This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 110 | ← | Archive 113 | Archive 114 | Archive 115 | Archive 116 | Archive 117 | → | Archive 120 |
At XY female ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), we have an IP edit warring when it comes to "XY female" redirecting to XY gonadal dysgenesis. The IP keeps redirecting it to XY Female, which is not a Wikipedia article. Finally, Natureium created a small article under the "XY female" title, and I changed the redirect back so that it points to XY gonadal dysgenesis because I considered the small XY female article an unnecessary WP:Content fork and that we should consider what Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles#Article titles states. We also do not have an article titled XX male; it redirects to XX male syndrome. IVORK and Insertcleverphrasehere, who were involved, might also want to weigh in.
Thoughts? Should "XY female" be a redirect, a disambiguation page (like Insertcleverphrasehere felt it should be), or a small article? Doc James, any idea on what should be done? Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 16:22, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
I have heard and used the first word lots of times, NEVER the second. It may technically be a word, but makes no sense not to have the common word defined, but just this useless variant.
I agree the previous article/definition was terrible, but should we throw out the baby with the bath water? Resurrect the proper word and lets have a go at it again, OK?
Someone more competent at this than me needs to enter the word to get us started (I'm looking at you oh great editor in the sky!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcollister ( talk • contribs) 17:57, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
"Use nouns: Nouns and noun phrases are normally preferred over titles using other parts of speech ... Adjective and verb forms (e.g. elegant, integrate) should redirect to articles titled with the corresponding noun ( Elegance, Integration). In this case, though, if there's a massive disparity between the occurrence of pathognomicity and pathognomonic, my instinct would be to go with the commonest name. It might also be worth pointing out that these are articles, not definitions; we have Wiktionary (which is happy with adjectives) for that. -- RexxS ( talk) 20:26, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Can anyone who has access to this website send me everything on treatment/management – or just all of the content on narcolepsy if it's available in one pdf file – from the following link?
https://bestpractice.bmj.com/topics/en-us/428
My email is commented out in the source of this section.
Seppi333 (
Insert 2¢) 23:35, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Just FYI, a recent thread: Talk:Water#H2O_molecule_as_an_allergen? Brandmeister talk 19:20, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
There's some discussion about how to present these, which could use more input. I have a couple of concerns:
— First, a heavy reliance on Chinese papers which seem to have a more sensational view of the health impact of green tea (a mainstay of
traditional chinese medicine) than non-Chinese sources.
— Secondly, a heavy reliance on reporting of what green tea consumption is "linked to" (i.e. correlations). For example we say "Daily consumption of green tea is significantly correlated with a lower risk of death from any cause". Presenting such material in a health effects section gives the impression that there is a cause-and-effect here – we see this kind of writing in newspaper reporting of health topics a lot, and is not something I think we should be replicating, since lay readers may find it confusing.
Alexbrn (
talk) 17:59, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
"In a 2015 meta-analysis of such observational studies, an increase in one cup of green tea per day was correlated with a 5% lower risk of death from cardiovascular causes."Either:
an increase in one cup of green tea per day was correlated with a 5% lower risk of death from cardiovascular causes."is an opinion, not a fact? Okay, then cite the source that dissents from that opinion, and attribute each of them in the text to the person or group who holds the opinion. At present, it's neither one thing or the other. This isn't the cancer section; it's the cardiovascular section, and either we have good evidence for green tea's ability to prevent CVD, or we haven't. All I see at present is a lot of innuendo: "a correlation between"; "correlated with a 5% lower risk of death"; "may be correlated with a reduced risk"; "appears to lower systolic and diastolic blood pressures". To be honest, I'd rather we said nothing than present that sort of hedging. Are you happy with that section? -- RexxS ( talk) 00:13, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Domestic violence#Does the article lend undue weight to women as victims and/or their use of self-defense as a reason for domestic violence?? A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 12:10, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
I dropped off a "please watchlist this problem article" request over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Psychiatry task force. In looking the page over, I now see that there's been no interactive discussion there by taskforce participants since May 2017. It might make more sense to redirect its talk page to WT:WikiProject Medicine. This is pretty common for taskforce/workgroup talk pages when they turn moribund. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 11:19, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
The ScienceSource project, funded by a WMF grant to work on medical referencing, was started in June and is now launching its first participatory activity, its "focus list" of biomedical articles, hosted on Wikidata.
In the story so far, work has gone on here on Wikipedia:WikiProjectMedicine/Referencing case studies for MEDRS, and on Wikidata relating to Medical Subject Headings (diseases). There is a wikiversity:Wikiversity:ScienceSource mentoring page under development for those who want broader background. We are using lightweight videos for that.
The focus list, information at d:Wikidata:ScienceSource focus list which is WD:SSFL on Wikidata, is the first pass at which (open access, biomedical) articles ScienceSource should look to download, in future months. We want those with expertise to work with us on compiling an excellent medical bibliography. Once the list is set up, it will be possible to query and display it in multiple ways, so slice 'n' dice will be on the cards.
It is really not so troublesome to add a single Wikidata statement, once you have the relevant item about the article. And there is a tool to translate a DOI into the item number. Just about every relevant DOI used here in a reference is likely to be present on an item on Wikidata, since recent work has gone on in this area. (For lists, there is technical support available, so do ask.)
There has been discussion of topics around the project in recent issues of Facto Post ( back numbers), which by convention is not delivered here. You can sign up for this mass message to be delivered on your User talk page. I'm always glad to hear from people on my own talk page. Charles Matthews ( talk) 09:54, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
|type=
parameter, using values such as "Systematic Review", "Meta-analysis", or just "Review". There was resistance to the idea, based on concerns over data quality at the time, IIRC.
LeadSongDog
come howl! 16:09, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the responses. I have just added the three introductory videos (60 seconds) to the Wikiversity page. These are designed to give people some overall idea of the project.
In terms participants in this WikiProject would understand, the big problem ScienceSource addresses is the one discussed a couple of years ago (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 85, #24 on the ToC). We are not working on that yet, though it would be good to discuss how we see a new approach. We shall be downloading articles to our own wiki, which is being configured as we speak. Those articles are going to be "good for referencing", on the face of it. The algorithm will check if those articles actually "pass MEDRS". Other software will help locate useful factual content in the articles. Putting it all together, reliably sourced medical facts will be obtained.
One month in, we are still "in the foothills". The focus list project is to get a preliminary bibliography together. That is what I'm proposing today, for participation.
