17:37, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm not 100% sure of what is going on at Draft:The Hallmarks of Aging,but it looks like they need help. Stuartyeates ( talk) 22:59, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
As an engineer who sometimes attempts to improve medical articles, I would like some advice.
I was looking at our Docusate article, and comparing it with what is available in local drug stores in Southern California. Around here, only Docusate Sodium is available OTC. Yet the article leads with "Docusate, also known as docusate salts or dioctyl sulfosuccinate", followed closely with "It typically comes in the form of a sodium, calcium, or potassium salts". Yet the reference given [14] lists one example of Docusate Calcium and twenty five examples of Docusate Sodium. Should we change the lead to reflect the most common name, or are different forms of docusate popular in different parts of the world?
The reason I was looking at the page was to find out how much dietary sodium is in a 100 mg Docusate Sodium dose. This ref [15] says 6mg. This is usefyul information for peoplem on low-salt diets. Would it be appropriate to add this to the article? -- Guy Macon ( talk) 18:13, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
There is controversy around the benefit-versus-harm of antidepressants.[33] In young persons, the newer antidepressants such as SSRIs appear to increase the risk of suicidality from 25 per 1000 to 40 per 1000.[131]
Source: /info/en/?search=Suicide#Prevention
This is very unprofessional and should be treated unreliable and to be deleted from the article. =) -- It's gonna be awesome!# Talk♬ 09:12, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
SSRIs is not new at all. =) -- It's gonna be awesome!# Talk♬ 09:13, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
When is and isn't an organ—in whole or part—a medical article? For example,
urinary bladder, above, is a medical article. However
insular cortex apparently isn't. (
This reasoning was recently used to justify primary sources in that article.)
I assumed insular cortex—about the human insular cortex—would be a medical article. (A no-brainer!) If not, shouldn't sections discussing
function and particularly
clinical conditions follow MEDRS?
If so, I believe MEDRS are available to preserve most of the article, and this should be attempted. —
βox73
(৳alk) 02:13, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Functional neurological symptom disorder has been listed at WP:copyright problems since 4 April. Before I spend much more time looking through the rather messy history, would you medical experts care to comment on whether there is in fact such a condition, or if it should simply be a redirect to Conversion disorder? The page was created by an editor who's clearly here to advocate for it (or against it, I don't know) – see FND Hope. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 09:41, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
I have been working to update our infoboxes to human useful date. This is an idea proposed by User:Bluerasberry a few years ago. I have done a couple of hundred articles so far. And the plan is to do around a thousand before getting a bot to transfer the info to Wikidata so other languages can benefit. The EN WP data however will stay on EN WP. Every item gets / needs a high quality reference.
The question is can I get the first part which is this done by bot? Ie have a bot makes this change to all articles which use the Template:Infobox medical condition. The numerical data is moved to the external links section. Amir will do the bot work, we just need community consensus first. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 20:08, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
While I strongly support the move to a more useful infobox, I'm not entirely sure what the purpose of this bot is. I'm guessing it is useful, but for the sake of those who don't know what the end-goal is: what specifically do you intend to do?
There is a difference between clearing and copying. Copying may make the work much easier in the future if we wish to fully migrate, while still preserving functionality for now. Clearing however may end us up with entirely useless infoboxes for now, risking them being deleted.
The other question is what you mean that infobox statements need sources. This is very often overlooked, and I would actually like to suggest we force sources into the infobox. This has been done before on other language Wikipedias, but the idea is to create a field for each statement so that you fill in:
mortality rate = mortality rate source =
and if the source isn't entered the rate isn't included. This could potentially solve lots of problems, and would also make it easy to handle sources in the infobox, for example by forcing them into a group source so they don't cause clutter. It maybe very profitable to introduce such a source-requirement at the same time as we migrate to new infoboxes, which is why I'd like to take it a little slower. Best, Carl Fredrik talk 23:09, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
|symptoms=
. So to clarify, the bot's not filling in those new parameters. It's keeping things like name and image, and adding blank parameters for things like |symptoms=
. This is actually a feasible task, and it should be (very) easy to skip any articles that would otherwise end up with an empty infobox at the top if the links are moved.|mortality-rate=
used, then you could make |mortality-rate-source=
display either the source or automatically add a {{
fact}} tag or display an error message. |cause=
shouldn't be used unless it's clear and simple (e.g., HIV causes AIDS), but it'll take a while to get the message out that this isn't a good spot to fill in hundreds of suspected causes in the
Cancer article. I made this change to the infobox on cerebral palsy, does that mean that it has also been added on wikidata? (There is a thing at the bottom of the new infobox saying 'edit on wikidata') -- 122.108.141.214 ( talk) 10:58, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
I think that the core of this proposal is moving the library cataloging information from the lead of the article to the bottom, and to fill the space left behind with information for the general consumer.
