![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Hi neuroscientists, I'm working on a Czech Wikipedia article on Brain ( cs:mozek) and I got stuck with the "Brain function" chapter. I looked at the English article but the corresponding chapter seems to be a rather low-quality one as it rather mentions neurotransmitter system. It needs an "all-vertebrates" view, it should include things like neurohormones, reflexes, memory, motor control, ... Would you be able to rewrite the chapter in such an important article? Or, at least, would you please recommend me some book on the topic? Thank you in advance for answering, kind regards,-- Vojtech.dostal ( talk) 13:02, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Editors may be interested in a merger proposal here. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 15:58, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I am a student from California Polytechnic State University in Pomona. My group is doing a class project for a Kinesiology class called Movement Anatomy and Kinesiology. As part of the project, our group is responsible for researching a topic and either updating a Wikipedia article or creating a new one. We decided to create the Median nerve palsy page. We've submitted for peer review and would like input from the Neuroscience community. Any input would be very helpful. Thanks!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjjballr911 ( talk • contribs) 18:03, 8 December 2010
Hi, I've just had a browse on the four Top importance stub class articles to see what I could do, and none of them were stubs any more! I've reclassified them, but I may have been too conservative on one or two. Keepstherainoff ( talk) 15:48, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
There's a new WP:JCW report.
Out of the 500 most highly cited missing journals, here's a few that fall into your scope, or near your scope.
See the writing guide if you need help with those. Some of these might be better as redirects ( Guide to redirects). Feel free to remove those which you think are too far from neurology from the list. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:41, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I have performed a restoration of a high quality image of Santiago Ramón y Cajal and nominated it for FP at commons with the intention of also nominating it later in WP. Comments here would be welcomed.-- Garrondo ( talk) 12:34, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
I have nominated Schizophrenia for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Basket of Puppies 23:40, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
I have taken Parkinson's disease to FAC after almost a year of improving it.It is a vital article, and with a lot of visits (around 300k a mont). I await comments here from those of the project. Thanks in advance to everybody. -- Garrondo ( talk) 13:16, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
We have a situation at this article that could use outside input. Goodwillein ( talk · contribs) added some material that I did not believe belonged, so I removed it, explaining why on the talk page. An IP, 24.69.142.114 ( talk · contribs), re-added the material without explanation, but left a comment on their own talk page saying, "Looie496, you appear again you have abused your tools!". I have a policy against multi-reverting without support from other editors, so I won't do anything more here unless somebody else is also willing to get involved, in one way or another. Looie496 ( talk) 04:30, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
While I'm at it, it would also be helpful to have third party input at Talk:radial glia#The astrocytic hypothesis of aging of mammals, concerning new edits by AM Borman ( talk · contribs). Looie496 ( talk) 04:44, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi all, this coming spring semester I am repeating an editing project that I ran in the Fall of 2009 for my Neuroscience class at Boston College. This semester I am hoping to write up a manuscript for a life science education journal about our experience, and I would like to solicit help from some of the knowledgeable Neuroscience WP editors. We will have 20 or so groups of students (3 students per group, 1 stub per group) improving specific Category:Neuroscience stubs that are in need of expansion, clarification and/or proper referencing. I am putting together a rubric that you can use to make quantitative judgments about how much improvement to the stub has been made by the students (and any other editors that help out during our course period). If I can get maybe 4 or 5 editors to volunteer a few hours of time to read through the before and after history for ~5 stubs each and give their assessments I would be most appreciative, and of course would acknowledge your efforts in the manuscript. Please feel free to respond back here or on my talk page. Thanks much, NeuroJoe ( talk) 03:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks everyone, I'll be in touch soon with more information and some simple guidelines I've pulled together to evaluate the pre and post project content. NeuroJoe ( talk) 19:19, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Final call for reviewers interested in helping out with reviewing our Neuroscience course Wikipedia stub edits. Another 1 or 2 would certainly be helpful and welcome. My estimation is that this would require 2-3 hours of effort per reviewer, all you have to do is read the stub page that currently exists as of 3/1/11, the "final" version at the end of the course (~2nd week of May), and evaluate them using an 8 point rubric that I pulled together from the Good Article criteria page as an illustration of what the students should be shooting for. Tryptofish, Garrondo and Keepstherainoff please let me know if you're still willing and able to participate. thanks NeuroJoe ( talk) 18:23, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
The article has aroused some interest over at WP:PSY. Please take a look, if you like. Since it rather clearly seems to be in the scope of WP:Neuroscience as well (categorized as cogn. neurosc.), I have added a project sticker. Morton Shumway— talk 21:11, 21 February 2011 (UTC).
Neuromusicologists etc., please note the proposed merge and discuss it here: Talk:Cognitive neuroscience of music#Proposed merge Morton Shumway— talk 22:09, 25 February 2011 (UTC).
Parkinson's disease has been at FAC for a month. While most reviewers have stated their support to the candidacy of this vital article there is at least an editor which believes it is not ready. More reviewers that could give their opinion on whether it is a FA and/or how to improve it would be of great help.-- Garrondo ( talk) 13:22, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
The article was promoted soon after this post.-- Garrondo ( talk) 08:29, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Recent changes were made to citations templates (such as {{
citation}}, {{
cite journal}}, {{
cite web}}...). In addition to what was previously supported (bibcode, doi, jstor, isbn, ...), templates now support arXiv, ASIN, JFM, LCCN, MR, OL, OSTI, RFC, SSRN and Zbl. Before, you needed to place |id=
(or worse {{
arxiv|0123.4567}}
|url=
http://arxiv.org/abs/0123.4567
), now you can simply use |arxiv=0123.4567
, likewise for |id=
and {{
JSTOR|0123456789}}
|url=
http://www.jstor.org/stable/0123456789
→ |jstor=0123456789
.
The full list of supported identifiers is given here (with dummy values):
Obviously not all citations needs all parameters, but this streamlines the most popular ones and gives both better metadata and better appearances when printed. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:09, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
There is a proposed split of Primate_basal_ganglia_system#Pallido-nigral_set_and_pacemaker from Primate_basal_ganglia_system. The split has been supported, so it appears that it is appropriate. However, this is a specialised topic so the work should be done by somebody who understand the topic. I have removed the split request tag, and am now leaving the matter in the hands of the experts. SilkTork * YES! 21:52, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
People who watch this page may like to know about a new initiative to bring in psychologists. See Wikipedia Initiative from the American Psychological Society at WT:MED for more information, and keep an eye out for new editors who might need help when you encounter them in articles about neuropsychology, etc. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 02:46, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Editors may be interested in signing up at Wikipedia:Credo accounts. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 19:16, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
A new editor has asked for help at WP:FEEDBACK with Satellite cell (glial). It sounds like she's a student and has significantly expanded the article. If someone who knows a thing or two about this would please leave a note on the article's talk page at Talk:Satellite cell (glial), then I'm sure she would be grateful. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 19:26, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
I just discovered this stub. It was supported by a dead link and 2 commercial links - the link supporting treatment with Modafinil was also selling the product. So it is now without any supporting sources. -- Anthonyhcole ( talk) 06:54, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi, folks.
Another editor and I are discussing how best to describe with NPOV some findings pertinent to transgenderism and transsexualism. There is a small, but interesting, neuroscientific literature and a behavioural literature.
If interested, please review
Transgender#Transgender_people_and_science with attention to the language used to say what researchers show versus provided evidence in support of, etc.
I am happy supply reprints of whichever research articles you might not have easy access to. Thanks.
— James Cantor (
talk)
17:37, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
I'd just like to note that a few of the university project articles are starting to show up at WP:GAN. I have taken on Neurolaw, but there are others that don't yet have reviewers, and no doubt more will show up. Looie496 ( talk) 15:54, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Hey guys I just wrote a new biography so if some of you want to check out the english or the content, i'd appreciate ! Here it is. Jean-Francois Gariepy ( talk) 15:04, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
It would be good to have more eyes from this WikiProject at Talk:Neural network and Talk:Biological neural network, where there is discussion about how these and related pages ought to be organized. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:13, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
The usage of neural network is under discussion. See the requested move at talk:biological neural network and the discussion at talk:neural network. 65.94.47.63 ( talk) 05:37, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Can I get some input from the project on the Vilayanur S. Ramachandran page? There is an slow, ongoing debate relating to all things Ramachandran, but it has really escalated in regards to the mirror neuron hypothesis of autism; see Vilayanur_S._Ramachandran#Pathophysiology_of_autism. I might be losing my perspective on this, as I've been involved in a slow battle with several other editors, so I thought I'd ask for some outside input from other experts in the relevant areas. I've also asked a couple of other editors who are part of the neuroscience project for some input, and asked an admin to lock the page to promote discussion instead of edit-warring. Thanks Edhubbard ( talk) 20:46, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Through a discussion on the talk page of an article that I watch, I found out about Wikipedia:WikiProject Neuroscience/Assessment. Despite my relatively long involvement with this WikiProject, I'm embarrassed to realize that I didn't know about the assessment subpage before. I'm putting this note here in case anyone else has been in the same boat as me. If you are interested, you might want to add it to your watchlist, so that you can see when someone else has asked for review of a page within the project. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 21:29, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
The JCW compilation updated a while ago. Here's the top-cited missing journals that are neurology-related (at least as far as I could tell, incluuding neurochemistry, neurology, etc...). Feel free to edit the list as needed.