Yes, we have to start with data. Whether something is a review or not of course is very much on topic for the project, and I was discussing it on Saturday. There is an issue of scale: it would theoretically possible to find out (for what it is worth) for each article now on Wikidata and from PubMed, whether PubMed reckons it is a "review article". Right now that would require searching 17.5 million articles. If we have a list of candidates of (say) 10K suggestions, we have a more manageable problem. We'd still need to understand better what "review" means. Charles Matthews ( talk) 10:26, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments. This is a 12 month project, and we have eight or nine months now to tune what we do with MEDRS. You make some reasonable points about the actual practice. I expect an approach of salami-slicing the difficulties, rather than one big advance. The starting level is publication date/publisher/type of publication. We can gather good data on those.
After that it will get somewhat messier, from a data point of view. We can address "stale or not" considerations for past-best-before-date reviews, with a list of exemptions. We can also address the "pecking order" issue of some reviews, e.g. Cochrane, being considered ace of trumps in the particular area: Cochrane reviews are at least well documented here, and I have been doing some preliminary work about that.
Then, we shall set off writing an algorithm in SPARQL, which (in contrast I think to previous proposals) is quite well adapted to problems where the available data is disparate. A SPARQL query that looks at least quite like what MEDRS is trying to say is at least a formal representation of a purported solution. In other words, fixing it up would look like debugging, while trying to get shades of meaning in the hard cases from MEDRS might descend into "semantics". Actually arguing about semantics is perfectly fine in its place: my comment on "review" above was intended to say that. (The ontology of "review" has been studied formally, and I expect to get to that area in due course.)
As for machines making good "judicial" decisions, I doubt we'll crack that as an issue of principle. Actually NPOV here admits multiple points of view under some kinds of RS criteria. Where the machine says "yes" and there is a consensus here that the answer should be "no", we do have a debugging situation, and the rationale would be very interesting input into our work.
Anyway, thanks too for the kind words about the case studies page. It is obviously a first pass, only, and to illustrate how we'd try to apply some of the MEDRS discussions here. Charles Matthews ( talk) 08:45, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Not machine learning. I know that "algorithm" often does mean machine learning these days, but we mean it in the Computer Science 101 sense, Turing machines ... When I say SPARQL, it is partly because it is the query language I understand, and partly because it is a natural way to draw in facts from Wikidata. We will be using human checking of the facts (relation extraction), by the way, and combining it with algorithmic processing of the publication metadata. Charles Matthews ( talk) 10:43, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm aware of these ideas: in fact one of the authors in the paper you cite is in the group at UCL with which my company has worked. Here, though, we are working on a problem rather directly related to Wikipedia editing. Charles Matthews ( talk) 13:05, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
User:Charles Matthews what kind of help is ContentMine seeking from members of this WikiProject, concretely? Would you please describe the kinds of tasks you are asking us to do? Jytdog ( talk) 17:16, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
User:Charles Matthews ....three questions:
What exactly will this tool do - will it just analyze sources and report, or do you intend it to actually edit articles, or to suggest content and sourcing?
Do you imagine this as a WP:BOT or Extension or WP:Gadget or WP:Scripts or something else that will reside on WMF servers, or is this something else, that would reside somewhere else?
How do you expect it to be used and by what kind of WP editor; what kind of skills would be needed to use it? Thanks. Jytdog ( talk) 17:16, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
User:Charles Matthews would you please clarify what value this project and the grant brings to the company, and how the company intends to use the tool and any data/know how it gathers while building it, to increase the value of the company or to provide new ways to serve its paying customers?
You are asking editors to volunteer to help you; please describe the value that our help would bring to the company and its efforts to remain viable as a commercial enterprise. Thanks. Jytdog ( talk) 17:16, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
It defines itself as not-for-profit... however the listing at CompanyHouse is unambiguous that this is a business. One of the things that went very wrong with the company doing medical videos is that there was some weak signalling that it was thinking about becoming a nonprofit; it never was and it never did. ContentMine is a for profit entity; please don't fuzzify this.
In the cold light of early morning now, it seems to me that I can do little good in returning to this thread; but on the other hand that I need to. I should at least note that my reply just above, mentioning COI, was not in fact to the text immediately above it, where the language on "full disclosure" now stands: "full disclosure" was introduced in one of the series of edits marked "ce" that can be seen in the page history, and my reply was to a previous version of what Jytdog wrote. I take it that from full disclosure we should be reading this as "full disclosure, the acknowledgement of possible conflicts of interest in one's work", but applied to the company. Yes, it could be a problem if the company's "intended use" of the grant had some conflict of interest with the missions of Wikimedia (WMF or movement), or Wikipedia. Companies can be led to behave in ways that "increase the value of the company", and so on, in the terms in which the question was first posed.
It has been noted before that the project has little to do with Wikipedia editing, and in Wikimedia terms is centred round Wikidata. I frankly don't see that ContentMine has any conflict of interest in what it intends to do in relation to Wikidata.
It is ironic to me, at least, that this is a tale of two guidelines, running from MEDRS, where I'm actually just learning the ropes, to COI, where the distinction between potential and actual COI in Wikipedia terms is burned on my Wikipedian heart. Charles Matthews ( talk) 04:22, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Re the ArbCom case, then, as summarised in one of the initial statements: "paid editing and the potential of paid advocacy meatpuppetry by an administrator and SPI clerk as well as the potential misuse of the admin toolset to take actions he was specifically paid to do". I circulate a mass message here, Facto Post, using admin privileges. A newsletter for the WikiFactMine project was a specific request from the WMF grantrunner. On "paid editing", Wikimedians in Residence naturally do that, but within the terms of use of the site. I don't do any advocacy editing here on enWP in or related to the article space.
I'm engaging here because of definite commitment in m:Grants talk:Project/ScienceSource#Comment 4, which has become in part the "case studies" page you commented on above, and the intention to bring further issues here. We are building an expert system and WT:MED is where the relevant experts hang out. These associations are natural. Some of your remarks would have helped, as arguments, under Comments 10, 11 and 13.
On the scope of the project: yes, we want to build a "better mousetrap" and have people come see. Considered as a research project, which this is in part, that is what you'd expect?
I do have to catch a plane to Cape Town in a few hours. Parsing out your concerns further, there is COI. My conscience is clear, and I did have three years experience on ArbCom. I'm a meatpuppet for no one. I'm coauthor of How Wikipedia Works, but have never mentioned it on my user page here, because I assumed someone would shout "hypocrite" some day.
On some sort of "hidden agenda", there is a very public agenda to do more with the downloading techniques. This side has been floated both in Facto Post and in the first of our video set ("content management system" for OA). It would be timely and would probably require both a new architecture and a community of willing tech-savvy people. The logo on the wiki would be the one above, with the CM logo integrated. If anyone objects, really, we can change the logo on Commons. That is as far as branding goes, for me. It is fair comment that ContentMine would gain expertise on MEDRS and its implementation: the grant proposal states that we want to help recruit medical editors ("Such a corpus will assist Wikimedians in writing and referencing medical content, to a high standard, and closely linked with Wikidata's science and metadata content.") We can hardly do that without understanding. That understanding has value: see the lead section of systematic review, for example. There is no agenda here that could be effectively hidden.