Proposals which were similar to this one have been both well discussed and controversial in the past. Personally, I would characterize past discussions as being progressive for change and protective of current practice from different perspectives and because it seemed like any one change for one group of stakeholders would also cause several changes affecting other groups. Because memories fade and because I think it is useful to try to track some history of discussion, I linking to some past related discussions which led to this one. These discussions could be useful for anyone joining the conversation and who wants to know what other things the wiki community has discussed or tried. Other people would have their own memories and perspectives of past conversations and I probably missed linking to some. These ones that I am featuring here are ones that I either found in search or remembered.
Printed on paper, all of this discussion and the examples cited in these discussions might be the equivalent of 200 paper pages of content. It is a lot to digest. If others remember more or other previous relevant conversation then please share. Wikipedia is not well-equipped to manage a conversation of this sort which has happened in multiple forums over a period of years. I am guessing that not fewer than 50 users have commented in these discussions, and almost every comment is a substantial statement by a highly knowledgeable user. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:06, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Because of the changes made in putting the classification and resources at the bottom of an article, there is already a challenge based on WP:CONLOCAL that consensus here can't override the site-wide guideline WP:ELT. To settle the issue once and for all, this is now the subject of an RfC at Template talk:Medical resources #RfC on placement of Medical condition classification and resources template. Those commenting here may wish to voice their opinions at the RfC. -- RexxS ( talk) 12:46, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Hey All The Strategy process has produced 5 overall "draft" themes here. Further comments requested. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 05:29, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
more opinions(gave mine)--
Ozzie10aaaa (
talk) 09:38, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
You are all invited to give a piece of your mind at Talk:Stachybotrys chartarum#Requested move 4 May 2017. Thank you for your contributions! Paine Ellsworth put'r there 15:53, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
I have two new Wikimedian in Residence roles, both related to medicine:
I'll be doing some work as a Wikimedian in Residence at The Physiological Society over the next few months. As part of that, I have added a list of prize winners to the article about the society - there are lots of red links there for folk to work on! Please see also Wikipedia:GLAM/PhySoc and note there any articles you create in response to this initiative.
Also, I'm now in residence at The History of Modern Biomedicine Research Group; see their announcement. In this case, there are too many notable people for a list of red links, but see items with Wikidata property History of Modern Biomedicine ID (P3885); list at [19]. Again, please note any you create at Wikipedia:GLAM/HMBRG.
I'm happy to act as a conduit for any queries you may have, regarding either organisation.
One or two editathons will be held, in London, later this year. Watch this space! Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:14, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Makes a categorical claim for health benefits based on a Yoga journal. I removed it but it was restored. Doug Weller talk 15:50, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Ok, will propose merge should speedy get declined. I am in shock how anything can be sold these days. BTW, someone found a diet supplement "DNA/RNA" being sold on Amazon for $3, and a serious discussion ensued in one of patient communities whether this could cure a severe genetic disorder. Folks were ready to go and buy it. — kashmiri TALK 18:13, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Merge to "Animal yoga" with other articles on yoga with animals. QuackGuru ( talk) 20:01, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
For the record: AfD
closed: "The result was redirect to Yoga. Almost nobody wants to keep this, but some want to merge a mention of this practice to Yoga. I don't think we have consensus for this, though, given that there seem to be no clear ideas about where in the expansive Yoga article his topic could be mentioned. A redirect is a compromise that allows editors to figure this out later."
--
RexxS (
talk) 12:32, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Discussion Talk:PAX_Labs regarding a brand of e-cigs and its company. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 15:16, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
here Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 00:32, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
I did a few little edits on the Levomefolic acid article ( diff). In the process I tried to determine if levomefolic acid (L-methylfolate) has been approved by the FDA as an adjunctive treatment for major depressive disorder. According to drugs.com: "L-methylfolate (in the 7.5 mg or 15 mg strength marketed as Deplin tablets) is approved by the FDA for the distinct nutritional requirements of individuals who have suboptimal L-methylfolate levels in the cerebrospinal fluid, plasma, and/or red blood cells and have major depressive disorder (MDD) with particular emphasis as adjunctive support for individuals who are on an antidepressant." However, I did not find it listed on either of the two FDA databases the agency recommends, Drugs@FDA and the FDA "Orange Book". I searched for 'levomefolic' and 'L-methylfolate' and 'Deplin'. I did not add anything to the article about FDA approval. Did I miss anything? Thanks! - Mark P.S. Is the Levomefolic acid article of interest to WikiProject Medicine? Currently three WikiProjects are listed on the Talk page: Chemicals, Pharmacology, & Biology. - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 07:46, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Is there a real difference between Pulmonary volutrauma and Pulmonary barotrauma? If so, what is the real difference? If not, should Pulmonary volutrauma be merged into another article with redirect? • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 10:48, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Boyle's law hasn't been repealed. Reading on in the same source,
In view of the preceding description, alveolar overdistention is the key element in the development of barotrauma. In this sense, “barotrauma” is a misnomer, because the term suggests the presence of elevated pressures in its pathogenesis. Current concepts suggest that high tidal volume ventilation produces the alveolar disruption that triggers the aforementioned chain of events.