If you're interested to help, Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Writing guide has some guidance about how to write an article on journals. Any help you can give would be much appreciated at WP:JOURNALS, as the Neurology alone represents ~10% of the missing top 500. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 00:10, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
I came across this article while stub-sorting. It's not really a stub, just a list of three other articles - and each of those is a pretty mal-formed Wikipedia article, with no coherent text but a few lines of Species, Genus, Order, Gestation and then a tabular timeline, with references. Someone from this project might like to have a look at the whole assemblage and decide what to do with them. As far as I can see they form a walled garden, only linking to each other. Thanks. Pam D 19:40, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Hendry's_first_law_of_lamination. -- Anthonyhcole ( talk) 12:59, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
I'd like to leave a note that I am planning on nominating Brain for Featured Article in the next few days -- the main things I want to do first are to develop the Cognition section a bit more, and fill in a bunch of missing or incomplete refs. In the meantime, any feedback would be useful. Looie496 ( talk) 17:04, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
It's there now -- Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Brain/archive4. All opinions are welcome. Looie496 ( talk) 01:57, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Let me add a note that the review is still active, with support for promotion from three editors and outright opposition from none, but it has basically ground to a halt, with no activity for the past few days. Without further input it isn't clear what will happen. Looie496 ( talk) 16:38, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
I looked up Left brain interpreter and had no article, so I started one. But I have a feeling there may be an article on it with a different name or something, I would be surprised if not. Anyway, if there is one, please merge/redirect. Else, you guys may want to help write more on it, given that it is only peripheral to my interests, and I had not even looked at the topic for a decade, so what I know may be dated. Thanks. History2007 ( talk) 20:36, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry if this annoys anyone, but I am kind of desperate at this point. I need to recruit 200 people to participate in an online survey and, due to bureaucratic issues, I have a week (10/31/2011-11/7/2011). If you can help me that would be great! You are invited to participate in my survey on stereotype content. This study may help enhance our understanding of stereotype formation and the relationships between social perceptions of stereotyped groups. Specifically, we hope that the results can be used to inform a larger project on the processes and neural correlates of social decisions about stereotyped groups.
The survey consists of 51 questions, which ask you to indicate how groups are perceived in American society, two questions about your perceptions of these groups, and 18 demographics questions. Demographics questions ask about your age, education and relationship with the groups you were asked to rate. You will be asked take the survey in a single session, without simultaneous activities (if you have IM, we will ask you to turn it off it off or set your status to busy.) It should take you 45 minutes to an hour, but subjects have been known to spend up to 90 minutes, answering questions. Try not to over analyze the questions, when in doubt, go for your initial or "gut" response.
To participate you must be over 18 years old and "familiar with American culture." For the purposes of this study assume "familiar with American culture" means you are an United States citizen, were born in or grew up in the United States, or are currently living in the United States and have lived there for more than 5 years. I need at least 200 participants and you are encouraged to invite people other to take the survey. Thank you!
The survey may be found here: https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/TNFQLZ6 or here: https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/MKNGQ2K -- Xttina.Garnet ( talk) 23:31, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
I also thought there might be other people on here, who have had similar issues and I wanted to ask if anyone had any brilliant or even just ok ideas for other places to post my request? Thank you! -- Xttina.Garnet ( talk) 23:31, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Thank you and I won't be. I'm just really desperate at this point and trying everything I can think of, on the off chance something works. I was really hesitant to post here at all, for exactly the reasons you mention. I'm more worried about inappropriate use and etiquette breaches, than I am about not getting much of a response. Again thanks! -- Xttina.Garnet ( talk) 08:04, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
User:AlexNewArtBot/NeuroscienceSearchResult is showing a bunch of new neuroscience articles that are clearly coming from a class project, but it isn't one that I know about. Does anybody know anything about who is in charge of that particular class? There are some obvious problems, but based on past experiences I am reluctant to try to explain them to the students (most of whom are probably not even aware that they have talk pages). Looie496 ( talk) 16:54, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm starting to wonder whether these projects don't do more harm than good... Have a look at the articles being edited by this project, for example. I have looked at two articles in detail ( Human Cognome Project and Neurogenetics and am wondering whether these should not be whole-scale reverted to the stubs that they were before these students started editing... -- Guillaume2303 ( talk) 22:26, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
The FA nomination for Brain is going well but is currently stuck on a large number of references being too unspecific. Needs help from someone with a good library (access). -- Ettrig ( talk) 12:04, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
I just added local field potential to WikiProject Neuroscience. Unfortunately, the article is short and not of very good quality, although I think it is a rather important topic. Needs help from someone with expertise in this subject (and some spare time..). TjeerdB ( talk) 22:48, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi. I'm seeing some potential problems from Biol373.cwru ( talk · contribs) - basically pasting in entire class papers over existing articles - but I currently have a final exam to create. Could someone deal with this? Thanks! Allens ( talk) 17:45, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
This school project could use some help, I think. -- Guillaume2303 ( talk) 18:26, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
I refer the group to this thread on the Talk page at Major Depressive Disorder concerning the use of Vincent van Gogh's painting "At Eternity's Gate" in that article and to this comment of mine pointing out it has no place in the article and should be removed.
The essence of the complaint is that is fully documented that van Gogh's painting is not at all, nor was ever meant to be, a portrayal of depressive disorder but is rather merely a study of an old man. For that reason alone it should be removed for reasons of encyclopaedic accuracy.
As it stands it necessarily makes a judgement about the nature of depressive disorder, that it necessarily implies despair, even that it necessarily implies suicidal ideation (because of its title and van Gogh's own well known suicide). It is very much to be regretted indeed in my opinion that a Wikipedia administrator, Casliber, a practicising psychiatrist it seems but a poor historian of art, appears to be the prime mover behind perpetuating these poor judgements.
It also mythologises Vincent van Gogh himself who took the greatest care to separate his difficulties in life from his work; the nature of whose illness is not settled but which is not certainly typical of a depressive disorder; who is not documented as suffering from suicidal depressive moods in the last months of his life when this painting was completed and whose suicide itself has in the past year been plausibly questioned by a respected source as rather a manslaughter.
I ask that the image be removed. If it is felt necessary, and I cannot imagine why it should be, that the article be illustrated by a fine art image, then I suggest the original image, Durer's Melancholia, be reinserted. Skirtopodes ( talk) 22:33, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
I have nominated Free will for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Dana boomer ( talk) 22:13, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
There is currently a rather heated dispute in progress about whether it is appropriate for the article to discuss the idea that low-frequency radio waves can serve as a basis for a BCI. It is pretty close to a state of edit-warring, so input from additional editors would be welcome. Looie496 ( talk) 00:12, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
This article has made a lot of progress and a reassessment would be appreciated. I'm trying to get it up FA but that will require additional expert input. Any input for other editors would be most welcome. TjeerdB ( talk) 11:20, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Without much ado, Neuroscience has accomplished much; in addendum I must add that it is placing Wiki in "Ancient History" while indeed advanced much therein is my several questions:
Why so many dated and old notations (this does not imply on the Drugs / Medications - we need that for Historical background information; but even that is severely lacking) are so far behind whereas if one read up; for example in a Physician's Office on Neurology*Now, or EpilepsyUSA, whatever might be lying around and then returns home to do more research in Wiki. It is no wonder one is going to be bound to be confused.
For example: There have been findings as well as affirmations of Autism, Lennox-Gasult Syndrome, Leigh's Disease (or Syndrome), Angelman's, et al --> that are correlated to Epilepsy and more researches are finding more and more facts which is a fantastic finding; especially with the ILAE (International League Against Epilepsy), the world-wide organization. And for those who are familiar, they are known for their magazine "Epilepsia".
ILAE has already changed the terminology to break down, narrowing the scope even further in the classification of types of Epilepsies that are out there; Wiki needs to begin to use the new terminology, e.g. Tonic Clonic with the old terminology in italics "formerly known as Grand Mal"; this would reduce Wiki's being "scatter-brained" (pardon the pun) and cleaning up the mess.
My questions here are:
1) Why hasn't anyone provided any provisions of the latest up-to-date provisions of the newest, confirmed and valid studies? (There are many who joined world-wide in these massive huge studies, and these cases, findings, all the way to the conclusions is broad and vast; far more than ample and sufficient to warrant and merit as valid and fit to be published in my humble opinion.)
2) Why hasn't there been any information on the latest Neuroscience technology such as MEG in more in depth as well as the newer type of Neurosurgery? (Just a thought there...)
3) It is NOT a difficult thing for one to obtain information on Epilepsy anymore as so it was 5 years ago, 10, 15, 20+ years ago. Superimposed, when I glance upon other medical conditions, they very much keep theirs clean and up-to-date; frankly, I ask ... "Why are we still in the dark ages?" This is 2012, RMS Titanic sank March 1912; 100 years ago - so why are the articles/citations/references in there old and dated as far back in the 80s', 90s', and even early 2000s'? 05:50, 21 March 2012 (Original Post posted in old place - Special thanks to Looie496 for redirecting me!) AwahiliGuni ( talk) 01:45, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:HighBeam describes a limited opportunity for Wikipedia editors to have access to
HighBeam Research.
—
Wavelength (
talk)
18:20, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
I'd appreciate any input or advice at Talk:Plant neurobiology#New page title?. Thanks. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 16:49, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
I have been talking about Savant Syndrome with Dr Darold Treffert. The symptoms seem to be narrowed memory recall. Also he thinks Einstein is not autistic, he is a neuron typical genius. A person does not have to be autistic to be a savant and it could happen to anyone, including later acquired abilities. Which raised an interesting question, what is the anatomy of a savant brain? Is there any common structure that lead to the abilities? Would there be similarity to Kim Peek's brain? Did anyone do any research in this area or have any data to share? Thanks! -- RexRowan Talk 09:22, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
There are a number of neuroscience-related classes working with the Wikipedia Education Program that are starting up around now, and several could use the help of experienced editors. If that sounds like something you want to do, you can become an Online Ambassador. If you're interested, let me know, or if you've got questions about the role, please ask. In any case, the work done by students in these classes may be of interest.
You can see the other courses in the United States and Canada programs here: Canada, US.-- Sage Ross (WMF) ( talk) 16:00, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
A group of us are looking for help in continuing the development of a Wikiversity learning project. Is this an appropriate place to contact wikipedians who might be interested in giving assistance or spreading the word? The project is The Science Behind Parkinson's. I invite you to visit it to look at its aims and state of development. We have, in fact, got a lot of material on it already. But we want more people to join us in developing it and making it a valuable resource particularly for those affected by Parkinson's who want to understand more about the science underlying the condition.
