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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
We would like to activate Wikiproject Anatomy. That's why I'd like to move Anatomical structures' list to Anatomy project. Comments? NCurse work 15:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Catamenial Pneumothorax. Cheers! - CrazyRussian talk/ email 15:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I have plans with this project, I try to coordinate work because this project is not too active now. So:
If anybody has problems with these suggestions, please let me know. NCurse work 19:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
As you may know, Down syndrome is currently undergoing peer review. One of the reviewers wondered why we were not using the format for clinical medicine for the article. While researching that issue, I came here and was somewhat disappointed that there is virtually nothing in the project concerning Medical Genetics. None of the numerical abnormalities is listed (other than the generic trisomy). Neither is genetic counseling, in vitro fertilization, newborn screening, Cri du chat, etc. There are some diseases with genetic origins ( Tourette syndrome, cystic fibrosis, etc.) that are in the "Other diseases" box.
Unless there are objections, I will make a new box entitled "Medical Genetics", move the genetic diseases that are in "Other diseases" there, and fill it with the missing medical genetics articles. Another possibility is that I create the box in the Biology Project under Genetics (with a subsection on Medical Genetics).
I am still struggling with the original issue of whether it is useful to have Down syndrome use the Clinical Medicine template, and if so, how best to do it. If you have any suggestions, post them at Wikipedia:Peer review/Down syndrome/archive1 or Talk:Down syndrome. Ted Talk/ Contributions 19:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Great! I'll put it off, and contribute when you get started with the project. Ted Talk/ Contributions 15:31, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
This afd could do with some expert opinion from the wikiproject wikipedians Bwithh 01:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
I started this project here. Please leave comments, help to create correct guidelines. Thanks. NCurse work 16:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I've proposed a number of new sub-types here. Comments and additional ideas are welcome. (Offers to help with the heavy lifting even moreso!) Alai 09:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
NCurse work 13:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
NEW TOPIC (sorry, i don't know how to do this exactly) Can anyone provide help on psychiatric/psychological topics where there is considerable disagreement and an ongoing wrangle about the meaning of evidence-based treatment? I refer to Attachment Therapy and to Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy. A look at the histories of these topics will show intense disagreement and periodic POV claims when contradiction of certain contributors occurs. Attachment Therapy (use caps for both words) is especially sensitive because associated practices have been connected with child deaths and injuries. Thank you-- we have a mediator who is doing his best, but this requires specialized knowledge. Jean Mercer 15:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Is there any consensus concerning citations to The Lancet, pre-1990? The original volume numbers were non-standard, and Lancet retroactively changed them in 1990. Specifically, which of these should be used (or, should a different format be used)?
{{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)Thanks. Ted Talk/ Contributions 17:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Either:
{{cite journal| date=[[1974-09-21]] | title=Classification and nomenclature of malformation (Discussion)| journal=The Lancet| pages=798| volume=303| issue=7861}}
>"Classification and nomenclature of malformation (Discussion)". The Lancet. 303 (7861): 798.
1974-09-21. {{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
Or
{{cite journal| year=1974 | month=21 September | title=Classification and nomenclature of malformation (Discussion)| journal=The Lancet| pages=798| volume=303| issue=7861}}
>#"Classification and nomenclature of malformation (Discussion)". The Lancet. 303 (7861): 798. 1974. {{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
David Ruben
Talk 21:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
And is there a consensus about putting a wikilink in a reference to the (well known) journal? e.g. this one: Fox IJ, Roy Chowdhury J, Kaufman SS, Goertzen TC, Roy Chowdhury N, Warkentin PI, Dorko K, Sauter BV, Strom SC. Treatment of the Crigler-Najjar syndrome type I with hepatocyte transplantation. N Engl J Med 1998; 338: 1422-1426. PMID 9580649 -- Steven Fruitsmaak | Talk 12:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Medicine-related articles): I've proposed this as a Manual of Style guideline to writing medical articles, please comment on that talk page!-- Steven Fruitsmaak | Talk 12:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Just to inform everyone in this WikiProject, a Barnstar has been proposed in this link right here. Consensus has not been reached, and would really appreciate it if you could give us your opinions.-- Ed 13:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Please be aware that there is a lot of activity on WP with regards to POV-pushing about quackery, pseudoscience, and the like. Wikipedia:WikiProject Pseudoscience is set up to watch over pseudoscience articles in general, but does not function as a clearing-house for disputes; these would be best taken here. Recent controversies include something about the dental amalgam controversy, and some (I believe baseless) accusations that orthomolecular medicine is pseudoscience. Please help keep WP balanced by keeping an eye out on these and other related topics that draw attention from the "fringe" and "out there" crowds. In the case of orthomolecular medicine, we seem to be dealing with an overzelous debunker who seems to be more quacky than the purported quacks he is fighting off. linas 15:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