Therefore, VILI seen with high tidal volume is most accurately termed volutrauma, and it has been the basis for recent clinical trials that have established a low tidal volume approach to mechanical ventilation.— [24]
I would take that as simply indicative of an evolving nomenclature, from barotrauma toward volutrauma. LeadSongDog come howl! 18:28, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Although there has been some debate about the primary force that causes injury, both volume and pressure are two sides of the same coin - transpulmonary pressure. At the cellular level, stretching the lung beyond its capacity ruptures alveolar cell membranes, so I think the original editor was a little confused. Anyway, now that Ozzie has redirected, I will try to make a few improvements to Barotrauma. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 15:38, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 97/Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of WikiProject Medicine.
We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:
We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of WikiProject Medicine, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.
Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:15, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
A "cure" for Sickle-cell disease is being reported [26] [www.bbc.com/news/health-39142971]. Would some knowldgeable editor update the article, please? Thanks. Alanscottwalker ( talk) 15:13, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
I noticed that we have a " Reliable Drugs" drug store chain (chemist's shoppe). Do we have an article on pharmaceutical reliability (however you wish to interpret that) for which we can hatnote the article for people using the search term "reliable drugs" to get general information on drug efficacity measures/theory or similar? -- 65.94.169.56 ( talk) 04:01, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
User possibly putting in own publication. The text of the wp article was not changed. I have no access so cannot assess the suitability of the source [32]. Matthew Ferguson ( talk) 18:43, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
This is very worrying. I just checked his edits to Plummer–Vinson syndrome and although he may well be right about the burning sensation not being a symptom, his reference pmid:26486296 is a case report on five subjects and nothing to do with the text he amended. In addition, looking at his journal article on PubMed, some of it appears to have been lifted wholesale from a 2006 review that we use in our article. I've reverted his changes at Plummer–Vinson syndrome, but all of his contributions need examination. -- RexxS ( talk) 22:27, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Please review the above, also please see Talk:Therapeutic_ultrasound#Proposed_merge_with_Sustained_Acoustic_Medicine. Thx Jytdog ( talk) 21:34, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
I think Sustained Acoustic Medicine might be a brand of ZetrOZ, Inc. There is no Sustained Acoustic Medicine. It is a device called Sustained Acoustic Medicine. AFD or redirect for the ad. QuackGuru ( talk) 17:20, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Assumed clear definitions distinguishing these terms, e.g.:
However, former article lists examples of "non deliberate immunosuppression" such as HIV/AIDS. If it is possible to be "immunosuppressed" because of medical conditions rather than it being a term restricted to an artificially created condition by medical interventions, then what is the difference between immunodeficiency and immunosuppression? And the next question would be do we need separate articles in the encyclopedia? Matthew Ferguson ( talk) 18:20, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Inhaled corticosteroids causing isolated candidial lesions on the dorsum of the tongue and the palate, presumably the steroid flowing over these surfaces while it is being inhaled, and altering/suppressing local/mucosal immune function and allowing commensal candidal species to become pathogenic. Since the lesion is caused by what is effectively topical rather than systemic use of steroids, is this still considered immunosuppression? Matthew Ferguson ( talk) 18:20, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
One would say "they are immunocompromised", "they are immunosuppressed" or "they are in an immunodeficiency state" interchangeably. We have refs such as this [35] I am happy with a merge. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 00:24, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Our readers appear to want at least one citation supporting every single sentence for medical content.