It would be good if you could suggest other ways in which we could find other people who would be interested in helping with its development. I am prepared to write individually to all the active wikipedians on the Neuroscience project if that is the best way of contacting relevant people but I don't want to be accused of spamming! Thanks. My user name on Wikiversity is Droflet. Please write on my user talk page there, http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Droflet , or on my user talk page here on wikipedia. Jtelford ( talk) 12:19, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Hot potato article at AfD. Secondary sources have been found, but it needs work. Tijfo098 ( talk) 15:05, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
I made navigation template for Brodmann area.
Although Template {{ Cerebral cortex}} has links to BA already, the links to BA in {{ Cerebral cortex}} spread around the template randomly (because numbering of BA is not continuous topologically). So I made template for BA. Your commenting and editing are welcome! Thanks. -- Was a bee ( talk) 13:49, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
This article has been the subject (victim?) of a class assignment and could use some attention from an expert. Thanks. --
Randykitty (
talk)
11:34, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Would anyone be interested in helping create a list of potential topics for the Fall (and potentially Summer) round of this class? That way we can target need instead of getting questionable articles. I know Category:Stub-Class neuroscience articles and Category:Stub-Class neurology articles exist. Are there any other lists that could be useful? Identifying stub/start class articles that are in need of cleanup and get lots of hits and/or have high importance would be great. Biosthmors ( talk) 20:21, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Ho, we have animal model of depression and animal models of schizophrenia. For the sake of consistency, I think both should use either "model" or "models". I prefer the latter, but before moving the article wanted to see whether someone here has an opinion on this either way. Thanks. -- Randykitty ( talk) 15:08, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
There is a list of students and their topics at User:Biosthmors/Intro Neuro, FYI. Biosthmors ( talk) 23:28, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
FYI: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brain-disabling psychiatric medical treatment. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 00:42, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Can someone knowledgeable have a look at these articles (created by a new user) to ensure that this is not original research?
utcursch | talk 04:32, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
fMRS article is a new article which is related to neuroscience. Should there be a Neuroscience project template on the talk page? What else should be done? Thanks. Dcdace ( talk) 12:16, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi,
Over the last few months a biology class has made a real mess of this article. I'm considering just undoing all the edits of the last few months, rolling things back to things as of Nov 2012 but I wanted to get input from this wikiproject first. I know that it's not explicitly a WP:Neuroscience page, but I figured it might still fall under your purview. I will also post on the Neurology Task force of WP:MED and probably on the education project page as well.
Does anyone have a contact with the class that was doing this?
-- UseTheCommandLine ( talk) 10:11, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Wondering if we could get a crew together to improve the neurogenetics page... Let me know who is interested. Mikecf10 ( talk) 19:41, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
I've just started Brain Activity Map Project. It would be great if other interested editors would help improve and expand the page. Thanks! -- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:02, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
An article created as an educational assignment and abandoned since. Could use some attention from knowledgeable people. -- Randykitty ( talk) 09:38, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
The Wikimedia Foundation received an email from someone associated with the Journal Computers in Biology and Medicine
I probably took more words than necessary to explain why he should not be editing the article, but I also went on to surmise why Wikipedia's coverage of scholarly journals is likely to be a challenge. I'll drop my comments in a collapsed box below.
I hope someone in this Wikiproject might have interest in talking a look at the article, and improving it.
My thoughts regarding articles on scholarly journals
|
---|
padding |
As a former editor of a professional journal, I can sympathize with your concerns. I agree with your observation that "scholarly assistance is something sorely needed at wikipedia". On the one hand we do have some success stories, on the other hand, there are major gaps. If I may ramble a moment, the interaction between Wikipedia and scholars is an uneasy one. Within scholarly communities, expertise is highly valued. While ultimately, science triumphs, whether done by a Nobel Laureate or a high school student, one generally know who one is more likely to believe if one of them makes an interesting claim and the other disagrees. Wikipedia, deliberately, and somewhat proudly, takes a different approach, believing that the cv of the person making the statement is irrelevant. That approach can be taken to absurd extremes. However, the nature of the landscapes are different. Scholars, almost by definition, are pushing boundaries, trying to find new ideas, new relationships, new concepts, new theories of explanation. Wikipedia, in contrast, deliberately eschews the cutting edge, not ashamedly, but deliberately. Almost every day, someone wants to use the high profile of Wikipedia to announce some new discovery. Such attempts are universally removed. Our goal is to be a repository of the body of knowledge that is known, not to push the boundaries. While no serious researcher would ever contemplate using Wikipedia to announce a new finding, this isn't something we miss, it is something we want to avoid. We believe new ideas should be posted in established journals, where experts can review the claims, and accept the paper only if it meets their rigorous standards. Wikipedia relies heavily on the existence of scholarly journals. If someone wants to add a relatively new concept to an article, we want to see that the concept has been through the fire of peer-review. While many of our editors would not be qualified to sit on a peer-review panel, that expertise isn't needed. We need the ability to read a scholarly paper, and determine whether a statement in an article is supported by the paper, but that level of expertise doesn't require a doctorate in the subject matter. (Of course, for some subjects, familiarity with the subject matter is helpful. I do know which editor to contact when there is a medical question, for example.) Sorry, that was more of a ramble than I intended, but it provides a backdrop for what otherwise might be a puzzling position of Wikipedia. One of the five pillars of Wikiepdia is Neutrality. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars That strong guiding principle means we do not want editors working on an article when they are "too close" to the subject, because we believe they will, even if not deliberately, unconsciously write in a way that is more positive about a subject than we feel is appropriate for an encyclopedia. This creates a challenge in a number of areas, and scholarly journals is one such area. Obviously, the managing editor of a journal is highly knowledgeable about the journal, almost certainly more knowledgeable than anyone else. However, because of our Conflict of interest guideline: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Coi We would prefer that the managing editor of a journal not directly edit the article. We believe the publisher is in a similar position. When it comes to an article about Apple Computers, we don't want the CEO to edit the article, but there is no shortage of editors interested in the company. With a scholarly journal, there are fewer editors who are independent of the journal, yet have an interest in writing about the journal. Second, we want independent references to support claims in the article. Peer-reviewed Journals don't often write about their competition, and the New York Times doesn't often find a professional journal to be a likely subject for an article (except when there are problems), so we have the dual problems of not enough editors independent of the journal, and not enough references for editors to use. I'll also make a specific point about the content you added. When you use a phrase such as "revolutionary advances being made in the application of the computer to..." it raises a red flag to a reviewer. We would never permit such a phrase by an editor, and can only use such phrasing if it can be found in independent references. Even then, if there is a simple reference with such a characterization, it would probably be reverted. While you are no doubt proud of the journal, and certain that the phrasing is accurate, it isn't the type of phrasing we like to use. I haven't spoken to the editor who cut back the article to a bare stub, but I feel fairly certain that this and some other phrases triggered the decision. Finally, I will reach out to an editor who does a lot of work related to medical articles to see is she would be willing to help. I can't promise anything, as she is overworked, but I can ask. |
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sphilbrick ( talk • contribs)
It seems that Neuroscience professors like assigning students to write entries from scratch (or from stubs). I'm not convinced this is the assignment design that is optimal (see WP:ENB), but if this pattern continues, does the project want to maintain a list at the project page, even if it is only 5 to 10 articles (but maybe up to 50 or 100)? Biosthmors ( talk) 19:41, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
New editor User:Maweiss created a subsection called Side effects on the brain. Now, apart from using a lot of primary sources, the section only reports detrimental effects, and I would like to ask you: do you know if that is a neutral description of our knowledge about ADHD medication? Lova Falk talk 16:15, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Seem to be increasing references to Brain fitness in sports, eg Gail Fay Sports: The Ultimate Teen Guide 2012 "Answering yes to one or more means you—like thousands of other high school and college athletes—could benefit from a little brain training. Sports psychologists like Dr. Goldberg agree that mental toughness is just as important as physical ..." Anyway, whatever the answer to that question, not sure whether Michel Bruyninckx requires a tag from this project? In ictu oculi ( talk) 06:07, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
This article could use another eye or two -- an IP editor has replaced material that I reverted because I don't believe it meets Wikipedia's sourcing standards. (It has other issues as well.) Since I have already reverted once, I am reluctant to revert the same material again without input from other editors. Looie496 ( talk) 23:48, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
I've noticed that the Neurogenesis wiki page needs some love. Considering how long it looks like it has been abandoned, and that parts of it look like they may have been part of a project for a class, my guess is that it is going to take a serious review of more current literature in order to get it up and running. In fact, there are sections that may be better off being deleted entirely until they are improved. I'm willing to try and spruce up where I can, but I wanted to consult the neuroscience project wiki before I did anything drastic. Serotonick ( talk) 02:00, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lucid dreaming mask could use input from people with something resembling expert knowledge. Also, the article on Stephen LaBerge needs attention from people who know the field; here seem to be significant problems but those of us who don't know the material well are unclear as to what is substantial and what is puffery. Mangoe ( talk) 16:00, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Dear readers,
A few Latin expressions can be found in neuroanatomical articles, such as nucleus raphe obscurus, nucleus raphe pallidus and nucleus raphe magnus. I changed that in Wikipedia to nucleus raphes obscurus, nucleus raphes pallidus and nucleus raphes magnus. The official list of anatomic names , the Terminologia Anatomica dictates the spelling with raphes and not with raphe when written within a Latin expression. And the reason is quite clear. Raphe means seam. Raphes means 'of the seam' (=genitive). Such an expression like nucleus raphe would mean nucleus seam (=non-sense) and nucleus raphes would mean nucleus of the seam (=meaningful). Another user however questioned these revisions. as the grammatical incorrect form is more common than the official grammmatical correct form. Considering that raphe is incorrect and verboten to use in a Latin expression, as those aforementioned Latin expressions, by the Terminologia Anatomica, it would be better, to change raphe to raphes in these cases. Raphe in raphe nucleus is however not necessarily incorrect, as you could translate that expression as seam nucleus, what is actually fine, but when used within a Latin expression, then you have to use the genitive raphes. I would like to hear your opinion about this matter. Thanks in advance, with kind regards, Wimpus ( talk) 15:44, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
I think that User:Wimpus has made some points about the problems with terminology, and I appreciate his/her general will-to-argument. On the other hand, pulling WP:VNT or WP:OR is rather generic – the claim that most literature shows one usage and not another would be OR in any case, as the literature in question does not make any explicit claims about their own use of terminology.