The article on Orthomolecular medicine is currently embroiled in a very verbose, very contentious edit war. A helping hand from rational clear thinkers is needed. Caution: I am finding that a band of kooks and cranks are now attacking me on my own talk page; so getting involved may be hazardous for your nerves. linas 15:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi everyone, Baldness treatments needs a lot of peer review in its current state. It's near impossible for any lay person such as myself to tell the self-promotional cranks from the real experts and the genuine treatments (especially non-FDA approved one) from the snake oil you'd find in your spam box. One particularly ongoing concern is Pproctor ( talk • contribs) who is Dr. Peter H. Proctor. Proctor is linking to scans of academic papers on his own website (www.drproctor.com) as well summaries of his approved patents in this article. I honestly can't tell if he is indeed an expert editors who can rightfully and impartially cite his own research. Duncharris ( talk • contribs) is engaged in a slow revert war with him right now and some impartial reviewers would be gladly appreciated. -- Netsnipe (Talk) 17:27, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
The article Transfersome concerns an example of medical nanotechnology. It is currently up for deletion, and a rewrite for readability by any editors interested in medical research or nanotechnology would help. Plus comments at the deletion debate would be good as well. Carcharoth 16:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
One editor has claimed on Talk:Mifepristone that the Mifeprex product label found on the FDA site(PDF) is not copyrighted. I asked for further information and didn't get any, so I am coming here to see if anyone knows about the copyright status of these labels. It would make sense that if it was a government job, then the work would be in the public domain like most US government work. However, if Danco labs is the creator of the label, the copyright might be a stickier issue. Text from the label was "plagarized" into the article, and I changed the text to be cited quotations. Anyway, any information will help.-- Andrew c 01:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi everybody! (...)
We at the Work via WikiProjects team for Wikipedia 1.0 would like you to identify the " key articles" from your project that should be included in a small CD release due to their importance, regardless of quality. We will use that information to assess which articles should be nominated for Version 0.5 and later versions. Hopefully it will help you identify which articles are the most important for the project to work on. As well, please add to your Medicine WikiProject article table any articles of high quality. If you are interested in developing a worklist such as this one for your WikiProject, or having a bot generate a worklist automatically for you, please contact us. Please feel free to post your suggestions right here on your projects talk page. Thanks! -- Steven Fruitsmaak ( Reply) 13:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm having a bit of trouble telling if Globus hystericus and Globus Pharyngis are the same condition. The former is an article I created after hearing the term on Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? when I saw it had none and the latter is one I just recently found. I'm not into medicine or anything so if someone could straighten those out that'd be great.-- SeizureDog 20:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I reorganized the main page, because it was confusing. And created a new announcement template: Template:MCOTWannounce. Comments? NCurse work 07:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
What do you think? NCurse work 08:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Thank you all! :) NCurse work 14:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Could somebody take a look at the article Intubation please? I removed the content under the headings "Side effects", "Recovery" and "Controversy", for various reasons (see Talk:Intubation). The original editor has reinstated these (albeit with very slightly altered wording), however I'm still not happy. Before I inadvertently start an edit war, I'd quite like others' opinions to make sure I'm not totally off-base.. -- John24601 19:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Maybe we should consider changing to articles assessment. With a bot (like in medical genetics project), we could have a list of our assessed articles. I create all needed templates and categories if you agree... NCurse work 09:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
At WP:FAR, we are slowly but surely getting through the list of featured articles with no inline citations, and few inline citations ( Wikipedia:Featured articles with citation problems). Contributors here might be able to work on the medical articles before they come under review, since inline citations are now required for FA status.
Hi. If you still have work to do tagging talk pages and assessing articles, my AWB plugin might be of interest to you.
The plugin has two main modes of operation:
As of the current version, WikiProjects with simple "generic" templates are supported by the plugin without the need for any special programatic support by me. I've had a look at your project's template and you seem to qualify.