Charles Matthews ( talk) 09:20, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
User:Charles Matthews I see that the company is already citing the WMF wikimedia movmement logo on its
partners page. Please be aware (if you are not) that the WMF is not the same as the English Wikipedia (or any other WMF project) and that each project governs itself. Please be careful that the company avoids saying things like it is "partnering with Wikipedia" or "partnering with WikiProject Medicine in Wikipedia" unless you get absolutely clear buy-in from the editing community. (something like an RfC perhaps) We just went through a very ugly thing (which I am not trying to revive, everybody!) where a company that was uploading open-licensed medical videos to WP was... overly aggressive in claiming a relationship with Wikipedia and this with this wikiproject in its promotional materials, which was part of what led to a severe backlash here (which is still recent and somewhat hot). OK? (I am posting this here, so it is very public, and very unambiguous)
Jytdog (
talk) 17:16, 11 July 2018 (UTC) (fix per comment below
Jytdog (
talk) 23:37, 11 July 2018 (UTC))
my company; just above here you wrote
I'm not management, I am a 15-year Wikipedian. The lack of clarity and hat-switching is very unhelpful and is the kind of thing that will cause major problems later. Jytdog ( talk) 18:06, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
User:Charles Matthews please move Wikipedia:WikiProjectMedicine/Referencing case studies for MEDRS out of WP:MED space until you gain consensus here that this WikiProject wants to be associated with ScienceSource or ContentMine, to the extent of hosting its project page.
This is exactly the kind of association that I tried to advise you against claiming above. Thanks. Jytdog ( talk) 15:21, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
This AFD could use the input of some knowledgeable editors (especially if they have access to the sources listed in the article...) Thanks! -- Randykitty ( talk) 20:55, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Others thoughts? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 11:10, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
Mini-tablet (drug) was recently moved from user to main space and I came across it while doing WP:NPP. The user has no user or talk page and this article is their only true contribution. I don't feel equipped to patrol this for NPP but hoped someone here might be able to weigh in. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 05:51, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
Image was copied and pasted from a source. Some of the text was copied form here verbatum. https://books.google.com/books?id=xgHABAAAQBAJ&pg=PA194&lpg=PA194 Based on these concerns I have deleted the article in question. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 12:46, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
I just became aware that this page exists. It should get some scrutiny for health claims and sourcing. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 17:47, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
I came across this article in the process of going through short orphan articles, and I don't really have enough expertise to assess the usefulness of this article (even with sources). Is it a legitimate term that needs a separate article? Would it be better off merged elsewhere, or soft redirected to wiktionary as a dicdef? I can do any necessary legwork; I only need to be pointed in the right direction. Thanks in advance. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 16:55, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
Borderline predatory, and now this...Please use cautiously if at all... Jytdog ( talk) 22:52, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi guys. I've just come across Follicular phase which is a real mess from a referencing point of view, lots of unreliable source tags and refs stuck in at random. Could someone who knows the area, and with the ability to check out some of the references, take a look? TIA Le Deluge ( talk) 09:37, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
I have just updated Intermittent fasting with up-to-date info and reviews. The changes are substantial and I was told this is a hot topic, so it would be very helpful if someone knowledgeable on the topic could review it :-) Thank you very much in advance! -- Signimu ( talk) 00:51, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Is anyone familiar with this questionnaire from the UK? Here's another link from a provider of questionnaires I didn't see it on List of patient-reported quality of life surveys, does it make sense to add it? I wasn't sure if it's a widely used survey. - Furicorn ( talk) 02:29, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
At Neuroplasticity ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), we need opinions on how to cover some material with regard to WP:Lead and WP:Due. See Talk:Neuroplasticity#"Recent articles". A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 08:30, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 14:24, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure if the article is in the scope of this project as it mostly deals with history and protoscience. The author also appears new and a participating student, who may need gentle advice. A previous article was History of the location of the soul. Thanks, — Paleo Neonate – 18:27, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
The Hydrotherapy page is problematic. The sourcing is pretty dodgy (I left a note on the Talk:Hydrotherapy with some details a few weeks ago), and I came back today to look at making some improvements to it, but I'm not now sure that rewriting it is the right way to go.
Hydrotherapy is offered by a number of NHS hospitals. From the information provide on their websites, and a subsequent search on Google scholar, the term usually refers to a form of physiotherapy that's undertaken in a warm bath. According to our page on it however, it seems to mean any treatment involving water - hot baths, cold baths, colonic irrigation, using water jets for mechanical debridement, or even just drinking large volumes of water. There's also an issue about the sheer size of the article - the History section is unduly massive and often gushing, as well as being intermittently sourced.
My intention had been to work on a rewrite, focussing on what seems to be the modern meaning of the word. However, having just looked at Aquatic therapy, I think that's actually describing the same thing. That page isn't perfect, but at least you come away with a sense of what might happen to you if you are referred for a hydrotherapy session.
I wonder whether we should redirect Hydrotherapy to Aquatic therapy, and put Hydrotherapy to AfD? Or rename it 'History of Hydrotherapy' and do some pruning? I'd appreciate thoughts from more experienced editors. Girth Summit ( talk) 14:21, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
I made some changes to this article last week adding some criticism of the lectin free fad diet that the MD promotes. An IP has come along today and is clearly not happy about my changes: [7] [8]. More eyes would be helpful and also on the lectin article where I just spotted this whitewashing from November which hasn't (yet) been reverted. SmartSE ( talk) 15:47, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Should these be one, two, or three articles?
I was led by a comment on a talkpage to add "Leptomeningeal disease" to the lead of Leptomeningeal cancer (it's used in the article text and some of the sources), and to create a redirect from it and a dab page entry at LMD. I then realised that the other listed synonyms of Leptomeningeal cancer didn't have redirects, so set about creating them... and found that Neoplastic meningitis and Meningeal carcinomatosis existed as separate articles, with leptomeningeal carcinomatosis redirecting to the former. So three of the terms listed in the lead of the LC article are covered elsewhere.