The editors of an encyclopedia necessarily have some autonomy, and thus obligation to justify their decisions: as an editor I think that I should either make some kind of ad hoc-argument (the terms are not quotations from another language, and a terminology is always established pragmatically), or to point out a specifically relevant guideline or policy ( WP:CK and WP:MEDMOS#Naming_conventions). If there is a lack of a specific guideline or policy, an existing consensus could be taken to establish one that is more precise, sensible or useful.
Kind regards, 㓟 ( talk) 12:40, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
A subject specialist is needed to review Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Cell Assembly and also consider whether the content should perhaps be merged into Hebbian theory. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 11:45, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
I just reverted an IP edit to this article on the grounds that it was unsourced and probably unsourceable -- i. e., pure OR. The editor has reverted back, saying dont need a reference, it is self explanatory. I think this is a pretty clear case, but since it is my policy never to get into one-vs-one edit wars, I am bringing the matter up here in hopes that somebody else might take a look at it. Looie496 ( talk) 17:31, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
I believe this is most commonly referred to as the "default mode network" or "default mode." Would anyone object if I made Default mode network the main article and redirected Default network to it? (Currently Default mode network redirects to Default network.) Thanks. TimidGuy ( talk) 10:48, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
There is currently an open RfC at Foreign Accent Syndrome, looking for comments about what to do about the growing list of cases that has been included in the article. If there are any interested editors, we would like to invite your comments and suggestions on this matter. 0x0077BE ( talk) 20:25, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows ( full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.
If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to
report bugs and
request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a
"news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none
parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at
Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.
Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.
Thanks. — Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 09:28, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)
I have updated Missing topics about Neurology - Skysmith ( talk) 11:07, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
I have expanded the article at Central nervous system. If you have any comments please do so, and if you have anything to add or change please do! CFCF ( talk) 00:15, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
I noticed that Substantia gelatinosa is a DAB page, that lists two pages within it. However, the two pages actually seem to be about two parts (central and dorsal) of what is pretty much the same thing, that could reasonably be covered on a single page. What do other editors think? -- Tryptofish ( talk) 19:27, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello all. I'm a member of WikiProject:Medicine and I'm in the process of cleaning up old articles to be merged. I have come across this article: neural coding, which has been suggested to be merged for over 3 years. The contents are way over my head, and I'd value some input (or better, action!) as to what should be done: merging these articles or removing the tag. LT90001 ( talk) 11:12, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
This article could use additional eyes. Looie496 ( talk) 22:58, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
My name is Jenna Fair. I have two questions. The first being a logistical question. When I first created the title for my wiki page in my sandbox, I didn't know that the convention was to only capitalize the first word. Now that I know what to correct, I can't figure out how to correctly change it to lowercase letters while still being able to access my page. If anyone could help me with that, that'd be great. Additionally, I noticed that someone thought that "Lower limb neuromechanics" didn't warrant its own page, but would rather be part of another page. Would it be more appropriate to address the topic of neuromechanics as an entity (i.e., wiki page title "Neuromechanics")? There are currently pages devoted to neuromechanics of XXX which is why I thought it was appropriate, but the information I have gathered so far could be applied to neuromechanics in a general sense, and there is no page devoted to the newly-growing topic. I appreciate any feedback you have! Jenna Fair ( talk) 03:13, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Heads up: Education Program:Georgia Institute of Technology/Introduction to Neuroscience (Fall 2013). There's going to be a lot to deal with on neuroscience topics. User:Biosthmors is the online contact for the project, and I've already started pointing some issues out to him. One thing that I definitely think is going to be a problem is the creation of new pages that are redundant with existing pages, but titled slightly differently. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 00:36, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
From an email by Biosthmors:
That's our
sourcing guideline for biomedical topics. Unfortunately, I don't think your topic is going to be suitable for a new article in the 'pedia. But maybe there's enough secondary sources for a stand-alone article. If you'd like help, please see the course page, where there are details on how to ask for help with topic selection. You should also be receiving an email from Imran about some useful links/info. But I need to write it first!
My current topic is stem cell and gene therapies for treating epilepsy. You mentioned this this would most likely not be suitable for a new article in 'pedia, but there might be enough secondary sources for a stand-alone article. Can you explain what a stand-alone article is in relation to a wikipedia article and if this would be sufficient for the wikipedia assignment? AlexLee90 ( talk) 21:27, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Brian, I recently had an interview with my field expert and consulted with Dr. Potter as well. Would it be okay for me to write an article on gene therapy for treating epilepsy where I talk about the clinical applications of gene therapy, the vectors which would be pertinent to epilepsy. and finally talk about gene therapy research currently where it is clear the studies being described are in preclinical phases? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexLee90 ( talk • contribs) 18:30, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
I tried to convert my Wikipedia article over this morning using the instructions located on Wikipedia, and something went wrong. Upon searching for my new article on Wikipedia, the search directs me to a user page titled "User:Jenna Fair\Neuromechanics blank page" which has already been redirected from "Neuromechanics" and redirects to "User talk:Jenna Fair\Neuromechanics" which redirects to "User:Jenna Fair" where you can click on "/Neuromechanics" which just takes you to my sandbox page. Upon trying again to move my article over to Wikipedia, it now says that their is an article already titled that, but I know that there is no article titled that as I have searched Wikipedia multiple times and the only search result is the problem that I discussed above. My project needs to be converted by 7pm tomorrow. I have already requested deletes for the "false" pages, but I'm not sure how to properly convert my article now and if I will even be able to. Any help/advice would be appreciated. Jenna Fair ( talk) 17:25, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Dear WikiProject: I think the evaluative diversity article is related to cognitive science. Some parts of it are relevant to philosophy, but some really don't fit outside neuroscience. Could someone from this WikiProject please help with peer review (at least of parts)? Langchri ( talk) 02:25, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Boundary Vector/Boundary/Border cells are spatial cells found in the hippocampal formation which are taking on increased significance as they are linked to properties of the better known Place and grid cells. The current page is a stub which could readily be extended. I feel inhibited about doing so as I had some involvement in the predictions which led to their discovery. Instead I've added a long comment to the talk page. I think the topic should be upgraded from low importance. HartleyTom ( talk) 16:38, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
The section Antisocial_personality_disorder#Hormones_and_neurotransmitters feels very shakey. It was basically only about serotonines, so I added some text about serotonine and cortisol. However, I feel I'm out of my depth with this section. An article is used as a source that in its summary says: Trait aggression was significantly higher in the combinations “high T + high cortisol responses” (indicating decreased 5-HT availability), and “low T + low cortisol responses” (indicating increased 5-HT availability), after S-citalopram. Now I can copyedit these words but it doesn't make any sense to me - especially as I thought cortisol counteracts testosterone, so I would expect most trait aggression in the high T and low cortisol responses, and the least trait aggression in the low T and high cortisol responses. Now obviously this is not the case - showing that I don't get it. Could any of you with more insight into this copyedit the text so it becomes clear not for all of us who are not neuroscientists? Lova Falk talk 16:06, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
FYI: Wikipedia:Education noticeboard/Archive7#Neuro class looking for support from Ambassador, and Education Program:Marquette University/Neurobiology (Spring 2014). In this case, the instructor is a very cooperative Wikipedian, so I expect not to have any instructor problems, but there will be student editing in the area of this WikiProject. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 20:06, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
I've archived some inactive threads to subsections which were notifications about discussions that have since been closed. — Cirt ( talk) 18:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Please take note of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of the scientific status of neuroscience. Looie496 ( talk) 16:56, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Almost forgot why I was here; I'm currently working on a major restructuring and rewrite of the article, and wish to get it to at least B-class, but hopefully even higher. That way we can apply for DYK. If anyone is interested in helping out there is a draft version over here: User:CFCF/sandbox/Cranial nerve. Feel free to contribute to the sandbox article. CFCF ( talk · contribs · email) 12:03, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).
Web tools, to replace the ones at tools:~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at toollabs:popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.
If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot ( talk) (for Mr. Z-man) 05:18, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Category:Disorders causing seizures, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 05:18, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Education noticeboard/Archive7#Request for Instructor Right (Michele Petracca). -- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:42, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
As Wikipedian in Residence at the Royal Society, the National Academy for the sciences of the UK, I am pleased to say that the two Royal Society History of Science journals will be fully accessible for free for 2 days on March 4th and 5th. This is in conjunction with the Women in Science Edit-a-thon on 4 March, slightly in advance of International Women's Day, on Saturday March 8th. The event is held by the Royal Society and the Royal Academy of Engineering, and is fully booked, but online participation is very welcome, and suggestions for articles relevant to the theme of "Women in Science" that need work, and topics that need coverage.
The journals will have full and free online access to all from 1am (GMT/UTC) on 4th March 2014 until 11pm (GMT/UTC) on 5th March 2014. Normally they are only free online for issues between 1 and 10 years old. They are:
The RS position is a "pilot" excercise, running between January and early July 2014. Please let me know on my talk page or the project page if you want to get involved or have suggestions. There will be further public events, as well as many for the RS's diverse audiences in the scientific community; these will be advertised first to the RS's emailing lists and Twitter feeds.