For more information see:
Hope that helps. If you have any questions or find any bugs please let me know on the plugin's talk page. -- Kingboyk 14:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Psychosis is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy 22:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
I've put this article up for DYK, hoping that it will have the same fate as Robinow syndrome did... I'm inviting everyone to improve this article!-- Steven Fruitsmaak ( Reply) 20:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
We should focus on article assessment. We are part of WikiProjects participating in Wikipedia 1.0 assessments, and we have the Template:WPMED, so I'll start with the first tables of Article rating. Anyone else wants to join? :) NCurse work 21:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Tuberculosis is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy 15:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
In addition to Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Participants, I've noticed that there are at least three other participants lists:
In order to streamline things around here, would it be possible to consolidate these lists into one? The lists could have various columns (similar to the last one in Wikipedia:WikiProject Preclinical Medicine/Participants) to indicate what specific projects participants may or may not be interested in. Thoughts? - AED 22:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
The following are two options I had in mind. Both would give some indication as to what specific projects the various participants are interested in. (I imagine someone else could do a better job formatting the boxes.) Rather than a list of participants on the "Participants" section of the various pages, perhaps there could be an instruction for people to "register" or indicate interest on the main participant page (i.e. Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Participants). - AED 21:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Option 1:
User name | Talk page | Special interests or contributions | Medical qualification | Medicine-related Wikiprojects |
NCurse | Talk | Genetics | Medical student | WP:MCOTW, WP:PCM |
Steven Fruitsmaak | Talk | Anything, preclinical and clinical. | Medical student | WP:MCOTW, WP:CLINMED, WP:PCM |
Your name | Your talk page | Your interest | Your medical qualification (if any) | Your medicine-related Wikiprojects |
Option 2:
User name | Talk page | Special interests or contributions | Medical qualification | WP:MCOTW member | WP:CLINMED member | WP:PCM member |
NCurse | Talk | Genetics | Medical student | Yes | No | Yes |
Steven Fruitsmaak | Talk | Anything, preclinical and clinical. | Medical student | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Your name | Your talk page | Your interest | Your medical qualification (if any) | Are you a member of WP:MCOTW? | Are you a member of WP:CLINMED? | Are you a member of WP:PCM? |
My alternative solution: we create a new list (option 1 above), and leave a message for every editor on these lists whether they want to list themselves or not. NCurse work 15:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Maybe we could talk about it here: #wikipedia-science. I'll be there from now, if you have time. NCurse work 17:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Removing inactives is ok if they have been gone for more than a year or so IMO (call me conservative). Moderators: like who??? Admins is a good idea, maybe a column for specific roles; admin, portal maintainer, MCOTW-coordinator and god-knows-what. I strongly oppose against contacting everyone again about listing them as participants: I add other people as project participants, because either you participate or not, there's no sense in not being listed (and after all this is a wiki). May I remind everyone that we have just contacted a lot of people about listing themselves as participants of WP:MED? I say just merge the lot, weed out long time inactives and put a notice on relevant pages that the lists have been merged. Be bold and don't waste time making countless User_talk-edits.-- Steven Fruitsmaak ( Reply) 14:56, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
To add yourself into the table of participants, copy and paste the following markup. Change the 3 occurances of '???' for your user name and replace optional '<!-- ... -->' fields with details (for the 3 projects respond with 'Yes'): |- | [[User:???|???]] | [[User talk:???|Talk]] | <!-- Interests --> | <!-- Medical quals. --> | <!-- ?MCOTW member --> | <!-- ?CLINMED member--> | <!-- ?PCM member -->
David Ruben Talk 18:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi,
for those interested, NCurse is up for adminship, voice your opinion here.
-- Steven Fruitsmaak ( Reply) 20:41, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm a part of the Psychology WikiProject, and I'm trying to decide whether or not psychiatry-related issues should be included in our project. Even though psychiatry is a medical field, it overlaps quite a bit with the field of psychology. Most psychiatry articles (such as those related to mental illnesses) could easily fall under both categories, but I'm not sure whether or not articles specifically about psychiatry (such as the psychiatry article itself) should also be covered by our project. I would like to see what members of this project think about it. — Cswrye 17:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Invitation to an excellent beginning: Announcing the birth of Wikipedia:WikiProject Ophthalmology!! Its up and running as part of the medicine project! I hereby invite everybody interested in Vision and Eye care to contribute to the long awaited wikiproject on Ophthalmology. Many thanks to AED for getting this project page working and sorting out the details. For a start, we need a shortcut to point to this page. Here's a readymade manual of style for starting Ophthalmology articles. For the past 4 months, I have been working to add articles, relevant info and clinical images to the current sections of Ophthalmology - am currently looking to get some more input and requests, so that we can get cracking - to get some really good articles, raise them to featured status and turn the project Ophthalmology into a resource which is one of the best in whole of Wikipedia! Cheers!!! EyeMD 05:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Rather than:
Sandy 12:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
The Medical genetics project used our article rating system. There, I asked a bot to generate a list for us (assessment project) and now we have an automaticaly updated list, and every unassessed articles are tagged with our templates. I suggest the same here. I make every step required just I need some support votes. :) NCurse work 12:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Please help me fixing that list. Categories that are coordinated by other wikiprojects must be removed. NCurs e work 18:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Ok. Our article rating page is old-fashioned, it is hard to use and maintain. I want this project to join to the assessment teamwork. That's why I asked a bot to tag every article our project works on with the unassessed template (WP:MEDGENP) so we'll know exactly which articles we have to rate. In that list you can see the whole medicine category-tree. We must choose categories and subcategories we want to work on. We can't include other medicine-related wikiprojects' categories. That's why we must choose the ones we need. NCurs e work 14:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
NCurs e work 15:24, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure this is precisely the right place, but if there's anyone up on their psychoactive pharmaceuticals (I can't even say that three times fast), could they possibly have a look at User:Alai/Psychoactives, and confirm (or deny) if these all appropriate to be restubbed from {{ pharma-stub}} to {{ psychoactive-stub}}. All are categorised as hypnotics, sedatives, opioids, stimulants, anxiolytics, antidepressants, antipsychotics, psychoactive drugs, alkyl nitrites, mu-opioid agonists, semisynthetic opioids, psychedelics, dissociatives, deliriants, or mood stabilizers (i.e., immediate subcategories of Category:psychoactive drugs. Alai 05:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to nominate the melanoma article in FAC. What do you think? I've added a new genetics section. It could be improved. I'd like to get some feedback. Thank you in advance. NCurs e work 17:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Dear colleagues!