I'm not a medic, just a wikignome. Could someone knowledgeable in the field please have a look at these articles and redirects? (Oh and carcinomatous meningitis redirects to Neoplastic meningitis, though not mentioned there as a synonym, although this source gives it as a synonym of Leptomeningeal disease.) Pam D 08:16, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Leptomeningeal cancer (also called leptomeningeal carcinomatosis, leptomeningeal disease (LMD), leptomeningeal metastasis, neoplastic meningitis, meningeal metastasis and meningeal carcinomatosis) is ..., given that three of those terms lead elsewhere? Pam D 22:18, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
What brought my attention to this article was the edit history of someone who recently edited at the Electromagnetic hypersensitivity article. This made me wonder if this citation is considered reliable: Erethism#cite_note-9 ( [9]). But there are other general issues like much material being in the lead that should be in the body, in case anyone wants to improve this article. Thanks, — Paleo Neonate – 19:26, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Adding: I'm not sure if it's related, but it reminds me of claims of mercury in light bulbs being able to enter nearby people's bodies through an electromagnetic transport. — Paleo Neonate – 19:31, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
There are several redirects to Comparison of MD and DO in the United States which I think probably ought to be deleted or retargeted, on the basis that we ought to avoid having redirects from general, geographically-unspecific terms to U.S.-centric articles. I've retargeted Allopathic and osteopathic, Allopathic osteopathic and Osteopathic allopathic to alternative medicine, which strikes me as the best target for those titles, and suggested the same course of action for Allopathic and osteopathic medicine, which is currently at RfD. There are several others I'm unsure of what to do with with though:
Each of these has the double problem of suggesting to the reader that the target contains a comparison or list of differences (making alternative medicine an unsuitable target), and pointing from a nonspecific phrase to a specifically American article. There is also Separation in medicine, which could refer to any number of things. I'm asking here rather than (immediately) taking these to RfD because (1) I'm aware that that alternative medicine-related articles have been the source of much antagonism in the past; and (2) it's a topic about which I'm utterly clueless – what, for example, is the difference between osteopathy and osteopathic medicine? As such I wouldn't feel entirely comfortable intervening when there could be any number of complexities I don't know about. Any thoughts would be much appreciated. – Arms & Hearts ( talk) 22:46, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
Hello - on June 26th, I submitted an edit request to the colorectal cancer page. After two weeks, the request was marked as stale, but the editor who did so suggested I flag my edit request to the WikiProject Medicine editors to leverage your expertise in the matter. Per his recommendation, I wanted to flag that edit request here in case someone from the Project would like to review the edit and share your thoughts.
NOTE: I proposed these edits for FleishmanHillard on behalf of Exact Sciences. I am a paid editor and am aware of the COI guidelines. The edit reqeust was submitted in hopes of making the information in the article about screening and testing more thorough. Thanks for your consideration. Jon Gray ( talk) 18:46, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
I've just started a discussion at Talk:Clinical neuroscience#Page focus, where more input would be welcome. Thanks. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 21:01, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Just released that Cambell has both a whitelist and a blacklist. [12] Does anyone have access?
Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 13:36, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Dressed to Kill (book)#RfC about the summary section of a book review article, which is about an article that is within the scope of this WikiProject. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 04:04, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
I happened to notice this Wikipedia tweet: "The seeds of the Korean melon have been investigated for use in controlling diabetes." https://twitter.com/Wikipedia/status/1020854694099353602 However this content was removed in February as non MEDRS here from what I can see. JenOttawa ( talk) 02:51, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Hello everybody, I was looking for the above lemma. There seems to be missing a pertinent article currently, isn't there?-- Neufund ( talk) 22:02, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Cardiomyoliposis is the accumulation of lipids in cardiac muscle cells (cardiomyocytes), and is a histological finding in pathology samples. As such the literature is limited. That said, cardiomyoliposis ≠ myocardial degeneration. Myocardial degeneration is a larger concept that includes cardiomyloposis, but also other types of degeneration, such as: lysis of cells: (cardio)myocytolysis; various strictures; hyalin, fatty or senile degeneration; or syndromes such as Beau's syndrome — all falling under the same ICD-10 entry.
None of these concepts are broad enough to constitute an article on Wikipedia, apart from possibly myocardial degeneration. However, I would not give it top priority. If anyone is willing to write about it I would suggest various pathology text-books and possibly these articles:
Carl Fredrik talk 21:23, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Is there any difference between these? They seem both to have lychonychia striata as a synonym. Carl Fredrik talk 22:12, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
More eyes are needed at Species dysphoria ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) as well. I hadn't looked at that article in years. At some point, I took it off my watchlist (or perhaps it was never on my watchlist). Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 12:18, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Note: There is some content missing from this section. I certainly was not responding to myself. And WhatamIdoing was not responding to me, but was rather responding to LibrePrincess. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 07:18, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
One time only, and for the record:
User:LibrePrincess: I will not say this again:
Redact your claims immediately. I leave you to your own reading to see how seriously WP takes these matters.
I await the redaction of the defamatory material. — James Cantor ( talk) 23:09, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
LibrePrincess, regarding stuff like this, why do you think those are good sources? Even discounting WP:MEDRS, which is what the article should be following as best it can, they are poor sources. It just looks like you using poor sources to push your own POV views. I am tempted to take a hatchet to the entire article. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 11:06, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
I'd appreciate input from other editors at Talk:Exercise#Exercise and cancer cachexia because at this point, I don't really care about arguing this anymore. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 17:58, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Please review this draft. Is it encyclopedic, and does it satisfy MEDRS? Robert McClenon ( talk) 22:16, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I was looking at myeloma and noticed the diagnostic criteria are out of date (according the IMWG's 2014 guidelines - http://imwg.myeloma.org/international-myeloma-working-group-updated-criteria-for-the-diagnosis-of-multiple-myeloma/). I was wondering what would be the better way of updating the page, being bold or making a draft version in a sandbox and presenting it here for review? Thanks, Red Fiona ( talk) 17:20, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Sorry to ask another question about the same page. One of the citations needed templates is asking for a citation for myeloma survival rates have improved over time. I know of only one (there will be more) but I was wondering if this ( https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-statistics/statistics-by-cancer-type/myeloma#heading-Two) counts as a good reference or not? Red Fiona ( talk) 16:43, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
A new poster on the effects. Best Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 17:21, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
There is a discussion regarding infoboxes which is tangentially related to this WikiProject (i.e. it is predicated on one of your templates). Please feel free to join in the discussion here. Thank you. Primefac ( talk) 15:58, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Is anyone working on this project anymore (or are interested)? There have been a group of Dermatology Residents volunteering for the past 5 months on here, and I was thinking of suggesting that they look at this project. [17] /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Dermatology_task_force Is anyone interested in helping get it up and going again? JenOttawa ( talk) 00:23, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
==Dermatology: Question…==
. This is applicable to all our discussions, and would also serve to make it easy to navigate. We could similarly tag ==Wikipedia:Is MEDRS is line with RS?==
etc. In fact I'm struck by the idea of tagging all current discussions now. Unless there are any objections I might do so now. It would definitely help in navigating this page, which while large and difficult to sort through is still the best we have.