I am keen to get feedback on my personal Conflict of Interest statement for the position, and want to work out a general one for Royal Society staff in consultation with the community. Wiki at Royal Society John ( talk) 12:17, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello, everyone. There is a WP:RfC on whether or not the leads of articles should generally be no longer than four paragraphs (refer to WP:Manual of Style/Lead section for the current guideline). As this will affect Wikipedia on a wide scale, including WikiProjects that often deal with article formatting, if the proposed change is implemented, I invite you to the discussion; see here: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section#RFC on four paragraph lead. Flyer22 ( talk) 14:02, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Let me give a pointer to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vestibulo emotional reflex, which has been open for a week and only received one comment so far. Looie496 ( talk) 16:44, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Hi neuroscientists, I'm working on a Czech Wikipedia article on Brain ( cs:mozek) and I got stuck with the "Brain function" chapter. I looked at the English article but the corresponding chapter seems to be a rather low-quality one as it rather mentions neurotransmitter system. It needs an "all-vertebrates" view, it should include things like neurohormones, reflexes, memory, motor control, ... Would you be able to rewrite the chapter in such an important article? Or, at least, would you please recommend me some book on the topic? Thank you in advance for answering, kind regards,-- Vojtech.dostal ( talk) 13:02, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Editors may be interested in a merger proposal here. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 15:58, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I am a student from California Polytechnic State University in Pomona. My group is doing a class project for a Kinesiology class called Movement Anatomy and Kinesiology. As part of the project, our group is responsible for researching a topic and either updating a Wikipedia article or creating a new one. We decided to create the Median nerve palsy page. We've submitted for peer review and would like input from the Neuroscience community. Any input would be very helpful. Thanks!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjjballr911 ( talk • contribs) 18:03, 8 December 2010
Hi, I've just had a browse on the four Top importance stub class articles to see what I could do, and none of them were stubs any more! I've reclassified them, but I may have been too conservative on one or two. Keepstherainoff ( talk) 15:48, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
There's a new WP:JCW report.
Out of the 500 most highly cited missing journals, here's a few that fall into your scope, or near your scope.
See the writing guide if you need help with those. Some of these might be better as redirects ( Guide to redirects). Feel free to remove those which you think are too far from neurology from the list. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:41, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I have performed a restoration of a high quality image of Santiago Ramón y Cajal and nominated it for FP at commons with the intention of also nominating it later in WP. Comments here would be welcomed.-- Garrondo ( talk) 12:34, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
I have nominated Schizophrenia for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Basket of Puppies 23:40, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
I have taken Parkinson's disease to FAC after almost a year of improving it.It is a vital article, and with a lot of visits (around 300k a mont). I await comments here from those of the project. Thanks in advance to everybody. -- Garrondo ( talk) 13:16, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
We have a situation at this article that could use outside input. Goodwillein ( talk · contribs) added some material that I did not believe belonged, so I removed it, explaining why on the talk page. An IP, 24.69.142.114 ( talk · contribs), re-added the material without explanation, but left a comment on their own talk page saying, "Looie496, you appear again you have abused your tools!". I have a policy against multi-reverting without support from other editors, so I won't do anything more here unless somebody else is also willing to get involved, in one way or another. Looie496 ( talk) 04:30, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
While I'm at it, it would also be helpful to have third party input at Talk:radial glia#The astrocytic hypothesis of aging of mammals, concerning new edits by AM Borman ( talk · contribs). Looie496 ( talk) 04:44, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi all, this coming spring semester I am repeating an editing project that I ran in the Fall of 2009 for my Neuroscience class at Boston College. This semester I am hoping to write up a manuscript for a life science education journal about our experience, and I would like to solicit help from some of the knowledgeable Neuroscience WP editors. We will have 20 or so groups of students (3 students per group, 1 stub per group) improving specific Category:Neuroscience stubs that are in need of expansion, clarification and/or proper referencing. I am putting together a rubric that you can use to make quantitative judgments about how much improvement to the stub has been made by the students (and any other editors that help out during our course period). If I can get maybe 4 or 5 editors to volunteer a few hours of time to read through the before and after history for ~5 stubs each and give their assessments I would be most appreciative, and of course would acknowledge your efforts in the manuscript. Please feel free to respond back here or on my talk page. Thanks much, NeuroJoe ( talk) 03:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks everyone, I'll be in touch soon with more information and some simple guidelines I've pulled together to evaluate the pre and post project content. NeuroJoe ( talk) 19:19, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Final call for reviewers interested in helping out with reviewing our Neuroscience course Wikipedia stub edits. Another 1 or 2 would certainly be helpful and welcome. My estimation is that this would require 2-3 hours of effort per reviewer, all you have to do is read the stub page that currently exists as of 3/1/11, the "final" version at the end of the course (~2nd week of May), and evaluate them using an 8 point rubric that I pulled together from the Good Article criteria page as an illustration of what the students should be shooting for. Tryptofish, Garrondo and Keepstherainoff please let me know if you're still willing and able to participate. thanks NeuroJoe ( talk) 18:23, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
The article has aroused some interest over at WP:PSY. Please take a look, if you like. Since it rather clearly seems to be in the scope of WP:Neuroscience as well (categorized as cogn. neurosc.), I have added a project sticker. Morton Shumway— talk 21:11, 21 February 2011 (UTC).
Neuromusicologists etc., please note the proposed merge and discuss it here: Talk:Cognitive neuroscience of music#Proposed merge Morton Shumway— talk 22:09, 25 February 2011 (UTC).
Parkinson's disease has been at FAC for a month. While most reviewers have stated their support to the candidacy of this vital article there is at least an editor which believes it is not ready. More reviewers that could give their opinion on whether it is a FA and/or how to improve it would be of great help.-- Garrondo ( talk) 13:22, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
The article was promoted soon after this post.-- Garrondo ( talk) 08:29, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Recent changes were made to citations templates (such as {{
citation}}, {{
cite journal}}, {{
cite web}}...). In addition to what was previously supported (bibcode, doi, jstor, isbn, ...), templates now support arXiv, ASIN, JFM, LCCN, MR, OL, OSTI, RFC, SSRN and Zbl. Before, you needed to place |id=
(or worse {{
arxiv|0123.4567}}
|url=
http://arxiv.org/abs/0123.4567
), now you can simply use |arxiv=0123.4567
, likewise for |id=
and {{
JSTOR|0123456789}}
|url=
http://www.jstor.org/stable/0123456789
→ |jstor=0123456789
.
The full list of supported identifiers is given here (with dummy values):
Obviously not all citations needs all parameters, but this streamlines the most popular ones and gives both better metadata and better appearances when printed. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:09, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
There is a proposed split of Primate_basal_ganglia_system#Pallido-nigral_set_and_pacemaker from Primate_basal_ganglia_system. The split has been supported, so it appears that it is appropriate. However, this is a specialised topic so the work should be done by somebody who understand the topic. I have removed the split request tag, and am now leaving the matter in the hands of the experts. SilkTork * YES! 21:52, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
People who watch this page may like to know about a new initiative to bring in psychologists. See Wikipedia Initiative from the American Psychological Society at WT:MED for more information, and keep an eye out for new editors who might need help when you encounter them in articles about neuropsychology, etc. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 02:46, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Editors may be interested in signing up at Wikipedia:Credo accounts. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 19:16, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
A new editor has asked for help at WP:FEEDBACK with Satellite cell (glial). It sounds like she's a student and has significantly expanded the article. If someone who knows a thing or two about this would please leave a note on the article's talk page at Talk:Satellite cell (glial), then I'm sure she would be grateful. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 19:26, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
I just discovered this stub. It was supported by a dead link and 2 commercial links - the link supporting treatment with Modafinil was also selling the product. So it is now without any supporting sources. -- Anthonyhcole ( talk) 06:54, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi, folks.
Another editor and I are discussing how best to describe with NPOV some findings pertinent to transgenderism and transsexualism. There is a small, but interesting, neuroscientific literature and a behavioural literature.
If interested, please review
Transgender#Transgender_people_and_science with attention to the language used to say what researchers show versus provided evidence in support of, etc.
I am happy supply reprints of whichever research articles you might not have easy access to. Thanks.
— James Cantor (
talk)
17:37, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
I'd just like to note that a few of the university project articles are starting to show up at WP:GAN. I have taken on Neurolaw, but there are others that don't yet have reviewers, and no doubt more will show up. Looie496 ( talk) 15:54, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Hey guys I just wrote a new biography so if some of you want to check out the english or the content, i'd appreciate ! Here it is. Jean-Francois Gariepy ( talk) 15:04, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
It would be good to have more eyes from this WikiProject at Talk:Neural network and Talk:Biological neural network, where there is discussion about how these and related pages ought to be organized. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:13, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
The usage of neural network is under discussion. See the requested move at talk:biological neural network and the discussion at talk:neural network. 65.94.47.63 ( talk) 05:37, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Can I get some input from the project on the Vilayanur S. Ramachandran page? There is an slow, ongoing debate relating to all things Ramachandran, but it has really escalated in regards to the mirror neuron hypothesis of autism; see Vilayanur_S._Ramachandran#Pathophysiology_of_autism. I might be losing my perspective on this, as I've been involved in a slow battle with several other editors, so I thought I'd ask for some outside input from other experts in the relevant areas. I've also asked a couple of other editors who are part of the neuroscience project for some input, and asked an admin to lock the page to promote discussion instead of edit-warring. Thanks Edhubbard ( talk) 20:46, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Through a discussion on the talk page of an article that I watch, I found out about Wikipedia:WikiProject Neuroscience/Assessment. Despite my relatively long involvement with this WikiProject, I'm embarrassed to realize that I didn't know about the assessment subpage before. I'm putting this note here in case anyone else has been in the same boat as me. If you are interested, you might want to add it to your watchlist, so that you can see when someone else has asked for review of a page within the project. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 21:29, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
The JCW compilation updated a while ago. Here's the top-cited missing journals that are neurology-related (at least as far as I could tell, incluuding neurochemistry, neurology, etc...). Feel free to edit the list as needed.