Would you please be so kind to have a look at this Article. A german Doktor (Dr. Risse) removed nearly the complete article by contributions of his german webside wich is an advertisment for his company. Please regard the links, wich are placed by a german IP [1]. See also the discussion in de:Kieferorthopädie.
Sincerely Yours -- Andreas Werle 17:35, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
I've been involved in a very tedious debate at Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy. It makes claims concerning therapeutic efficacy and evidential basis using a very limited number of credible sources. The vast majority of the references are self-published books, books published in publishing farms, or totally unrelated works. Moreover, members from the APSAC task-force on Attachment Therapy have very recently cast strong doubt on such assertions in Child Maltreatment. http://cmx.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/11/4/381. They even called for a noted proponent of the therapy to remove such claims from his website. The APSAC is a highly credible association as far as I can tell.
Furthermore, claims such as these can be found spread across wikipedia in articles such as Child abuse. This form of therapy has about two peer-reviewed studies to its name (same researcher) and is practiced at about one clinic (associated to the researcher who published the studies). It is the same group of editors that have spread these assertions throughout the psychotherapy related articles.
This is way out of my expertise and I was hoping that someone with more knowledge than I have could address these things. Thanks! shotwell 19:23, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Page now nominated as a FAC. Comments and suggestions are welcome on the review page. Thank you. TimVickers 00:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 00:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
I posed several questions at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Medicine-related articles). Sandy ( Talk) 16:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Please weigh in on this discussion: Wikipedia talk:Scientific citation guidelines. It is currently listed as a "science" "guideline", without review of areas such as Medicine and biology. Sandy ( Talk) 17:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
In right auricular appendix, Grey's anatomy states "It projects from the upper and front part of the sinus forward and toward the left side, overlapping the root of the aorta." What does the term "sinus" refer to here? The coronary sinus, the sinus node, or general the interior of the right atrium? Thanks, AxelBoldt 03:10, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
New stub category for symptoms needs support here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Proposals/2006/October#Cat:Symptom.-- Steven Fruitsmaak ( Reply) 19:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Hello, I've just put my lung transplantation article online. I still need to learn how to properly cite references, and I intend to do that in the future. In the meantime, I would appreciate some expert contributions to it. Another thing: is there some sort of template to be placed on its talk page? It's taken me quite some time to write this article (and the related lung allocation score and ventilation/perfusion scan articles), and I hope that it shows! Thanks for any feedback. -- Kyok o 19:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi. I have no specific competence in medicine but I'm working on the backlog of uncategorized articles and I happened to notice that Category:Diseases is a bit of a mess. I think it would be a very worthwhile task for this project to create a good system of subcategories and clean all of this up. For instance, I wanted to categorize Myelophthisis. Hmmm... So where does this go? The best I could do is the top level category of diseases. If you see a finer cat for this one, please add it of course, but generally speaking I think it would be worthwhile to shoot for a "no disease left-behind" objective: the disease category would simply be the parent of finer categories and any article in it would just be waiting for a finer classification, like Category:Writers, Category:Actors or Category:Lists. Pascal.Tesson 21:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
I've created a new box for the announcements (Collaboration Dashboard). Comments are welcome. NCurs e work 22:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Cross posted to WP:RS, WP:OR and Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine. There is a dispute going on at Talk:Depo Provera#Disadvantages and side effects WP:NOR violations. One user found primary sources, reliable journal articles, that said depo provera may do certain negative things. Another user is disputing this, citing original research. The argument, I guess, is that the 1st user is interpreting the source, and drawing conclusions not published anywhere else. The studies only dealt with rats (not humans), and there is nothing in the patient drug information (or any other way to verify the claims outside of the studies in question). The logic goes that making a connection that a study dealing with rats may effect the use of this drug in humans as a contraception is original research. Furthermore, it may be pushing a POV that this drug is unsafe by mentioning these studies (that are not verified outside of the individual study, and not mentioned in patient drug information). I feel like I am repeating myself, sorry. The counter argument is that a) citing primary sources is a good thing b) the claims are cited and verifiable and reliable, fulfilling almost every wikipedia criteria for inclusion. So I guess there are two issues. Is using the information in this manner original research? And is it giving undue weight to a minority view by citing obscure studies like this? Sorry if I am missing anything or misrepresenting a side. Please direct comments to Talk:Depo Provera#Disadvantages and side effects WP:NOR violations. Thanks!-- Andrew c 03:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I've reorganized the whole page and changed to the assessment work. Any comment is welcome. And please help assessing article, because there are 1000 unassessed at the moment. I asked Betacommand to tag these categories. NCurs e work 08:12, 3 November 2006 (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. |
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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
We would like to activate Wikiproject Anatomy. That's why I'd like to move Anatomical structures' list to Anatomy project. Comments? NCurse work 15:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Catamenial Pneumothorax. Cheers! - CrazyRussian talk/ email 15:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I have plans with this project, I try to coordinate work because this project is not too active now. So:
If anybody has problems with these suggestions, please let me know. NCurse work 19:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
As you may know, Down syndrome is currently undergoing peer review. One of the reviewers wondered why we were not using the format for clinical medicine for the article. While researching that issue, I came here and was somewhat disappointed that there is virtually nothing in the project concerning Medical Genetics. None of the numerical abnormalities is listed (other than the generic trisomy). Neither is genetic counseling, in vitro fertilization, newborn screening, Cri du chat, etc. There are some diseases with genetic origins ( Tourette syndrome, cystic fibrosis, etc.) that are in the "Other diseases" box.