Carl Fredrik
talk 08:58, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 110 | ← | Archive 113 | Archive 114 | Archive 115 | Archive 116 | Archive 117 | → | Archive 120 |
At XY female ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), we have an IP edit warring when it comes to "XY female" redirecting to XY gonadal dysgenesis. The IP keeps redirecting it to XY Female, which is not a Wikipedia article. Finally, Natureium created a small article under the "XY female" title, and I changed the redirect back so that it points to XY gonadal dysgenesis because I considered the small XY female article an unnecessary WP:Content fork and that we should consider what Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles#Article titles states. We also do not have an article titled XX male; it redirects to XX male syndrome. IVORK and Insertcleverphrasehere, who were involved, might also want to weigh in.
Thoughts? Should "XY female" be a redirect, a disambiguation page (like Insertcleverphrasehere felt it should be), or a small article? Doc James, any idea on what should be done? Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 16:22, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
I have heard and used the first word lots of times, NEVER the second. It may technically be a word, but makes no sense not to have the common word defined, but just this useless variant.
I agree the previous article/definition was terrible, but should we throw out the baby with the bath water? Resurrect the proper word and lets have a go at it again, OK?
Someone more competent at this than me needs to enter the word to get us started (I'm looking at you oh great editor in the sky!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcollister ( talk • contribs) 17:57, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
"Use nouns: Nouns and noun phrases are normally preferred over titles using other parts of speech ... Adjective and verb forms (e.g. elegant, integrate) should redirect to articles titled with the corresponding noun ( Elegance, Integration). In this case, though, if there's a massive disparity between the occurrence of pathognomicity and pathognomonic, my instinct would be to go with the commonest name. It might also be worth pointing out that these are articles, not definitions; we have Wiktionary (which is happy with adjectives) for that. -- RexxS ( talk) 20:26, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Can anyone who has access to this website send me everything on treatment/management – or just all of the content on narcolepsy if it's available in one pdf file – from the following link?
https://bestpractice.bmj.com/topics/en-us/428
My email is commented out in the source of this section.
Seppi333 (
Insert 2¢) 23:35, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Just FYI, a recent thread: Talk:Water#H2O_molecule_as_an_allergen? Brandmeister talk 19:20, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
There's some discussion about how to present these, which could use more input. I have a couple of concerns:
— First, a heavy reliance on Chinese papers which seem to have a more sensational view of the health impact of green tea (a mainstay of
traditional chinese medicine) than non-Chinese sources.
— Secondly, a heavy reliance on reporting of what green tea consumption is "linked to" (i.e. correlations). For example we say "Daily consumption of green tea is significantly correlated with a lower risk of death from any cause". Presenting such material in a health effects section gives the impression that there is a cause-and-effect here – we see this kind of writing in newspaper reporting of health topics a lot, and is not something I think we should be replicating, since lay readers may find it confusing.
Alexbrn (
talk) 17:59, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
"In a 2015 meta-analysis of such observational studies, an increase in one cup of green tea per day was correlated with a 5% lower risk of death from cardiovascular causes."Either:
an increase in one cup of green tea per day was correlated with a 5% lower risk of death from cardiovascular causes."is an opinion, not a fact? Okay, then cite the source that dissents from that opinion, and attribute each of them in the text to the person or group who holds the opinion. At present, it's neither one thing or the other. This isn't the cancer section; it's the cardiovascular section, and either we have good evidence for green tea's ability to prevent CVD, or we haven't. All I see at present is a lot of innuendo: "a correlation between"; "correlated with a 5% lower risk of death"; "may be correlated with a reduced risk"; "appears to lower systolic and diastolic blood pressures". To be honest, I'd rather we said nothing than present that sort of hedging. Are you happy with that section? -- RexxS ( talk) 00:13, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Domestic violence#Does the article lend undue weight to women as victims and/or their use of self-defense as a reason for domestic violence?? A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 12:10, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
I dropped off a "please watchlist this problem article" request over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Psychiatry task force. In looking the page over, I now see that there's been no interactive discussion there by taskforce participants since May 2017. It might make more sense to redirect its talk page to WT:WikiProject Medicine. This is pretty common for taskforce/workgroup talk pages when they turn moribund. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 11:19, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
The ScienceSource project, funded by a WMF grant to work on medical referencing, was started in June and is now launching its first participatory activity, its "focus list" of biomedical articles, hosted on Wikidata.
In the story so far, work has gone on here on Wikipedia:WikiProjectMedicine/Referencing case studies for MEDRS, and on Wikidata relating to Medical Subject Headings (diseases). There is a wikiversity:Wikiversity:ScienceSource mentoring page under development for those who want broader background. We are using lightweight videos for that.
The focus list, information at d:Wikidata:ScienceSource focus list which is WD:SSFL on Wikidata, is the first pass at which (open access, biomedical) articles ScienceSource should look to download, in future months. We want those with expertise to work with us on compiling an excellent medical bibliography. Once the list is set up, it will be possible to query and display it in multiple ways, so slice 'n' dice will be on the cards.
It is really not so troublesome to add a single Wikidata statement, once you have the relevant item about the article. And there is a tool to translate a DOI into the item number. Just about every relevant DOI used here in a reference is likely to be present on an item on Wikidata, since recent work has gone on in this area. (For lists, there is technical support available, so do ask.)
There has been discussion of topics around the project in recent issues of Facto Post ( back numbers), which by convention is not delivered here. You can sign up for this mass message to be delivered on your User talk page. I'm always glad to hear from people on my own talk page. Charles Matthews ( talk) 09:54, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
|type=
parameter, using values such as "Systematic Review", "Meta-analysis", or just "Review". There was resistance to the idea, based on concerns over data quality at the time, IIRC.
LeadSongDog
come howl! 16:09, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the responses. I have just added the three introductory videos (60 seconds) to the Wikiversity page. These are designed to give people some overall idea of the project.
In terms participants in this WikiProject would understand, the big problem ScienceSource addresses is the one discussed a couple of years ago (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 85, #24 on the ToC). We are not working on that yet, though it would be good to discuss how we see a new approach. We shall be downloading articles to our own wiki, which is being configured as we speak. Those articles are going to be "good for referencing", on the face of it. The algorithm will check if those articles actually "pass MEDRS". Other software will help locate useful factual content in the articles. Putting it all together, reliably sourced medical facts will be obtained.
One month in, we are still "in the foothills". The focus list project is to get a preliminary bibliography together. That is what I'm proposing today, for participation.