If you're interested to help, Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Writing guide has some guidance about how to write an article on journals. Any help you can give would be much appreciated at WP:JOURNALS, as the Neurology alone represents ~10% of the missing top 500. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 00:10, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
I came across this article while stub-sorting. It's not really a stub, just a list of three other articles - and each of those is a pretty mal-formed Wikipedia article, with no coherent text but a few lines of Species, Genus, Order, Gestation and then a tabular timeline, with references. Someone from this project might like to have a look at the whole assemblage and decide what to do with them. As far as I can see they form a walled garden, only linking to each other. Thanks. Pam D 19:40, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Hendry's_first_law_of_lamination. -- Anthonyhcole ( talk) 12:59, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
I'd like to leave a note that I am planning on nominating Brain for Featured Article in the next few days -- the main things I want to do first are to develop the Cognition section a bit more, and fill in a bunch of missing or incomplete refs. In the meantime, any feedback would be useful. Looie496 ( talk) 17:04, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
It's there now -- Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Brain/archive4. All opinions are welcome. Looie496 ( talk) 01:57, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Let me add a note that the review is still active, with support for promotion from three editors and outright opposition from none, but it has basically ground to a halt, with no activity for the past few days. Without further input it isn't clear what will happen. Looie496 ( talk) 16:38, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
I looked up Left brain interpreter and had no article, so I started one. But I have a feeling there may be an article on it with a different name or something, I would be surprised if not. Anyway, if there is one, please merge/redirect. Else, you guys may want to help write more on it, given that it is only peripheral to my interests, and I had not even looked at the topic for a decade, so what I know may be dated. Thanks. History2007 ( talk) 20:36, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry if this annoys anyone, but I am kind of desperate at this point. I need to recruit 200 people to participate in an online survey and, due to bureaucratic issues, I have a week (10/31/2011-11/7/2011). If you can help me that would be great! You are invited to participate in my survey on stereotype content. This study may help enhance our understanding of stereotype formation and the relationships between social perceptions of stereotyped groups. Specifically, we hope that the results can be used to inform a larger project on the processes and neural correlates of social decisions about stereotyped groups.
The survey consists of 51 questions, which ask you to indicate how groups are perceived in American society, two questions about your perceptions of these groups, and 18 demographics questions. Demographics questions ask about your age, education and relationship with the groups you were asked to rate. You will be asked take the survey in a single session, without simultaneous activities (if you have IM, we will ask you to turn it off it off or set your status to busy.) It should take you 45 minutes to an hour, but subjects have been known to spend up to 90 minutes, answering questions. Try not to over analyze the questions, when in doubt, go for your initial or "gut" response.
To participate you must be over 18 years old and "familiar with American culture." For the purposes of this study assume "familiar with American culture" means you are an United States citizen, were born in or grew up in the United States, or are currently living in the United States and have lived there for more than 5 years. I need at least 200 participants and you are encouraged to invite people other to take the survey. Thank you!
The survey may be found here: https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/TNFQLZ6 or here: https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/MKNGQ2K -- Xttina.Garnet ( talk) 23:31, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
I also thought there might be other people on here, who have had similar issues and I wanted to ask if anyone had any brilliant or even just ok ideas for other places to post my request? Thank you! -- Xttina.Garnet ( talk) 23:31, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Thank you and I won't be. I'm just really desperate at this point and trying everything I can think of, on the off chance something works. I was really hesitant to post here at all, for exactly the reasons you mention. I'm more worried about inappropriate use and etiquette breaches, than I am about not getting much of a response. Again thanks! -- Xttina.Garnet ( talk) 08:04, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
User:AlexNewArtBot/NeuroscienceSearchResult is showing a bunch of new neuroscience articles that are clearly coming from a class project, but it isn't one that I know about. Does anybody know anything about who is in charge of that particular class? There are some obvious problems, but based on past experiences I am reluctant to try to explain them to the students (most of whom are probably not even aware that they have talk pages). Looie496 ( talk) 16:54, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm starting to wonder whether these projects don't do more harm than good... Have a look at the articles being edited by this project, for example. I have looked at two articles in detail ( Human Cognome Project and Neurogenetics and am wondering whether these should not be whole-scale reverted to the stubs that they were before these students started editing... -- Guillaume2303 ( talk) 22:26, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
The FA nomination for Brain is going well but is currently stuck on a large number of references being too unspecific. Needs help from someone with a good library (access). -- Ettrig ( talk) 12:04, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
I just added local field potential to WikiProject Neuroscience. Unfortunately, the article is short and not of very good quality, although I think it is a rather important topic. Needs help from someone with expertise in this subject (and some spare time..). TjeerdB ( talk) 22:48, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi. I'm seeing some potential problems from Biol373.cwru ( talk · contribs) - basically pasting in entire class papers over existing articles - but I currently have a final exam to create. Could someone deal with this? Thanks! Allens ( talk) 17:45, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
This school project could use some help, I think. -- Guillaume2303 ( talk) 18:26, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
I refer the group to this thread on the Talk page at Major Depressive Disorder concerning the use of Vincent van Gogh's painting "At Eternity's Gate" in that article and to this comment of mine pointing out it has no place in the article and should be removed.
The essence of the complaint is that is fully documented that van Gogh's painting is not at all, nor was ever meant to be, a portrayal of depressive disorder but is rather merely a study of an old man. For that reason alone it should be removed for reasons of encyclopaedic accuracy.
As it stands it necessarily makes a judgement about the nature of depressive disorder, that it necessarily implies despair, even that it necessarily implies suicidal ideation (because of its title and van Gogh's own well known suicide). It is very much to be regretted indeed in my opinion that a Wikipedia administrator, Casliber, a practicising psychiatrist it seems but a poor historian of art, appears to be the prime mover behind perpetuating these poor judgements.
It also mythologises Vincent van Gogh himself who took the greatest care to separate his difficulties in life from his work; the nature of whose illness is not settled but which is not certainly typical of a depressive disorder; who is not documented as suffering from suicidal depressive moods in the last months of his life when this painting was completed and whose suicide itself has in the past year been plausibly questioned by a respected source as rather a manslaughter.
I ask that the image be removed. If it is felt necessary, and I cannot imagine why it should be, that the article be illustrated by a fine art image, then I suggest the original image, Durer's Melancholia, be reinserted. Skirtopodes ( talk) 22:33, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
I have nominated Free will for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Dana boomer ( talk) 22:13, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
There is currently a rather heated dispute in progress about whether it is appropriate for the article to discuss the idea that low-frequency radio waves can serve as a basis for a BCI. It is pretty close to a state of edit-warring, so input from additional editors would be welcome. Looie496 ( talk) 00:12, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
This article has made a lot of progress and a reassessment would be appreciated. I'm trying to get it up FA but that will require additional expert input. Any input for other editors would be most welcome. TjeerdB ( talk) 11:20, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Without much ado, Neuroscience has accomplished much; in addendum I must add that it is placing Wiki in "Ancient History" while indeed advanced much therein is my several questions:
Why so many dated and old notations (this does not imply on the Drugs / Medications - we need that for Historical background information; but even that is severely lacking) are so far behind whereas if one read up; for example in a Physician's Office on Neurology*Now, or EpilepsyUSA, whatever might be lying around and then returns home to do more research in Wiki. It is no wonder one is going to be bound to be confused.
For example: There have been findings as well as affirmations of Autism, Lennox-Gasult Syndrome, Leigh's Disease (or Syndrome), Angelman's, et al --> that are correlated to Epilepsy and more researches are finding more and more facts which is a fantastic finding; especially with the ILAE (International League Against Epilepsy), the world-wide organization. And for those who are familiar, they are known for their magazine "Epilepsia".
ILAE has already changed the terminology to break down, narrowing the scope even further in the classification of types of Epilepsies that are out there; Wiki needs to begin to use the new terminology, e.g. Tonic Clonic with the old terminology in italics "formerly known as Grand Mal"; this would reduce Wiki's being "scatter-brained" (pardon the pun) and cleaning up the mess.
My questions here are:
1) Why hasn't anyone provided any provisions of the latest up-to-date provisions of the newest, confirmed and valid studies? (There are many who joined world-wide in these massive huge studies, and these cases, findings, all the way to the conclusions is broad and vast; far more than ample and sufficient to warrant and merit as valid and fit to be published in my humble opinion.)
2) Why hasn't there been any information on the latest Neuroscience technology such as MEG in more in depth as well as the newer type of Neurosurgery? (Just a thought there...)
3) It is NOT a difficult thing for one to obtain information on Epilepsy anymore as so it was 5 years ago, 10, 15, 20+ years ago. Superimposed, when I glance upon other medical conditions, they very much keep theirs clean and up-to-date; frankly, I ask ... "Why are we still in the dark ages?" This is 2012, RMS Titanic sank March 1912; 100 years ago - so why are the articles/citations/references in there old and dated as far back in the 80s', 90s', and even early 2000s'? 05:50, 21 March 2012 (Original Post posted in old place - Special thanks to Looie496 for redirecting me!) AwahiliGuni ( talk) 01:45, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:HighBeam describes a limited opportunity for Wikipedia editors to have access to
HighBeam Research.
—
Wavelength (
talk)
18:20, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
I'd appreciate any input or advice at Talk:Plant neurobiology#New page title?. Thanks. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 16:49, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
I have been talking about Savant Syndrome with Dr Darold Treffert. The symptoms seem to be narrowed memory recall. Also he thinks Einstein is not autistic, he is a neuron typical genius. A person does not have to be autistic to be a savant and it could happen to anyone, including later acquired abilities. Which raised an interesting question, what is the anatomy of a savant brain? Is there any common structure that lead to the abilities? Would there be similarity to Kim Peek's brain? Did anyone do any research in this area or have any data to share? Thanks! -- RexRowan Talk 09:22, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
There are a number of neuroscience-related classes working with the Wikipedia Education Program that are starting up around now, and several could use the help of experienced editors. If that sounds like something you want to do, you can become an Online Ambassador. If you're interested, let me know, or if you've got questions about the role, please ask. In any case, the work done by students in these classes may be of interest.
You can see the other courses in the United States and Canada programs here: Canada, US.-- Sage Ross (WMF) ( talk) 16:00, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
A group of us are looking for help in continuing the development of a Wikiversity learning project. Is this an appropriate place to contact wikipedians who might be interested in giving assistance or spreading the word? The project is The Science Behind Parkinson's. I invite you to visit it to look at its aims and state of development. We have, in fact, got a lot of material on it already. But we want more people to join us in developing it and making it a valuable resource particularly for those affected by Parkinson's who want to understand more about the science underlying the condition.