Unless there are objections, I will make a new box entitled "Medical Genetics", move the genetic diseases that are in "Other diseases" there, and fill it with the missing medical genetics articles. Another possibility is that I create the box in the Biology Project under Genetics (with a subsection on Medical Genetics).
I am still struggling with the original issue of whether it is useful to have Down syndrome use the Clinical Medicine template, and if so, how best to do it. If you have any suggestions, post them at Wikipedia:Peer review/Down syndrome/archive1 or Talk:Down syndrome. Ted Talk/ Contributions 19:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Great! I'll put it off, and contribute when you get started with the project. Ted Talk/ Contributions 15:31, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
This afd could do with some expert opinion from the wikiproject wikipedians Bwithh 01:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
I started this project here. Please leave comments, help to create correct guidelines. Thanks. NCurse work 16:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I've proposed a number of new sub-types here. Comments and additional ideas are welcome. (Offers to help with the heavy lifting even moreso!) Alai 09:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
NCurse work 13:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
NEW TOPIC (sorry, i don't know how to do this exactly) Can anyone provide help on psychiatric/psychological topics where there is considerable disagreement and an ongoing wrangle about the meaning of evidence-based treatment? I refer to Attachment Therapy and to Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy. A look at the histories of these topics will show intense disagreement and periodic POV claims when contradiction of certain contributors occurs. Attachment Therapy (use caps for both words) is especially sensitive because associated practices have been connected with child deaths and injuries. Thank you-- we have a mediator who is doing his best, but this requires specialized knowledge. Jean Mercer 15:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Is there any consensus concerning citations to The Lancet, pre-1990? The original volume numbers were non-standard, and Lancet retroactively changed them in 1990. Specifically, which of these should be used (or, should a different format be used)?
{{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)Thanks. Ted Talk/ Contributions 17:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Either:
{{cite journal| date=[[1974-09-21]] | title=Classification and nomenclature of malformation (Discussion)| journal=The Lancet| pages=798| volume=303| issue=7861}}
>"Classification and nomenclature of malformation (Discussion)". The Lancet. 303 (7861): 798.
1974-09-21. {{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
Or
{{cite journal| year=1974 | month=21 September | title=Classification and nomenclature of malformation (Discussion)| journal=The Lancet| pages=798| volume=303| issue=7861}}
>#"Classification and nomenclature of malformation (Discussion)". The Lancet. 303 (7861): 798. 1974. {{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
David Ruben
Talk 21:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
And is there a consensus about putting a wikilink in a reference to the (well known) journal? e.g. this one: Fox IJ, Roy Chowdhury J, Kaufman SS, Goertzen TC, Roy Chowdhury N, Warkentin PI, Dorko K, Sauter BV, Strom SC. Treatment of the Crigler-Najjar syndrome type I with hepatocyte transplantation. N Engl J Med 1998; 338: 1422-1426. PMID 9580649 -- Steven Fruitsmaak | Talk 12:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Medicine-related articles): I've proposed this as a Manual of Style guideline to writing medical articles, please comment on that talk page!-- Steven Fruitsmaak | Talk 12:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Just to inform everyone in this WikiProject, a Barnstar has been proposed in this link right here. Consensus has not been reached, and would really appreciate it if you could give us your opinions.-- Ed 13:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Please be aware that there is a lot of activity on WP with regards to POV-pushing about quackery, pseudoscience, and the like. Wikipedia:WikiProject Pseudoscience is set up to watch over pseudoscience articles in general, but does not function as a clearing-house for disputes; these would be best taken here. Recent controversies include something about the dental amalgam controversy, and some (I believe baseless) accusations that orthomolecular medicine is pseudoscience. Please help keep WP balanced by keeping an eye out on these and other related topics that draw attention from the "fringe" and "out there" crowds. In the case of orthomolecular medicine, we seem to be dealing with an overzelous debunker who seems to be more quacky than the purported quacks he is fighting off. linas 15:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