Yes, we have to start with data. Whether something is a review or not of course is very much on topic for the project, and I was discussing it on Saturday. There is an issue of scale: it would theoretically possible to find out (for what it is worth) for each article now on Wikidata and from PubMed, whether PubMed reckons it is a "review article". Right now that would require searching 17.5 million articles. If we have a list of candidates of (say) 10K suggestions, we have a more manageable problem. We'd still need to understand better what "review" means. Charles Matthews ( talk) 10:26, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments. This is a 12 month project, and we have eight or nine months now to tune what we do with MEDRS. You make some reasonable points about the actual practice. I expect an approach of salami-slicing the difficulties, rather than one big advance. The starting level is publication date/publisher/type of publication. We can gather good data on those.
After that it will get somewhat messier, from a data point of view. We can address "stale or not" considerations for past-best-before-date reviews, with a list of exemptions. We can also address the "pecking order" issue of some reviews, e.g. Cochrane, being considered ace of trumps in the particular area: Cochrane reviews are at least well documented here, and I have been doing some preliminary work about that.
Then, we shall set off writing an algorithm in SPARQL, which (in contrast I think to previous proposals) is quite well adapted to problems where the available data is disparate. A SPARQL query that looks at least quite like what MEDRS is trying to say is at least a formal representation of a purported solution. In other words, fixing it up would look like debugging, while trying to get shades of meaning in the hard cases from MEDRS might descend into "semantics". Actually arguing about semantics is perfectly fine in its place: my comment on "review" above was intended to say that. (The ontology of "review" has been studied formally, and I expect to get to that area in due course.)
As for machines making good "judicial" decisions, I doubt we'll crack that as an issue of principle. Actually NPOV here admits multiple points of view under some kinds of RS criteria. Where the machine says "yes" and there is a consensus here that the answer should be "no", we do have a debugging situation, and the rationale would be very interesting input into our work.
Anyway, thanks too for the kind words about the case studies page. It is obviously a first pass, only, and to illustrate how we'd try to apply some of the MEDRS discussions here. Charles Matthews ( talk) 08:45, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Not machine learning. I know that "algorithm" often does mean machine learning these days, but we mean it in the Computer Science 101 sense, Turing machines ... When I say SPARQL, it is partly because it is the query language I understand, and partly because it is a natural way to draw in facts from Wikidata. We will be using human checking of the facts (relation extraction), by the way, and combining it with algorithmic processing of the publication metadata. Charles Matthews ( talk) 10:43, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm aware of these ideas: in fact one of the authors in the paper you cite is in the group at UCL with which my company has worked. Here, though, we are working on a problem rather directly related to Wikipedia editing. Charles Matthews ( talk) 13:05, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
User:Charles Matthews what kind of help is ContentMine seeking from members of this WikiProject, concretely? Would you please describe the kinds of tasks you are asking us to do? Jytdog ( talk) 17:16, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
User:Charles Matthews ....three questions:
What exactly will this tool do - will it just analyze sources and report, or do you intend it to actually edit articles, or to suggest content and sourcing?
Do you imagine this as a WP:BOT or Extension or WP:Gadget or WP:Scripts or something else that will reside on WMF servers, or is this something else, that would reside somewhere else?
How do you expect it to be used and by what kind of WP editor; what kind of skills would be needed to use it? Thanks. Jytdog ( talk) 17:16, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
User:Charles Matthews would you please clarify what value this project and the grant brings to the company, and how the company intends to use the tool and any data/know how it gathers while building it, to increase the value of the company or to provide new ways to serve its paying customers?
You are asking editors to volunteer to help you; please describe the value that our help would bring to the company and its efforts to remain viable as a commercial enterprise. Thanks. Jytdog ( talk) 17:16, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
It defines itself as not-for-profit... however the listing at CompanyHouse is unambiguous that this is a business. One of the things that went very wrong with the company doing medical videos is that there was some weak signalling that it was thinking about becoming a nonprofit; it never was and it never did. ContentMine is a for profit entity; please don't fuzzify this.
In the cold light of early morning now, it seems to me that I can do little good in returning to this thread; but on the other hand that I need to. I should at least note that my reply just above, mentioning COI, was not in fact to the text immediately above it, where the language on "full disclosure" now stands: "full disclosure" was introduced in one of the series of edits marked "ce" that can be seen in the page history, and my reply was to a previous version of what Jytdog wrote. I take it that from full disclosure we should be reading this as "full disclosure, the acknowledgement of possible conflicts of interest in one's work", but applied to the company. Yes, it could be a problem if the company's "intended use" of the grant had some conflict of interest with the missions of Wikimedia (WMF or movement), or Wikipedia. Companies can be led to behave in ways that "increase the value of the company", and so on, in the terms in which the question was first posed.
It has been noted before that the project has little to do with Wikipedia editing, and in Wikimedia terms is centred round Wikidata. I frankly don't see that ContentMine has any conflict of interest in what it intends to do in relation to Wikidata.
It is ironic to me, at least, that this is a tale of two guidelines, running from MEDRS, where I'm actually just learning the ropes, to COI, where the distinction between potential and actual COI in Wikipedia terms is burned on my Wikipedian heart. Charles Matthews ( talk) 04:22, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Re the ArbCom case, then, as summarised in one of the initial statements: "paid editing and the potential of paid advocacy meatpuppetry by an administrator and SPI clerk as well as the potential misuse of the admin toolset to take actions he was specifically paid to do". I circulate a mass message here, Facto Post, using admin privileges. A newsletter for the WikiFactMine project was a specific request from the WMF grantrunner. On "paid editing", Wikimedians in Residence naturally do that, but within the terms of use of the site. I don't do any advocacy editing here on enWP in or related to the article space.
I'm engaging here because of definite commitment in m:Grants talk:Project/ScienceSource#Comment 4, which has become in part the "case studies" page you commented on above, and the intention to bring further issues here. We are building an expert system and WT:MED is where the relevant experts hang out. These associations are natural. Some of your remarks would have helped, as arguments, under Comments 10, 11 and 13.
On the scope of the project: yes, we want to build a "better mousetrap" and have people come see. Considered as a research project, which this is in part, that is what you'd expect?
I do have to catch a plane to Cape Town in a few hours. Parsing out your concerns further, there is COI. My conscience is clear, and I did have three years experience on ArbCom. I'm a meatpuppet for no one. I'm coauthor of How Wikipedia Works, but have never mentioned it on my user page here, because I assumed someone would shout "hypocrite" some day.
On some sort of "hidden agenda", there is a very public agenda to do more with the downloading techniques. This side has been floated both in Facto Post and in the first of our video set ("content management system" for OA). It would be timely and would probably require both a new architecture and a community of willing tech-savvy people. The logo on the wiki would be the one above, with the CM logo integrated. If anyone objects, really, we can change the logo on Commons. That is as far as branding goes, for me. It is fair comment that ContentMine would gain expertise on MEDRS and its implementation: the grant proposal states that we want to help recruit medical editors ("Such a corpus will assist Wikimedians in writing and referencing medical content, to a high standard, and closely linked with Wikidata's science and metadata content.") We can hardly do that without understanding. That understanding has value: see the lead section of systematic review, for example. There is no agenda here that could be effectively hidden.