It would be good if you could suggest other ways in which we could find other people who would be interested in helping with its development. I am prepared to write individually to all the active wikipedians on the Neuroscience project if that is the best way of contacting relevant people but I don't want to be accused of spamming! Thanks. My user name on Wikiversity is Droflet. Please write on my user talk page there, http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Droflet , or on my user talk page here on wikipedia. Jtelford ( talk) 12:19, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Hot potato article at AfD. Secondary sources have been found, but it needs work. Tijfo098 ( talk) 15:05, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
I made navigation template for Brodmann area.
Although Template {{ Cerebral cortex}} has links to BA already, the links to BA in {{ Cerebral cortex}} spread around the template randomly (because numbering of BA is not continuous topologically). So I made template for BA. Your commenting and editing are welcome! Thanks. -- Was a bee ( talk) 13:49, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
This article has been the subject (victim?) of a class assignment and could use some attention from an expert. Thanks. --
Randykitty (
talk)
11:34, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Would anyone be interested in helping create a list of potential topics for the Fall (and potentially Summer) round of this class? That way we can target need instead of getting questionable articles. I know Category:Stub-Class neuroscience articles and Category:Stub-Class neurology articles exist. Are there any other lists that could be useful? Identifying stub/start class articles that are in need of cleanup and get lots of hits and/or have high importance would be great. Biosthmors ( talk) 20:21, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Ho, we have animal model of depression and animal models of schizophrenia. For the sake of consistency, I think both should use either "model" or "models". I prefer the latter, but before moving the article wanted to see whether someone here has an opinion on this either way. Thanks. -- Randykitty ( talk) 15:08, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
There is a list of students and their topics at User:Biosthmors/Intro Neuro, FYI. Biosthmors ( talk) 23:28, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
FYI: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brain-disabling psychiatric medical treatment. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 00:42, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Can someone knowledgeable have a look at these articles (created by a new user) to ensure that this is not original research?
utcursch | talk 04:32, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
fMRS article is a new article which is related to neuroscience. Should there be a Neuroscience project template on the talk page? What else should be done? Thanks. Dcdace ( talk) 12:16, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi,
Over the last few months a biology class has made a real mess of this article. I'm considering just undoing all the edits of the last few months, rolling things back to things as of Nov 2012 but I wanted to get input from this wikiproject first. I know that it's not explicitly a WP:Neuroscience page, but I figured it might still fall under your purview. I will also post on the Neurology Task force of WP:MED and probably on the education project page as well.
Does anyone have a contact with the class that was doing this?
-- UseTheCommandLine ( talk) 10:11, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Wondering if we could get a crew together to improve the neurogenetics page... Let me know who is interested. Mikecf10 ( talk) 19:41, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
I've just started Brain Activity Map Project. It would be great if other interested editors would help improve and expand the page. Thanks! -- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:02, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
An article created as an educational assignment and abandoned since. Could use some attention from knowledgeable people. -- Randykitty ( talk) 09:38, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
The Wikimedia Foundation received an email from someone associated with the Journal Computers in Biology and Medicine
I probably took more words than necessary to explain why he should not be editing the article, but I also went on to surmise why Wikipedia's coverage of scholarly journals is likely to be a challenge. I'll drop my comments in a collapsed box below.
I hope someone in this Wikiproject might have interest in talking a look at the article, and improving it.
My thoughts regarding articles on scholarly journals
|
---|
padding |
As a former editor of a professional journal, I can sympathize with your concerns. I agree with your observation that "scholarly assistance is something sorely needed at wikipedia". On the one hand we do have some success stories, on the other hand, there are major gaps. If I may ramble a moment, the interaction between Wikipedia and scholars is an uneasy one. Within scholarly communities, expertise is highly valued. While ultimately, science triumphs, whether done by a Nobel Laureate or a high school student, one generally know who one is more likely to believe if one of them makes an interesting claim and the other disagrees. Wikipedia, deliberately, and somewhat proudly, takes a different approach, believing that the cv of the person making the statement is irrelevant. That approach can be taken to absurd extremes. However, the nature of the landscapes are different. Scholars, almost by definition, are pushing boundaries, trying to find new ideas, new relationships, new concepts, new theories of explanation. Wikipedia, in contrast, deliberately eschews the cutting edge, not ashamedly, but deliberately. Almost every day, someone wants to use the high profile of Wikipedia to announce some new discovery. Such attempts are universally removed. Our goal is to be a repository of the body of knowledge that is known, not to push the boundaries. While no serious researcher would ever contemplate using Wikipedia to announce a new finding, this isn't something we miss, it is something we want to avoid. We believe new ideas should be posted in established journals, where experts can review the claims, and accept the paper only if it meets their rigorous standards. Wikipedia relies heavily on the existence of scholarly journals. If someone wants to add a relatively new concept to an article, we want to see that the concept has been through the fire of peer-review. While many of our editors would not be qualified to sit on a peer-review panel, that expertise isn't needed. We need the ability to read a scholarly paper, and determine whether a statement in an article is supported by the paper, but that level of expertise doesn't require a doctorate in the subject matter. (Of course, for some subjects, familiarity with the subject matter is helpful. I do know which editor to contact when there is a medical question, for example.) Sorry, that was more of a ramble than I intended, but it provides a backdrop for what otherwise might be a puzzling position of Wikipedia. One of the five pillars of Wikiepdia is Neutrality. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars That strong guiding principle means we do not want editors working on an article when they are "too close" to the subject, because we believe they will, even if not deliberately, unconsciously write in a way that is more positive about a subject than we feel is appropriate for an encyclopedia. This creates a challenge in a number of areas, and scholarly journals is one such area. Obviously, the managing editor of a journal is highly knowledgeable about the journal, almost certainly more knowledgeable than anyone else. However, because of our Conflict of interest guideline: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Coi We would prefer that the managing editor of a journal not directly edit the article. We believe the publisher is in a similar position. When it comes to an article about Apple Computers, we don't want the CEO to edit the article, but there is no shortage of editors interested in the company. With a scholarly journal, there are fewer editors who are independent of the journal, yet have an interest in writing about the journal. Second, we want independent references to support claims in the article. Peer-reviewed Journals don't often write about their competition, and the New York Times doesn't often find a professional journal to be a likely subject for an article (except when there are problems), so we have the dual problems of not enough editors independent of the journal, and not enough references for editors to use. I'll also make a specific point about the content you added. When you use a phrase such as "revolutionary advances being made in the application of the computer to..." it raises a red flag to a reviewer. We would never permit such a phrase by an editor, and can only use such phrasing if it can be found in independent references. Even then, if there is a simple reference with such a characterization, it would probably be reverted. While you are no doubt proud of the journal, and certain that the phrasing is accurate, it isn't the type of phrasing we like to use. I haven't spoken to the editor who cut back the article to a bare stub, but I feel fairly certain that this and some other phrases triggered the decision. Finally, I will reach out to an editor who does a lot of work related to medical articles to see is she would be willing to help. I can't promise anything, as she is overworked, but I can ask. |
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sphilbrick ( talk • contribs)
It seems that Neuroscience professors like assigning students to write entries from scratch (or from stubs). I'm not convinced this is the assignment design that is optimal (see WP:ENB), but if this pattern continues, does the project want to maintain a list at the project page, even if it is only 5 to 10 articles (but maybe up to 50 or 100)? Biosthmors ( talk) 19:41, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
New editor User:Maweiss created a subsection called Side effects on the brain. Now, apart from using a lot of primary sources, the section only reports detrimental effects, and I would like to ask you: do you know if that is a neutral description of our knowledge about ADHD medication? Lova Falk talk 16:15, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Seem to be increasing references to Brain fitness in sports, eg Gail Fay Sports: The Ultimate Teen Guide 2012 "Answering yes to one or more means you—like thousands of other high school and college athletes—could benefit from a little brain training. Sports psychologists like Dr. Goldberg agree that mental toughness is just as important as physical ..." Anyway, whatever the answer to that question, not sure whether Michel Bruyninckx requires a tag from this project? In ictu oculi ( talk) 06:07, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
This article could use another eye or two -- an IP editor has replaced material that I reverted because I don't believe it meets Wikipedia's sourcing standards. (It has other issues as well.) Since I have already reverted once, I am reluctant to revert the same material again without input from other editors. Looie496 ( talk) 23:48, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
I've noticed that the Neurogenesis wiki page needs some love. Considering how long it looks like it has been abandoned, and that parts of it look like they may have been part of a project for a class, my guess is that it is going to take a serious review of more current literature in order to get it up and running. In fact, there are sections that may be better off being deleted entirely until they are improved. I'm willing to try and spruce up where I can, but I wanted to consult the neuroscience project wiki before I did anything drastic. Serotonick ( talk) 02:00, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lucid dreaming mask could use input from people with something resembling expert knowledge. Also, the article on Stephen LaBerge needs attention from people who know the field; here seem to be significant problems but those of us who don't know the material well are unclear as to what is substantial and what is puffery. Mangoe ( talk) 16:00, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Dear readers,
A few Latin expressions can be found in neuroanatomical articles, such as nucleus raphe obscurus, nucleus raphe pallidus and nucleus raphe magnus. I changed that in Wikipedia to nucleus raphes obscurus, nucleus raphes pallidus and nucleus raphes magnus. The official list of anatomic names , the Terminologia Anatomica dictates the spelling with raphes and not with raphe when written within a Latin expression. And the reason is quite clear. Raphe means seam. Raphes means 'of the seam' (=genitive). Such an expression like nucleus raphe would mean nucleus seam (=non-sense) and nucleus raphes would mean nucleus of the seam (=meaningful). Another user however questioned these revisions. as the grammatical incorrect form is more common than the official grammmatical correct form. Considering that raphe is incorrect and verboten to use in a Latin expression, as those aforementioned Latin expressions, by the Terminologia Anatomica, it would be better, to change raphe to raphes in these cases. Raphe in raphe nucleus is however not necessarily incorrect, as you could translate that expression as seam nucleus, what is actually fine, but when used within a Latin expression, then you have to use the genitive raphes. I would like to hear your opinion about this matter. Thanks in advance, with kind regards, Wimpus ( talk) 15:44, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
I think that User:Wimpus has made some points about the problems with terminology, and I appreciate his/her general will-to-argument. On the other hand, pulling WP:VNT or WP:OR is rather generic – the claim that most literature shows one usage and not another would be OR in any case, as the literature in question does not make any explicit claims about their own use of terminology.