The article on Orthomolecular medicine is currently embroiled in a very verbose, very contentious edit war. A helping hand from rational clear thinkers is needed. Caution: I am finding that a band of kooks and cranks are now attacking me on my own talk page; so getting involved may be hazardous for your nerves. linas 15:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi everyone, Baldness treatments needs a lot of peer review in its current state. It's near impossible for any lay person such as myself to tell the self-promotional cranks from the real experts and the genuine treatments (especially non-FDA approved one) from the snake oil you'd find in your spam box. One particularly ongoing concern is Pproctor ( talk • contribs) who is Dr. Peter H. Proctor. Proctor is linking to scans of academic papers on his own website (www.drproctor.com) as well summaries of his approved patents in this article. I honestly can't tell if he is indeed an expert editors who can rightfully and impartially cite his own research. Duncharris ( talk • contribs) is engaged in a slow revert war with him right now and some impartial reviewers would be gladly appreciated. -- Netsnipe (Talk) 17:27, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
The article Transfersome concerns an example of medical nanotechnology. It is currently up for deletion, and a rewrite for readability by any editors interested in medical research or nanotechnology would help. Plus comments at the deletion debate would be good as well. Carcharoth 16:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
One editor has claimed on Talk:Mifepristone that the Mifeprex product label found on the FDA site(PDF) is not copyrighted. I asked for further information and didn't get any, so I am coming here to see if anyone knows about the copyright status of these labels. It would make sense that if it was a government job, then the work would be in the public domain like most US government work. However, if Danco labs is the creator of the label, the copyright might be a stickier issue. Text from the label was "plagarized" into the article, and I changed the text to be cited quotations. Anyway, any information will help.-- Andrew c 01:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi everybody! (...)
We at the Work via WikiProjects team for Wikipedia 1.0 would like you to identify the " key articles" from your project that should be included in a small CD release due to their importance, regardless of quality. We will use that information to assess which articles should be nominated for Version 0.5 and later versions. Hopefully it will help you identify which articles are the most important for the project to work on. As well, please add to your Medicine WikiProject article table any articles of high quality. If you are interested in developing a worklist such as this one for your WikiProject, or having a bot generate a worklist automatically for you, please contact us. Please feel free to post your suggestions right here on your projects talk page. Thanks! -- Steven Fruitsmaak ( Reply) 13:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm having a bit of trouble telling if Globus hystericus and Globus Pharyngis are the same condition. The former is an article I created after hearing the term on Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? when I saw it had none and the latter is one I just recently found. I'm not into medicine or anything so if someone could straighten those out that'd be great.-- SeizureDog 20:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I reorganized the main page, because it was confusing. And created a new announcement template: Template:MCOTWannounce. Comments? NCurse work 07:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
What do you think? NCurse work 08:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Thank you all! :) NCurse work 14:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Could somebody take a look at the article Intubation please? I removed the content under the headings "Side effects", "Recovery" and "Controversy", for various reasons (see Talk:Intubation). The original editor has reinstated these (albeit with very slightly altered wording), however I'm still not happy. Before I inadvertently start an edit war, I'd quite like others' opinions to make sure I'm not totally off-base.. -- John24601 19:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Maybe we should consider changing to articles assessment. With a bot (like in medical genetics project), we could have a list of our assessed articles. I create all needed templates and categories if you agree... NCurse work 09:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
At WP:FAR, we are slowly but surely getting through the list of featured articles with no inline citations, and few inline citations ( Wikipedia:Featured articles with citation problems). Contributors here might be able to work on the medical articles before they come under review, since inline citations are now required for FA status.
Hi. If you still have work to do tagging talk pages and assessing articles, my AWB plugin might be of interest to you.
The plugin has two main modes of operation:
As of the current version, WikiProjects with simple "generic" templates are supported by the plugin without the need for any special programatic support by me. I've had a look at your project's template and you seem to qualify.