Charles Matthews ( talk) 09:20, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
User:Charles Matthews I see that the company is already citing the WMF wikimedia movmement logo on its
partners page. Please be aware (if you are not) that the WMF is not the same as the English Wikipedia (or any other WMF project) and that each project governs itself. Please be careful that the company avoids saying things like it is "partnering with Wikipedia" or "partnering with WikiProject Medicine in Wikipedia" unless you get absolutely clear buy-in from the editing community. (something like an RfC perhaps) We just went through a very ugly thing (which I am not trying to revive, everybody!) where a company that was uploading open-licensed medical videos to WP was... overly aggressive in claiming a relationship with Wikipedia and this with this wikiproject in its promotional materials, which was part of what led to a severe backlash here (which is still recent and somewhat hot). OK? (I am posting this here, so it is very public, and very unambiguous)
Jytdog (
talk) 17:16, 11 July 2018 (UTC) (fix per comment below
Jytdog (
talk) 23:37, 11 July 2018 (UTC))
my company; just above here you wrote
I'm not management, I am a 15-year Wikipedian. The lack of clarity and hat-switching is very unhelpful and is the kind of thing that will cause major problems later. Jytdog ( talk) 18:06, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
User:Charles Matthews please move Wikipedia:WikiProjectMedicine/Referencing case studies for MEDRS out of WP:MED space until you gain consensus here that this WikiProject wants to be associated with ScienceSource or ContentMine, to the extent of hosting its project page.
This is exactly the kind of association that I tried to advise you against claiming above. Thanks. Jytdog ( talk) 15:21, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
This AFD could use the input of some knowledgeable editors (especially if they have access to the sources listed in the article...) Thanks! -- Randykitty ( talk) 20:55, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Others thoughts? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 11:10, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
Mini-tablet (drug) was recently moved from user to main space and I came across it while doing WP:NPP. The user has no user or talk page and this article is their only true contribution. I don't feel equipped to patrol this for NPP but hoped someone here might be able to weigh in. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 05:51, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
Image was copied and pasted from a source. Some of the text was copied form here verbatum. https://books.google.com/books?id=xgHABAAAQBAJ&pg=PA194&lpg=PA194 Based on these concerns I have deleted the article in question. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 12:46, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
I just became aware that this page exists. It should get some scrutiny for health claims and sourcing. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 17:47, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
I came across this article in the process of going through short orphan articles, and I don't really have enough expertise to assess the usefulness of this article (even with sources). Is it a legitimate term that needs a separate article? Would it be better off merged elsewhere, or soft redirected to wiktionary as a dicdef? I can do any necessary legwork; I only need to be pointed in the right direction. Thanks in advance. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 16:55, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
Borderline predatory, and now this...Please use cautiously if at all... Jytdog ( talk) 22:52, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi guys. I've just come across Follicular phase which is a real mess from a referencing point of view, lots of unreliable source tags and refs stuck in at random. Could someone who knows the area, and with the ability to check out some of the references, take a look? TIA Le Deluge ( talk) 09:37, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
I have just updated Intermittent fasting with up-to-date info and reviews. The changes are substantial and I was told this is a hot topic, so it would be very helpful if someone knowledgeable on the topic could review it :-) Thank you very much in advance! -- Signimu ( talk) 00:51, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Is anyone familiar with this questionnaire from the UK? Here's another link from a provider of questionnaires I didn't see it on List of patient-reported quality of life surveys, does it make sense to add it? I wasn't sure if it's a widely used survey. - Furicorn ( talk) 02:29, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
At Neuroplasticity ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), we need opinions on how to cover some material with regard to WP:Lead and WP:Due. See Talk:Neuroplasticity#"Recent articles". A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 08:30, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 14:24, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure if the article is in the scope of this project as it mostly deals with history and protoscience. The author also appears new and a participating student, who may need gentle advice. A previous article was History of the location of the soul. Thanks, — Paleo Neonate – 18:27, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
The Hydrotherapy page is problematic. The sourcing is pretty dodgy (I left a note on the Talk:Hydrotherapy with some details a few weeks ago), and I came back today to look at making some improvements to it, but I'm not now sure that rewriting it is the right way to go.
Hydrotherapy is offered by a number of NHS hospitals. From the information provide on their websites, and a subsequent search on Google scholar, the term usually refers to a form of physiotherapy that's undertaken in a warm bath. According to our page on it however, it seems to mean any treatment involving water - hot baths, cold baths, colonic irrigation, using water jets for mechanical debridement, or even just drinking large volumes of water. There's also an issue about the sheer size of the article - the History section is unduly massive and often gushing, as well as being intermittently sourced.
My intention had been to work on a rewrite, focussing on what seems to be the modern meaning of the word. However, having just looked at Aquatic therapy, I think that's actually describing the same thing. That page isn't perfect, but at least you come away with a sense of what might happen to you if you are referred for a hydrotherapy session.
I wonder whether we should redirect Hydrotherapy to Aquatic therapy, and put Hydrotherapy to AfD? Or rename it 'History of Hydrotherapy' and do some pruning? I'd appreciate thoughts from more experienced editors. Girth Summit ( talk) 14:21, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
I made some changes to this article last week adding some criticism of the lectin free fad diet that the MD promotes. An IP has come along today and is clearly not happy about my changes: [7] [8]. More eyes would be helpful and also on the lectin article where I just spotted this whitewashing from November which hasn't (yet) been reverted. SmartSE ( talk) 15:47, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Should these be one, two, or three articles?
I was led by a comment on a talkpage to add "Leptomeningeal disease" to the lead of Leptomeningeal cancer (it's used in the article text and some of the sources), and to create a redirect from it and a dab page entry at LMD. I then realised that the other listed synonyms of Leptomeningeal cancer didn't have redirects, so set about creating them... and found that Neoplastic meningitis and Meningeal carcinomatosis existed as separate articles, with leptomeningeal carcinomatosis redirecting to the former. So three of the terms listed in the lead of the LC article are covered elsewhere.