When a single ref supports multiple sentences in a row I used to hide all but the last one. I however am going to stop doing this as this happens SO often [36] Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 19:42, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
<ref name="Smith 2016">
at the end of each sentence, in order to lessen the maintenance work of the regular editors like yourself. If the essay gained support as a practice in medical articles, we could later propose promoting it to a subject-specific guideline. What do folks think? --
RexxS (
talk) 21:41, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
"Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article."In my book, that's pretty much carte blanche for WPMED to explain why we prefer to have citations in the lead, and how medicine tends to be complex, so justifies a greater density of citations than some other topic areas (see also User:Piotrus/Wikipedia:Why most sentences should be cited) -- RexxS ( talk) 17:38, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Re: "We could mention that hiding references inside hidden text has become less useful since the advent of the visual editor", what percentage of edits are done using VE? Is there any reason to believe that that percentage might be higher or lower for edits to medical articles? -- Guy Macon ( talk) 21:49, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Readers might think the text is original research per this. On controversial topics editors intentionally replaced sourced text with text that fails verification, especially in the lede. Sources in the lede is the best option. QuackGuru ( talk) 01:34, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Bundling too many citations at the end of the sentence will cause mass confusion. See "Aluminum,[31] barium,[68] cadmium,[71] chromium,[1] copper,[11] iron,[11] lead,[71] manganese,[68] mercury,[72] nickel,[71] silicate,[11] silver,[11] strontium,[68] tin,[11] titanium,[68] zinc,[68] and zirconium have been found in the vapor.[68]" That's the way to do this. QuackGuru ( talk) 20:36, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
I've made a start at laying out the different issues and positions at the newly-created WP:MEDCITE. It's just a draft of an essay, so any contributions would be gratefully received. -- RexxS ( talk) 16:24, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Should our readers be able to verify a concept or idea? Should they be able to click on the citation or is it better to hide citations? See Wikipedia_talk:Citation_overkill#Flow_regarding_the_content_about_hiding_citations. QuackGuru ( talk) 20:34, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
I made this revert to the article. It might need additional eyes if the edit is made again. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 18:51, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Under an open license and found here [41] Will be adding them soon. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 06:10, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
I know it's not totally in your purview, but Person-centered therapy could use some eyes on it; there is a content dispute that could use third opinions. Thank you. Primefac ( talk) 20:53, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
the above article could use some help(edits) I had done a few, however the diagnosis section still needs work,thank you-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 18:58, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
I made a comment on the speleotherpy talk page here. Comments would be appreciated. Thanks. JenOttawa ( talk) 16:28, 23 May 2017 (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 90 | ← | Archive 95 | Archive 96 | Archive 97 | Archive 98 | Archive 99 | Archive 100 |
I wanted to share two recent publications from schools in NYC which have had student programs to develop medical information on Wikipedia.
I wish to especially point to Salubrious Toxin at Mount Sinai, who gave essential guidance to the Wikimedia chapter in New York about how to better serve student groups at universities and also about how Wikipedians in general can support projects for medical students and physicians to contribute to Wikipedia. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:55, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
So in 2013 85% of the core medical editors had a college degree. 50.4% were from the healthcare field. [1]
This group made 185,529 edits out of a total of 1.1 million medical edits that year. We calculated bytes removed during the first few rounds of the UCSF class. Could need to dig for that data. My concern is that the popular press often emphasizes that WP is written by non experts. That is often not the case (even though it sometimes is). Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 04:57, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello, folks. We've got the above-named draft at Articles for Creation. It appears to be the children's analogue of an already-existing list article for adult medicines. I'm inclined to accept it after some basic clean-up, but I'd like to get your opinions on it first. There is a separate section for comments on the Draft's talk page. Thank you for your assistance. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 18:57, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Please look over Age-related mobility disability and help fix some of the tagged issues. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 09:27, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
It strikes me that Video game addiction could use a combing over to comply with WP:MEDRS by an editor with more experience and inclination than I. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 20:02, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
I am new to Wikipedia as an instructor responsible for facilitating the scholarly activity curriculum for an internal medicine residency program. Several residents would like to get involved by editing a WikiProject Medicine topic to meet one of the scholarly activity requirements. As adult learners, I want them to be able to pick a topic of interest to them and contribute the most to the community. Any suggestions on culling through the high need, stub or lower quality articles to give them a list relevant to general internal medicine? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BMWilsonInstructor ( talk • contribs) 17:24, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Navboxes proposed for deletion by User:Boghog. Discussion here. Input is appreciated. Medgirl131 22:27, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
more eyes would be useful here. thx Jytdog ( talk) 04:21, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi all, just wanted to let you know that you can now sign up for free access to PsychiatryOnline (from the American Psychiatric Association) through The Wikipedia Library! And a reminder that recommendations for databases we don't have available yet are welcomed. Samwalton9 (WMF) ( talk) 19:03, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Gluten-free_diet#Management Jytdog ( talk) 18:20, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Hey All For those who have not noticed board elections have begun. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 21:31, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
There is a discussion going on HERE. Best Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 21:30, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
An RfC is being conducted that will seek consensus for an exception to WP:ELT for Template:Medical resources. The discussion is at Template talk:Medical resources #RfC on placement of Medical condition classification and resources template. Opinions and constructive suggestions are welcome. -- RexxS ( talk) 10:29, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
This article is badly in need of "MEDRS-ing and MEDMOS-ing" if anyone is interested in this topic. Epeefleche perhaps. It would be great to interlink this topic with Stomatitis#Allergic_contact_stomatitis since this seems to define at least part of the condition. Matthew Ferguson ( talk) 19:48, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Well meaning editor wanting to make info on inhaled steroids more findable in the article. Thoughts? (please respond on talk page). 19:39, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Here. Others thoughts? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 22:31, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Looking for opinions on: Talk:Psychiatric pharmacy#Name change. Biochemistry&Love ( talk) 01:37, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Does anyone know whether there's a medical term for (more or less) the opposite of PRN, i.e. when a a medicine is supposed to be taken daily (whether the patient feels they need it that day or not)? -- Philologia ( talk) 17:37, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for all these replies! I've just tried to clarify the significance of "scheduled" as an antonym in the article. As a non-medical expert, it helps me understand PRN better. -- Philologia ( talk) 23:01, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
You are invited to help close a good article effort at Eddie Eagle, a pediatric gun injury prevention program.