For more information see:
Hope that helps. If you have any questions or find any bugs please let me know on the plugin's talk page. -- Kingboyk 14:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Psychosis is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy 22:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
I've put this article up for DYK, hoping that it will have the same fate as Robinow syndrome did... I'm inviting everyone to improve this article!-- Steven Fruitsmaak ( Reply) 20:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
We should focus on article assessment. We are part of WikiProjects participating in Wikipedia 1.0 assessments, and we have the Template:WPMED, so I'll start with the first tables of Article rating. Anyone else wants to join? :) NCurse work 21:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Tuberculosis is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy 15:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
In addition to Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Participants, I've noticed that there are at least three other participants lists:
In order to streamline things around here, would it be possible to consolidate these lists into one? The lists could have various columns (similar to the last one in Wikipedia:WikiProject Preclinical Medicine/Participants) to indicate what specific projects participants may or may not be interested in. Thoughts? - AED 22:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
The following are two options I had in mind. Both would give some indication as to what specific projects the various participants are interested in. (I imagine someone else could do a better job formatting the boxes.) Rather than a list of participants on the "Participants" section of the various pages, perhaps there could be an instruction for people to "register" or indicate interest on the main participant page (i.e. Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Participants). - AED 21:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Option 1:
User name | Talk page | Special interests or contributions | Medical qualification | Medicine-related Wikiprojects |
NCurse | Talk | Genetics | Medical student | WP:MCOTW, WP:PCM |
Steven Fruitsmaak | Talk | Anything, preclinical and clinical. | Medical student | WP:MCOTW, WP:CLINMED, WP:PCM |
Your name | Your talk page | Your interest | Your medical qualification (if any) | Your medicine-related Wikiprojects |
Option 2:
User name | Talk page | Special interests or contributions | Medical qualification | WP:MCOTW member | WP:CLINMED member | WP:PCM member |
NCurse | Talk | Genetics | Medical student | Yes | No | Yes |
Steven Fruitsmaak | Talk | Anything, preclinical and clinical. | Medical student | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Your name | Your talk page | Your interest | Your medical qualification (if any) | Are you a member of WP:MCOTW? | Are you a member of WP:CLINMED? | Are you a member of WP:PCM? |
My alternative solution: we create a new list (option 1 above), and leave a message for every editor on these lists whether they want to list themselves or not. NCurse work 15:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Maybe we could talk about it here: #wikipedia-science. I'll be there from now, if you have time. NCurse work 17:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Removing inactives is ok if they have been gone for more than a year or so IMO (call me conservative). Moderators: like who??? Admins is a good idea, maybe a column for specific roles; admin, portal maintainer, MCOTW-coordinator and god-knows-what. I strongly oppose against contacting everyone again about listing them as participants: I add other people as project participants, because either you participate or not, there's no sense in not being listed (and after all this is a wiki). May I remind everyone that we have just contacted a lot of people about listing themselves as participants of WP:MED? I say just merge the lot, weed out long time inactives and put a notice on relevant pages that the lists have been merged. Be bold and don't waste time making countless User_talk-edits.-- Steven Fruitsmaak ( Reply) 14:56, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
To add yourself into the table of participants, copy and paste the following markup. Change the 3 occurances of '???' for your user name and replace optional '<!-- ... -->' fields with details (for the 3 projects respond with 'Yes'): |- | [[User:???|???]] | [[User talk:???|Talk]] | <!-- Interests --> | <!-- Medical quals. --> | <!-- ?MCOTW member --> | <!-- ?CLINMED member--> | <!-- ?PCM member -->
David Ruben Talk 18:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi,
for those interested, NCurse is up for adminship, voice your opinion here.
-- Steven Fruitsmaak ( Reply) 20:41, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm a part of the Psychology WikiProject, and I'm trying to decide whether or not psychiatry-related issues should be included in our project. Even though psychiatry is a medical field, it overlaps quite a bit with the field of psychology. Most psychiatry articles (such as those related to mental illnesses) could easily fall under both categories, but I'm not sure whether or not articles specifically about psychiatry (such as the psychiatry article itself) should also be covered by our project. I would like to see what members of this project think about it. — Cswrye 17:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Invitation to an excellent beginning: Announcing the birth of Wikipedia:WikiProject Ophthalmology!! Its up and running as part of the medicine project! I hereby invite everybody interested in Vision and Eye care to contribute to the long awaited wikiproject on Ophthalmology. Many thanks to AED for getting this project page working and sorting out the details. For a start, we need a shortcut to point to this page. Here's a readymade manual of style for starting Ophthalmology articles. For the past 4 months, I have been working to add articles, relevant info and clinical images to the current sections of Ophthalmology - am currently looking to get some more input and requests, so that we can get cracking - to get some really good articles, raise them to featured status and turn the project Ophthalmology into a resource which is one of the best in whole of Wikipedia! Cheers!!! EyeMD 05:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Rather than:
Sandy 12:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
The Medical genetics project used our article rating system. There, I asked a bot to generate a list for us (assessment project) and now we have an automaticaly updated list, and every unassessed articles are tagged with our templates. I suggest the same here. I make every step required just I need some support votes. :) NCurse work 12:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Please help me fixing that list. Categories that are coordinated by other wikiprojects must be removed. NCurs e work 18:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Ok. Our article rating page is old-fashioned, it is hard to use and maintain. I want this project to join to the assessment teamwork. That's why I asked a bot to tag every article our project works on with the unassessed template (WP:MEDGENP) so we'll know exactly which articles we have to rate. In that list you can see the whole medicine category-tree. We must choose categories and subcategories we want to work on. We can't include other medicine-related wikiprojects' categories. That's why we must choose the ones we need. NCurs e work 14:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
NCurs e work 15:24, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure this is precisely the right place, but if there's anyone up on their psychoactive pharmaceuticals (I can't even say that three times fast), could they possibly have a look at User:Alai/Psychoactives, and confirm (or deny) if these all appropriate to be restubbed from {{ pharma-stub}} to {{ psychoactive-stub}}. All are categorised as hypnotics, sedatives, opioids, stimulants, anxiolytics, antidepressants, antipsychotics, psychoactive drugs, alkyl nitrites, mu-opioid agonists, semisynthetic opioids, psychedelics, dissociatives, deliriants, or mood stabilizers (i.e., immediate subcategories of Category:psychoactive drugs. Alai 05:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to nominate the melanoma article in FAC. What do you think? I've added a new genetics section. It could be improved. I'd like to get some feedback. Thank you in advance. NCurs e work 17:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Dear colleagues!