I'm not a medic, just a wikignome. Could someone knowledgeable in the field please have a look at these articles and redirects? (Oh and carcinomatous meningitis redirects to Neoplastic meningitis, though not mentioned there as a synonym, although this source gives it as a synonym of Leptomeningeal disease.) Pam D 08:16, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Leptomeningeal cancer (also called leptomeningeal carcinomatosis, leptomeningeal disease (LMD), leptomeningeal metastasis, neoplastic meningitis, meningeal metastasis and meningeal carcinomatosis) is ..., given that three of those terms lead elsewhere? Pam D 22:18, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
What brought my attention to this article was the edit history of someone who recently edited at the Electromagnetic hypersensitivity article. This made me wonder if this citation is considered reliable: Erethism#cite_note-9 ( [9]). But there are other general issues like much material being in the lead that should be in the body, in case anyone wants to improve this article. Thanks, — Paleo Neonate – 19:26, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Adding: I'm not sure if it's related, but it reminds me of claims of mercury in light bulbs being able to enter nearby people's bodies through an electromagnetic transport. — Paleo Neonate – 19:31, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
There are several redirects to Comparison of MD and DO in the United States which I think probably ought to be deleted or retargeted, on the basis that we ought to avoid having redirects from general, geographically-unspecific terms to U.S.-centric articles. I've retargeted Allopathic and osteopathic, Allopathic osteopathic and Osteopathic allopathic to alternative medicine, which strikes me as the best target for those titles, and suggested the same course of action for Allopathic and osteopathic medicine, which is currently at RfD. There are several others I'm unsure of what to do with with though:
Each of these has the double problem of suggesting to the reader that the target contains a comparison or list of differences (making alternative medicine an unsuitable target), and pointing from a nonspecific phrase to a specifically American article. There is also Separation in medicine, which could refer to any number of things. I'm asking here rather than (immediately) taking these to RfD because (1) I'm aware that that alternative medicine-related articles have been the source of much antagonism in the past; and (2) it's a topic about which I'm utterly clueless – what, for example, is the difference between osteopathy and osteopathic medicine? As such I wouldn't feel entirely comfortable intervening when there could be any number of complexities I don't know about. Any thoughts would be much appreciated. – Arms & Hearts ( talk) 22:46, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
Hello - on June 26th, I submitted an edit request to the colorectal cancer page. After two weeks, the request was marked as stale, but the editor who did so suggested I flag my edit request to the WikiProject Medicine editors to leverage your expertise in the matter. Per his recommendation, I wanted to flag that edit request here in case someone from the Project would like to review the edit and share your thoughts.
NOTE: I proposed these edits for FleishmanHillard on behalf of Exact Sciences. I am a paid editor and am aware of the COI guidelines. The edit reqeust was submitted in hopes of making the information in the article about screening and testing more thorough. Thanks for your consideration. Jon Gray ( talk) 18:46, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
I've just started a discussion at Talk:Clinical neuroscience#Page focus, where more input would be welcome. Thanks. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 21:01, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Just released that Cambell has both a whitelist and a blacklist. [12] Does anyone have access?
Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 13:36, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Dressed to Kill (book)#RfC about the summary section of a book review article, which is about an article that is within the scope of this WikiProject. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 04:04, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
I happened to notice this Wikipedia tweet: "The seeds of the Korean melon have been investigated for use in controlling diabetes." https://twitter.com/Wikipedia/status/1020854694099353602 However this content was removed in February as non MEDRS here from what I can see. JenOttawa ( talk) 02:51, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Hello everybody, I was looking for the above lemma. There seems to be missing a pertinent article currently, isn't there?-- Neufund ( talk) 22:02, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Cardiomyoliposis is the accumulation of lipids in cardiac muscle cells (cardiomyocytes), and is a histological finding in pathology samples. As such the literature is limited. That said, cardiomyoliposis ≠ myocardial degeneration. Myocardial degeneration is a larger concept that includes cardiomyloposis, but also other types of degeneration, such as: lysis of cells: (cardio)myocytolysis; various strictures; hyalin, fatty or senile degeneration; or syndromes such as Beau's syndrome — all falling under the same ICD-10 entry.
None of these concepts are broad enough to constitute an article on Wikipedia, apart from possibly myocardial degeneration. However, I would not give it top priority. If anyone is willing to write about it I would suggest various pathology text-books and possibly these articles:
Carl Fredrik talk 21:23, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Is there any difference between these? They seem both to have lychonychia striata as a synonym. Carl Fredrik talk 22:12, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
More eyes are needed at Species dysphoria ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) as well. I hadn't looked at that article in years. At some point, I took it off my watchlist (or perhaps it was never on my watchlist). Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 12:18, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Note: There is some content missing from this section. I certainly was not responding to myself. And WhatamIdoing was not responding to me, but was rather responding to LibrePrincess. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 07:18, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
One time only, and for the record:
User:LibrePrincess: I will not say this again:
Redact your claims immediately. I leave you to your own reading to see how seriously WP takes these matters.
I await the redaction of the defamatory material. — James Cantor ( talk) 23:09, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
LibrePrincess, regarding stuff like this, why do you think those are good sources? Even discounting WP:MEDRS, which is what the article should be following as best it can, they are poor sources. It just looks like you using poor sources to push your own POV views. I am tempted to take a hatchet to the entire article. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 11:06, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
I'd appreciate input from other editors at Talk:Exercise#Exercise and cancer cachexia because at this point, I don't really care about arguing this anymore. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 17:58, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Please review this draft. Is it encyclopedic, and does it satisfy MEDRS? Robert McClenon ( talk) 22:16, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I was looking at myeloma and noticed the diagnostic criteria are out of date (according the IMWG's 2014 guidelines - http://imwg.myeloma.org/international-myeloma-working-group-updated-criteria-for-the-diagnosis-of-multiple-myeloma/). I was wondering what would be the better way of updating the page, being bold or making a draft version in a sandbox and presenting it here for review? Thanks, Red Fiona ( talk) 17:20, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Sorry to ask another question about the same page. One of the citations needed templates is asking for a citation for myeloma survival rates have improved over time. I know of only one (there will be more) but I was wondering if this ( https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-statistics/statistics-by-cancer-type/myeloma#heading-Two) counts as a good reference or not? Red Fiona ( talk) 16:43, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
A new poster on the effects. Best Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 17:21, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
There is a discussion regarding infoboxes which is tangentially related to this WikiProject (i.e. it is predicated on one of your templates). Please feel free to join in the discussion here. Thank you. Primefac ( talk) 15:58, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Is anyone working on this project anymore (or are interested)? There have been a group of Dermatology Residents volunteering for the past 5 months on here, and I was thinking of suggesting that they look at this project. [17] /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Dermatology_task_force Is anyone interested in helping get it up and going again? JenOttawa ( talk) 00:23, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
==Dermatology: Question…==
. This is applicable to all our discussions, and would also serve to make it easy to navigate. We could similarly tag ==Wikipedia:Is MEDRS is line with RS?==
etc. In fact I'm struck by the idea of tagging all current discussions now. Unless there are any objections I might do so now. It would definitely help in navigating this page, which while large and difficult to sort through is still the best we have.
Carl Fredrik
talk 08:58, 4 August 2018 (UTC)