In December 2016 an editor warred to:
See also WT:WikiProject_Medicine/Archive_95#Eddie_Eagle from 12 April 2017 (@ Doc James:, @ WhatamIdoing:).
More recently on the verge of a good article nomination the same editor has returned to:
These recent edits are very clearly not improvements to the encyclopedia. Additional participation may be necessary to salvage good article recognition for this editorial effort. Please help. Thank you! 35.163.21.246 ( talk) 15:07, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your collaboration. MEDRS compliant sources removed or summarization curtailed:
In 1992 the Committee on Injury and Poison Prevention of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) adopted a position critical of the program, discouraged its use, cited the lack of evidence demonstrating efficacy, and recommended an absence of guns from children's homes, or trigger locks or gun safes, as more effective alternatives. The AAP renewed its recommendations in 2000 and 2012. [1] [2] [3]
References
Jackman et. al (2001) wrote in Pediatrics that although the Eddie Eagle program "has been promoted heavily, it never has been evaluated formally to prove that it works. If gun safety education gives parents a sense of complacency without fundamentally altering child behavior, then it might do more harm than good." [1]
References
A 2002 survey article by Hardy published in the journal The Future of Children in a special issue on the topic of "Children, Youth, and Gun Violence" identified the Eddie Eagle program as "perhaps the most popular" gun avoidance program for prekindergarten through the sixth grade but said the program "does not give children a reason for avoiding guns (such as that guns are dangerous)" and that "The NRA offers no empirical evidence that its approach is effective." [1]
References
Himle et. al (2004), in the Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, wrote "...few investigations have evaluated the effectiveness of programs designed to teach children appropriate safety skills to use when they find a firearm. The few investigations that have been conducted have shown existing programs to be ineffective..." [1]
References
A 2004 survey of the literature and critical review of prevention strategies for unintended firearms injuries to children in the journal Education and Treatment of Children concluded "existing child-based firearm-safety programs do not reduce children's injury risk...Although knowledge of what one should do may be valuable, research suggests that knowledge of skills often does not correspond with actual behavior." [1]
References
Glatt (2005) in the Journal of Pediatric Nursing wrote of the Eddie Eagle program "The NRA believes that it can be effective by teaching children the simple, straightforward message to stop, do not touch, leave the area, and tell an adult when confronted by the presence of a firearm...This is an unrealistic expectation based on the cognitive abilities of children in this age group." [1]
References
The image is the book cover of the program workbook, Eddie Eagle Kids' Activity Booklet, Pre-K and Kindergarten edition. The use of this image in this article is policy-compliant; the image was reviewed and accepted with a use rationale for use in article Eddie Eagle.
Thank you again. 52.201.205.110 ( talk) 17:57, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
There is a discussion taking place on the talk page of the article Urinary bladder on whether this article should be moved to Human urinary bladder and the content of a new more-generalized article on bladders (located here) be used to replace it. Your input is welcome! KDS4444 ( talk) 22:09, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
IMO, for anatomy articles it is more appropriate to have the human anatomy topic as the sub article, and a more general physiology type article as the main article. For pathology, depends if the topic is more related to humans or other animals. Pbsouthwood agree with you, an encyclopaedia should have encyclopaedic coverage, not partial coverage. Matthew Ferguson ( talk) 17:37, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm not 100% sure of what is going on at Draft:The Hallmarks of Aging,but it looks like they need help. Stuartyeates ( talk) 22:59, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
As an engineer who sometimes attempts to improve medical articles, I would like some advice.
I was looking at our Docusate article, and comparing it with what is available in local drug stores in Southern California. Around here, only Docusate Sodium is available OTC. Yet the article leads with "Docusate, also known as docusate salts or dioctyl sulfosuccinate", followed closely with "It typically comes in the form of a sodium, calcium, or potassium salts". Yet the reference given [14] lists one example of Docusate Calcium and twenty five examples of Docusate Sodium. Should we change the lead to reflect the most common name, or are different forms of docusate popular in different parts of the world?
The reason I was looking at the page was to find out how much dietary sodium is in a 100 mg Docusate Sodium dose. This ref [15] says 6mg. This is usefyul information for peoplem on low-salt diets. Would it be appropriate to add this to the article? -- Guy Macon ( talk) 18:13, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
There is controversy around the benefit-versus-harm of antidepressants.[33] In young persons, the newer antidepressants such as SSRIs appear to increase the risk of suicidality from 25 per 1000 to 40 per 1000.[131]
Source: /info/en/?search=Suicide#Prevention
This is very unprofessional and should be treated unreliable and to be deleted from the article. =) -- It's gonna be awesome!# Talk♬ 09:12, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
SSRIs is not new at all. =) -- It's gonna be awesome!# Talk♬ 09:13, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
When is and isn't an organ—in whole or part—a medical article? For example,
urinary bladder, above, is a medical article. However
insular cortex apparently isn't. (
This reasoning was recently used to justify primary sources in that article.)