Would you please be so kind to have a look at this Article. A german Doktor (Dr. Risse) removed nearly the complete article by contributions of his german webside wich is an advertisment for his company. Please regard the links, wich are placed by a german IP [1]. See also the discussion in de:Kieferorthopädie.
Sincerely Yours -- Andreas Werle 17:35, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
I've been involved in a very tedious debate at Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy. It makes claims concerning therapeutic efficacy and evidential basis using a very limited number of credible sources. The vast majority of the references are self-published books, books published in publishing farms, or totally unrelated works. Moreover, members from the APSAC task-force on Attachment Therapy have very recently cast strong doubt on such assertions in Child Maltreatment. http://cmx.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/11/4/381. They even called for a noted proponent of the therapy to remove such claims from his website. The APSAC is a highly credible association as far as I can tell.
Furthermore, claims such as these can be found spread across wikipedia in articles such as Child abuse. This form of therapy has about two peer-reviewed studies to its name (same researcher) and is practiced at about one clinic (associated to the researcher who published the studies). It is the same group of editors that have spread these assertions throughout the psychotherapy related articles.
This is way out of my expertise and I was hoping that someone with more knowledge than I have could address these things. Thanks! shotwell 19:23, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Page now nominated as a FAC. Comments and suggestions are welcome on the review page. Thank you. TimVickers 00:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 00:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
I posed several questions at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Medicine-related articles). Sandy ( Talk) 16:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Please weigh in on this discussion: Wikipedia talk:Scientific citation guidelines. It is currently listed as a "science" "guideline", without review of areas such as Medicine and biology. Sandy ( Talk) 17:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
In right auricular appendix, Grey's anatomy states "It projects from the upper and front part of the sinus forward and toward the left side, overlapping the root of the aorta." What does the term "sinus" refer to here? The coronary sinus, the sinus node, or general the interior of the right atrium? Thanks, AxelBoldt 03:10, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
New stub category for symptoms needs support here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Proposals/2006/October#Cat:Symptom.-- Steven Fruitsmaak ( Reply) 19:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Hello, I've just put my lung transplantation article online. I still need to learn how to properly cite references, and I intend to do that in the future. In the meantime, I would appreciate some expert contributions to it. Another thing: is there some sort of template to be placed on its talk page? It's taken me quite some time to write this article (and the related lung allocation score and ventilation/perfusion scan articles), and I hope that it shows! Thanks for any feedback. -- Kyok o 19:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi. I have no specific competence in medicine but I'm working on the backlog of uncategorized articles and I happened to notice that Category:Diseases is a bit of a mess. I think it would be a very worthwhile task for this project to create a good system of subcategories and clean all of this up. For instance, I wanted to categorize Myelophthisis. Hmmm... So where does this go? The best I could do is the top level category of diseases. If you see a finer cat for this one, please add it of course, but generally speaking I think it would be worthwhile to shoot for a "no disease left-behind" objective: the disease category would simply be the parent of finer categories and any article in it would just be waiting for a finer classification, like Category:Writers, Category:Actors or Category:Lists. Pascal.Tesson 21:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
I've created a new box for the announcements (Collaboration Dashboard). Comments are welcome. NCurs e work 22:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Cross posted to WP:RS, WP:OR and Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine. There is a dispute going on at Talk:Depo Provera#Disadvantages and side effects WP:NOR violations. One user found primary sources, reliable journal articles, that said depo provera may do certain negative things. Another user is disputing this, citing original research. The argument, I guess, is that the 1st user is interpreting the source, and drawing conclusions not published anywhere else. The studies only dealt with rats (not humans), and there is nothing in the patient drug information (or any other way to verify the claims outside of the studies in question). The logic goes that making a connection that a study dealing with rats may effect the use of this drug in humans as a contraception is original research. Furthermore, it may be pushing a POV that this drug is unsafe by mentioning these studies (that are not verified outside of the individual study, and not mentioned in patient drug information). I feel like I am repeating myself, sorry. The counter argument is that a) citing primary sources is a good thing b) the claims are cited and verifiable and reliable, fulfilling almost every wikipedia criteria for inclusion. So I guess there are two issues. Is using the information in this manner original research? And is it giving undue weight to a minority view by citing obscure studies like this? Sorry if I am missing anything or misrepresenting a side. Please direct comments to Talk:Depo Provera#Disadvantages and side effects WP:NOR violations. Thanks!-- Andrew c 03:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I've reorganized the whole page and changed to the assessment work. Any comment is welcome. And please help assessing article, because there are 1000 unassessed at the moment. I asked Betacommand to tag these categories. NCurs e work 08:12, 3 November 2006 (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. |