The editors of an encyclopedia necessarily have some autonomy, and thus obligation to justify their decisions: as an editor I think that I should either make some kind of ad hoc-argument (the terms are not quotations from another language, and a terminology is always established pragmatically), or to point out a specifically relevant guideline or policy ( WP:CK and WP:MEDMOS#Naming_conventions). If there is a lack of a specific guideline or policy, an existing consensus could be taken to establish one that is more precise, sensible or useful.
Kind regards, 㓟 ( talk) 12:40, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
A subject specialist is needed to review Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Cell Assembly and also consider whether the content should perhaps be merged into Hebbian theory. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 11:45, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
I just reverted an IP edit to this article on the grounds that it was unsourced and probably unsourceable -- i. e., pure OR. The editor has reverted back, saying dont need a reference, it is self explanatory. I think this is a pretty clear case, but since it is my policy never to get into one-vs-one edit wars, I am bringing the matter up here in hopes that somebody else might take a look at it. Looie496 ( talk) 17:31, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
I believe this is most commonly referred to as the "default mode network" or "default mode." Would anyone object if I made Default mode network the main article and redirected Default network to it? (Currently Default mode network redirects to Default network.) Thanks. TimidGuy ( talk) 10:48, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
There is currently an open RfC at Foreign Accent Syndrome, looking for comments about what to do about the growing list of cases that has been included in the article. If there are any interested editors, we would like to invite your comments and suggestions on this matter. 0x0077BE ( talk) 20:25, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows ( full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.
If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to
report bugs and
request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a
"news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none
parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at
Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.
Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.
Thanks. — Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 09:28, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)
I have updated Missing topics about Neurology - Skysmith ( talk) 11:07, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
I have expanded the article at Central nervous system. If you have any comments please do so, and if you have anything to add or change please do! CFCF ( talk) 00:15, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
I noticed that Substantia gelatinosa is a DAB page, that lists two pages within it. However, the two pages actually seem to be about two parts (central and dorsal) of what is pretty much the same thing, that could reasonably be covered on a single page. What do other editors think? -- Tryptofish ( talk) 19:27, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello all. I'm a member of WikiProject:Medicine and I'm in the process of cleaning up old articles to be merged. I have come across this article: neural coding, which has been suggested to be merged for over 3 years. The contents are way over my head, and I'd value some input (or better, action!) as to what should be done: merging these articles or removing the tag. LT90001 ( talk) 11:12, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
This article could use additional eyes. Looie496 ( talk) 22:58, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
My name is Jenna Fair. I have two questions. The first being a logistical question. When I first created the title for my wiki page in my sandbox, I didn't know that the convention was to only capitalize the first word. Now that I know what to correct, I can't figure out how to correctly change it to lowercase letters while still being able to access my page. If anyone could help me with that, that'd be great. Additionally, I noticed that someone thought that "Lower limb neuromechanics" didn't warrant its own page, but would rather be part of another page. Would it be more appropriate to address the topic of neuromechanics as an entity (i.e., wiki page title "Neuromechanics")? There are currently pages devoted to neuromechanics of XXX which is why I thought it was appropriate, but the information I have gathered so far could be applied to neuromechanics in a general sense, and there is no page devoted to the newly-growing topic. I appreciate any feedback you have! Jenna Fair ( talk) 03:13, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Heads up: Education Program:Georgia Institute of Technology/Introduction to Neuroscience (Fall 2013). There's going to be a lot to deal with on neuroscience topics. User:Biosthmors is the online contact for the project, and I've already started pointing some issues out to him. One thing that I definitely think is going to be a problem is the creation of new pages that are redundant with existing pages, but titled slightly differently. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 00:36, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
From an email by Biosthmors:
That's our
sourcing guideline for biomedical topics. Unfortunately, I don't think your topic is going to be suitable for a new article in the 'pedia. But maybe there's enough secondary sources for a stand-alone article. If you'd like help, please see the course page, where there are details on how to ask for help with topic selection. You should also be receiving an email from Imran about some useful links/info. But I need to write it first!
My current topic is stem cell and gene therapies for treating epilepsy. You mentioned this this would most likely not be suitable for a new article in 'pedia, but there might be enough secondary sources for a stand-alone article. Can you explain what a stand-alone article is in relation to a wikipedia article and if this would be sufficient for the wikipedia assignment? AlexLee90 ( talk) 21:27, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Brian, I recently had an interview with my field expert and consulted with Dr. Potter as well. Would it be okay for me to write an article on gene therapy for treating epilepsy where I talk about the clinical applications of gene therapy, the vectors which would be pertinent to epilepsy. and finally talk about gene therapy research currently where it is clear the studies being described are in preclinical phases? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexLee90 ( talk • contribs) 18:30, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
I tried to convert my Wikipedia article over this morning using the instructions located on Wikipedia, and something went wrong. Upon searching for my new article on Wikipedia, the search directs me to a user page titled "User:Jenna Fair\Neuromechanics blank page" which has already been redirected from "Neuromechanics" and redirects to "User talk:Jenna Fair\Neuromechanics" which redirects to "User:Jenna Fair" where you can click on "/Neuromechanics" which just takes you to my sandbox page. Upon trying again to move my article over to Wikipedia, it now says that their is an article already titled that, but I know that there is no article titled that as I have searched Wikipedia multiple times and the only search result is the problem that I discussed above. My project needs to be converted by 7pm tomorrow. I have already requested deletes for the "false" pages, but I'm not sure how to properly convert my article now and if I will even be able to. Any help/advice would be appreciated. Jenna Fair ( talk) 17:25, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Dear WikiProject: I think the evaluative diversity article is related to cognitive science. Some parts of it are relevant to philosophy, but some really don't fit outside neuroscience. Could someone from this WikiProject please help with peer review (at least of parts)? Langchri ( talk) 02:25, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Boundary Vector/Boundary/Border cells are spatial cells found in the hippocampal formation which are taking on increased significance as they are linked to properties of the better known Place and grid cells. The current page is a stub which could readily be extended. I feel inhibited about doing so as I had some involvement in the predictions which led to their discovery. Instead I've added a long comment to the talk page. I think the topic should be upgraded from low importance. HartleyTom ( talk) 16:38, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
The section Antisocial_personality_disorder#Hormones_and_neurotransmitters feels very shakey. It was basically only about serotonines, so I added some text about serotonine and cortisol. However, I feel I'm out of my depth with this section. An article is used as a source that in its summary says: Trait aggression was significantly higher in the combinations “high T + high cortisol responses” (indicating decreased 5-HT availability), and “low T + low cortisol responses” (indicating increased 5-HT availability), after S-citalopram. Now I can copyedit these words but it doesn't make any sense to me - especially as I thought cortisol counteracts testosterone, so I would expect most trait aggression in the high T and low cortisol responses, and the least trait aggression in the low T and high cortisol responses. Now obviously this is not the case - showing that I don't get it. Could any of you with more insight into this copyedit the text so it becomes clear not for all of us who are not neuroscientists? Lova Falk talk 16:06, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
FYI: Wikipedia:Education noticeboard/Archive7#Neuro class looking for support from Ambassador, and Education Program:Marquette University/Neurobiology (Spring 2014). In this case, the instructor is a very cooperative Wikipedian, so I expect not to have any instructor problems, but there will be student editing in the area of this WikiProject. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 20:06, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
I've archived some inactive threads to subsections which were notifications about discussions that have since been closed. — Cirt ( talk) 18:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Please take note of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of the scientific status of neuroscience. Looie496 ( talk) 16:56, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Almost forgot why I was here; I'm currently working on a major restructuring and rewrite of the article, and wish to get it to at least B-class, but hopefully even higher. That way we can apply for DYK. If anyone is interested in helping out there is a draft version over here: User:CFCF/sandbox/Cranial nerve. Feel free to contribute to the sandbox article. CFCF ( talk · contribs · email) 12:03, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).
Web tools, to replace the ones at tools:~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at toollabs:popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.
If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot ( talk) (for Mr. Z-man) 05:18, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Category:Disorders causing seizures, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 05:18, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Education noticeboard/Archive7#Request for Instructor Right (Michele Petracca). -- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:42, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
As Wikipedian in Residence at the Royal Society, the National Academy for the sciences of the UK, I am pleased to say that the two Royal Society History of Science journals will be fully accessible for free for 2 days on March 4th and 5th. This is in conjunction with the Women in Science Edit-a-thon on 4 March, slightly in advance of International Women's Day, on Saturday March 8th. The event is held by the Royal Society and the Royal Academy of Engineering, and is fully booked, but online participation is very welcome, and suggestions for articles relevant to the theme of "Women in Science" that need work, and topics that need coverage.
The journals will have full and free online access to all from 1am (GMT/UTC) on 4th March 2014 until 11pm (GMT/UTC) on 5th March 2014. Normally they are only free online for issues between 1 and 10 years old. They are:
The RS position is a "pilot" excercise, running between January and early July 2014. Please let me know on my talk page or the project page if you want to get involved or have suggestions. There will be further public events, as well as many for the RS's diverse audiences in the scientific community; these will be advertised first to the RS's emailing lists and Twitter feeds.
I am keen to get feedback on my personal Conflict of Interest statement for the position, and want to work out a general one for Royal Society staff in consultation with the community. Wiki at Royal Society John ( talk) 12:17, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello, everyone. There is a WP:RfC on whether or not the leads of articles should generally be no longer than four paragraphs (refer to WP:Manual of Style/Lead section for the current guideline). As this will affect Wikipedia on a wide scale, including WikiProjects that often deal with article formatting, if the proposed change is implemented, I invite you to the discussion; see here: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section#RFC on four paragraph lead. Flyer22 ( talk) 14:02, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Let me give a pointer to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vestibulo emotional reflex, which has been open for a week and only received one comment so far. Looie496 ( talk) 16:44, 3 March 2014 (UTC)