I assumed insular cortex—about the human insular cortex—would be a medical article. (A no-brainer!) If not, shouldn't sections discussing
function and particularly
clinical conditions follow MEDRS?
If so, I believe MEDRS are available to preserve most of the article, and this should be attempted. —
βox73
(৳alk) 02:13, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Functional neurological symptom disorder has been listed at WP:copyright problems since 4 April. Before I spend much more time looking through the rather messy history, would you medical experts care to comment on whether there is in fact such a condition, or if it should simply be a redirect to Conversion disorder? The page was created by an editor who's clearly here to advocate for it (or against it, I don't know) – see FND Hope. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 09:41, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
I have been working to update our infoboxes to human useful date. This is an idea proposed by User:Bluerasberry a few years ago. I have done a couple of hundred articles so far. And the plan is to do around a thousand before getting a bot to transfer the info to Wikidata so other languages can benefit. The EN WP data however will stay on EN WP. Every item gets / needs a high quality reference.
The question is can I get the first part which is this done by bot? Ie have a bot makes this change to all articles which use the Template:Infobox medical condition. The numerical data is moved to the external links section. Amir will do the bot work, we just need community consensus first. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 20:08, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
While I strongly support the move to a more useful infobox, I'm not entirely sure what the purpose of this bot is. I'm guessing it is useful, but for the sake of those who don't know what the end-goal is: what specifically do you intend to do?
There is a difference between clearing and copying. Copying may make the work much easier in the future if we wish to fully migrate, while still preserving functionality for now. Clearing however may end us up with entirely useless infoboxes for now, risking them being deleted.
The other question is what you mean that infobox statements need sources. This is very often overlooked, and I would actually like to suggest we force sources into the infobox. This has been done before on other language Wikipedias, but the idea is to create a field for each statement so that you fill in:
mortality rate = mortality rate source =
and if the source isn't entered the rate isn't included. This could potentially solve lots of problems, and would also make it easy to handle sources in the infobox, for example by forcing them into a group source so they don't cause clutter. It maybe very profitable to introduce such a source-requirement at the same time as we migrate to new infoboxes, which is why I'd like to take it a little slower. Best, Carl Fredrik talk 23:09, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
|symptoms=
. So to clarify, the bot's not filling in those new parameters. It's keeping things like name and image, and adding blank parameters for things like |symptoms=
. This is actually a feasible task, and it should be (very) easy to skip any articles that would otherwise end up with an empty infobox at the top if the links are moved.|mortality-rate=
used, then you could make |mortality-rate-source=
display either the source or automatically add a {{
fact}} tag or display an error message. |cause=
shouldn't be used unless it's clear and simple (e.g., HIV causes AIDS), but it'll take a while to get the message out that this isn't a good spot to fill in hundreds of suspected causes in the
Cancer article. I made this change to the infobox on cerebral palsy, does that mean that it has also been added on wikidata? (There is a thing at the bottom of the new infobox saying 'edit on wikidata') -- 122.108.141.214 ( talk) 10:58, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
I think that the core of this proposal is moving the library cataloging information from the lead of the article to the bottom, and to fill the space left behind with information for the general consumer.
Proposals which were similar to this one have been both well discussed and controversial in the past. Personally, I would characterize past discussions as being progressive for change and protective of current practice from different perspectives and because it seemed like any one change for one group of stakeholders would also cause several changes affecting other groups. Because memories fade and because I think it is useful to try to track some history of discussion, I linking to some past related discussions which led to this one. These discussions could be useful for anyone joining the conversation and who wants to know what other things the wiki community has discussed or tried. Other people would have their own memories and perspectives of past conversations and I probably missed linking to some. These ones that I am featuring here are ones that I either found in search or remembered.
Printed on paper, all of this discussion and the examples cited in these discussions might be the equivalent of 200 paper pages of content. It is a lot to digest. If others remember more or other previous relevant conversation then please share. Wikipedia is not well-equipped to manage a conversation of this sort which has happened in multiple forums over a period of years. I am guessing that not fewer than 50 users have commented in these discussions, and almost every comment is a substantial statement by a highly knowledgeable user. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:06, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Because of the changes made in putting the classification and resources at the bottom of an article, there is already a challenge based on WP:CONLOCAL that consensus here can't override the site-wide guideline WP:ELT. To settle the issue once and for all, this is now the subject of an RfC at Template talk:Medical resources #RfC on placement of Medical condition classification and resources template. Those commenting here may wish to voice their opinions at the RfC. -- RexxS ( talk) 12:46, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Hey All The Strategy process has produced 5 overall "draft" themes here. Further comments requested. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 05:29, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
more opinions(gave mine)--
Ozzie10aaaa (
talk) 09:38, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
You are all invited to give a piece of your mind at Talk:Stachybotrys chartarum#Requested move 4 May 2017. Thank you for your contributions! Paine Ellsworth put'r there 15:53, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
I have two new Wikimedian in Residence roles, both related to medicine:
I'll be doing some work as a Wikimedian in Residence at The Physiological Society over the next few months. As part of that, I have added a list of prize winners to the article about the society - there are lots of red links there for folk to work on! Please see also Wikipedia:GLAM/PhySoc and note there any articles you create in response to this initiative.
Also, I'm now in residence at The History of Modern Biomedicine Research Group; see their announcement. In this case, there are too many notable people for a list of red links, but see items with Wikidata property History of Modern Biomedicine ID (P3885); list at [19]. Again, please note any you create at Wikipedia:GLAM/HMBRG.
I'm happy to act as a conduit for any queries you may have, regarding either organisation.
One or two editathons will be held, in London, later this year. Watch this space! Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:14, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Makes a categorical claim for health benefits based on a Yoga journal. I removed it but it was restored. Doug Weller talk 15:50, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Ok, will propose merge should speedy get declined. I am in shock how anything can be sold these days. BTW, someone found a diet supplement "DNA/RNA" being sold on Amazon for $3, and a serious discussion ensued in one of patient communities whether this could cure a severe genetic disorder. Folks were ready to go and buy it. — kashmiri TALK 18:13, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Merge to "Animal yoga" with other articles on yoga with animals. QuackGuru ( talk) 20:01, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
For the record: AfD
closed: "The result was redirect to Yoga. Almost nobody wants to keep this, but some want to merge a mention of this practice to Yoga. I don't think we have consensus for this, though, given that there seem to be no clear ideas about where in the expansive Yoga article his topic could be mentioned. A redirect is a compromise that allows editors to figure this out later."
--
RexxS (
talk) 12:32, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Discussion Talk:PAX_Labs regarding a brand of e-cigs and its company. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 15:16, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
here Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 00:32, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
I did a few little edits on the Levomefolic acid article ( diff). In the process I tried to determine if levomefolic acid (L-methylfolate) has been approved by the FDA as an adjunctive treatment for major depressive disorder. According to drugs.com: "L-methylfolate (in the 7.5 mg or 15 mg strength marketed as Deplin tablets) is approved by the FDA for the distinct nutritional requirements of individuals who have suboptimal L-methylfolate levels in the cerebrospinal fluid, plasma, and/or red blood cells and have major depressive disorder (MDD) with particular emphasis as adjunctive support for individuals who are on an antidepressant." However, I did not find it listed on either of the two FDA databases the agency recommends, Drugs@FDA and the FDA "Orange Book". I searched for 'levomefolic' and 'L-methylfolate' and 'Deplin'. I did not add anything to the article about FDA approval. Did I miss anything? Thanks! - Mark P.S. Is the Levomefolic acid article of interest to WikiProject Medicine? Currently three WikiProjects are listed on the Talk page: Chemicals, Pharmacology, & Biology. - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 07:46, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Is there a real difference between Pulmonary volutrauma and Pulmonary barotrauma? If so, what is the real difference? If not, should Pulmonary volutrauma be merged into another article with redirect? • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 10:48, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Boyle's law hasn't been repealed. Reading on in the same source,
In view of the preceding description, alveolar overdistention is the key element in the development of barotrauma. In this sense, “barotrauma” is a misnomer, because the term suggests the presence of elevated pressures in its pathogenesis. Current concepts suggest that high tidal volume ventilation produces the alveolar disruption that triggers the aforementioned chain of events.
Therefore, VILI seen with high tidal volume is most accurately termed volutrauma, and it has been the basis for recent clinical trials that have established a low tidal volume approach to mechanical ventilation.— [24]
I would take that as simply indicative of an evolving nomenclature, from barotrauma toward volutrauma. LeadSongDog come howl! 18:28, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Although there has been some debate about the primary force that causes injury, both volume and pressure are two sides of the same coin - transpulmonary pressure. At the cellular level, stretching the lung beyond its capacity ruptures alveolar cell membranes, so I think the original editor was a little confused. Anyway, now that Ozzie has redirected, I will try to make a few improvements to Barotrauma. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 15:38, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 97/Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of WikiProject Medicine.
We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:
We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of WikiProject Medicine, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.
Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:15, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
A "cure" for Sickle-cell disease is being reported [26] [www.bbc.com/news/health-39142971]. Would some knowldgeable editor update the article, please? Thanks. Alanscottwalker ( talk) 15:13, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
I noticed that we have a " Reliable Drugs" drug store chain (chemist's shoppe). Do we have an article on pharmaceutical reliability (however you wish to interpret that) for which we can hatnote the article for people using the search term "reliable drugs" to get general information on drug efficacity measures/theory or similar? -- 65.94.169.56 ( talk) 04:01, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
User possibly putting in own publication. The text of the wp article was not changed. I have no access so cannot assess the suitability of the source [32]. Matthew Ferguson ( talk) 18:43, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
This is very worrying. I just checked his edits to Plummer–Vinson syndrome and although he may well be right about the burning sensation not being a symptom, his reference pmid:26486296 is a case report on five subjects and nothing to do with the text he amended. In addition, looking at his journal article on PubMed, some of it appears to have been lifted wholesale from a 2006 review that we use in our article. I've reverted his changes at Plummer–Vinson syndrome, but all of his contributions need examination. -- RexxS ( talk) 22:27, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Please review the above, also please see Talk:Therapeutic_ultrasound#Proposed_merge_with_Sustained_Acoustic_Medicine. Thx Jytdog ( talk) 21:34, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
I think Sustained Acoustic Medicine might be a brand of ZetrOZ, Inc. There is no Sustained Acoustic Medicine. It is a device called Sustained Acoustic Medicine. AFD or redirect for the ad. QuackGuru ( talk) 17:20, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Assumed clear definitions distinguishing these terms, e.g.:
However, former article lists examples of "non deliberate immunosuppression" such as HIV/AIDS. If it is possible to be "immunosuppressed" because of medical conditions rather than it being a term restricted to an artificially created condition by medical interventions, then what is the difference between immunodeficiency and immunosuppression? And the next question would be do we need separate articles in the encyclopedia? Matthew Ferguson ( talk) 18:20, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Inhaled corticosteroids causing isolated candidial lesions on the dorsum of the tongue and the palate, presumably the steroid flowing over these surfaces while it is being inhaled, and altering/suppressing local/mucosal immune function and allowing commensal candidal species to become pathogenic. Since the lesion is caused by what is effectively topical rather than systemic use of steroids, is this still considered immunosuppression? Matthew Ferguson ( talk) 18:20, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
One would say "they are immunocompromised", "they are immunosuppressed" or "they are in an immunodeficiency state" interchangeably. We have refs such as this [35] I am happy with a merge. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 00:24, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Our readers appear to want at least one citation supporting every single sentence for medical content.
When a single ref supports multiple sentences in a row I used to hide all but the last one. I however am going to stop doing this as this happens SO often [36] Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 19:42, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
<ref name="Smith 2016">
at the end of each sentence, in order to lessen the maintenance work of the regular editors like yourself. If the essay gained support as a practice in medical articles, we could later propose promoting it to a subject-specific guideline. What do folks think? --
RexxS (
talk) 21:41, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
"Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article."In my book, that's pretty much carte blanche for WPMED to explain why we prefer to have citations in the lead, and how medicine tends to be complex, so justifies a greater density of citations than some other topic areas (see also User:Piotrus/Wikipedia:Why most sentences should be cited) -- RexxS ( talk) 17:38, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Re: "We could mention that hiding references inside hidden text has become less useful since the advent of the visual editor", what percentage of edits are done using VE? Is there any reason to believe that that percentage might be higher or lower for edits to medical articles? -- Guy Macon ( talk) 21:49, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Readers might think the text is original research per this. On controversial topics editors intentionally replaced sourced text with text that fails verification, especially in the lede. Sources in the lede is the best option. QuackGuru ( talk) 01:34, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Bundling too many citations at the end of the sentence will cause mass confusion. See "Aluminum,[31] barium,[68] cadmium,[71] chromium,[1] copper,[11] iron,[11] lead,[71] manganese,[68] mercury,[72] nickel,[71] silicate,[11] silver,[11] strontium,[68] tin,[11] titanium,[68] zinc,[68] and zirconium have been found in the vapor.[68]" That's the way to do this. QuackGuru ( talk) 20:36, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
I've made a start at laying out the different issues and positions at the newly-created WP:MEDCITE. It's just a draft of an essay, so any contributions would be gratefully received. -- RexxS ( talk) 16:24, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Should our readers be able to verify a concept or idea? Should they be able to click on the citation or is it better to hide citations? See Wikipedia_talk:Citation_overkill#Flow_regarding_the_content_about_hiding_citations. QuackGuru ( talk) 20:34, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
I made this revert to the article. It might need additional eyes if the edit is made again. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 18:51, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Under an open license and found here [41] Will be adding them soon. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 06:10, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
I know it's not totally in your purview, but Person-centered therapy could use some eyes on it; there is a content dispute that could use third opinions. Thank you. Primefac ( talk) 20:53, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
the above article could use some help(edits) I had done a few, however the diagnosis section still needs work,thank you-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 18:58, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
I made a comment on the speleotherpy talk page here. Comments would be appreciated. Thanks. JenOttawa ( talk) 16:28, 23 May 2017 (UTC)