Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:32, 2 November 2013

• WT:MED

Welcome to the WikiProject Medicine talk page. If you have comments or believe something can be improved, feel free to post. Also feel free to introduce yourself if you plan on becoming an active editor!

We do not provide medical advice; please see a health professional.

• Unsure about something? Make sure to look at our style and source guidelines.
• Please don't shout, remain civil, be respectful to all, and assume good faith.
• Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
• Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~).
• Threads older than 5 days are automatically archived.
• Please see Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Medicine/Newsletter/Mailing_list

Project Page
WPMED Newsletter and signup
Manual of style (medicine)
Identifying reliable sources (medicine)
List of participants
Popular pages
Assessment (Log)

How to help:
Article alerts and resources for editors
Articles for cleanup, deletion, and orphaned
Patrol recent changes and sort stubs
Requested articles

Categories:
Project
Articles by quality and importance

Merges - seeking opinions

I've been going through the merge list, and there have been some difficult mergers that have been proposed (by me or others), and I'd like some opinion as to whether or not they should proceed. Some are difficult because I'm not too sure whether they are the same, and others because I'm not sure if they are unique articles or branches (eg PET/MRI and PET). Would value some extra eyes. Am seeking opinions either way: I have provided some opinions below. LT910001 (talk) 23:37, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Ongoing

Please comment on the talk pages rather than here

• Talusitis and Achilles tendinitis (talk page here: Talk:Achilles tendinitis)
• Aneurysm of heart and Ventricular aneurysm (talk page here: Talk:Ventricular aneurysm)
• Bloating and Abdominal distension (talk page here: Talk:Abdominal distension)
  • Disagree. these relate to different topics. LT910001 (talk) 23:37, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment-- I am not confident to say they are synonyms, but as the articles currently read, they are not clearly distinguishable topics. If indeed they are to remain separate articles, then the content will have to be moved around a bit. E.g. in many places on abdominal distension, bloating is used synonymously to refer to the topic of the article. The definition of each article uses the other too. Appears that bloating is trying to stay focused on intestinal gas causing abdominal distension. I would assume that someone might report bloating as a symptom and there might not necessarily be any abdominal distension. Maybe this is the difference? Abdominal distension is not restricted to enlargement caused by intestinal gas, and includes any cause, e.g. pregnancy. Both articles are also poorly referenced and contain a lot of unsourced content. *Sigh* Lesion (talk) 00:01, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

To me, "bloating" seems to define a psychological sense of distension, whereas "distension" implies a sign that can be found on examination. Would you mind commenting on one or two other items here as well? LT910001 (talk) 11:38, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Agree. That's what I was trying to say above ("someone might report bloating as a symptom and there might not necessarily be any abdominal distension"), but you have said it more clearly. To say bloating=symptom, abdominal distension=sign sounds perfectly reasonable, but we need a source, otherwise might constitute OR. Both articles are poorly sourced currently. Lesion (talk) 12:50, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

• Dyskaryosis and Bethesda system (talk page here: Talk:Bethesda system)
• Chronic venous insufficiency and Chronic venous congestion (Talk page here: Talk:Chronic venous insufficiency)
  • Agree. these are synonymous. LT910001 (talk) 23:37, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
• Infection and Infectious disease (talk here: Talk:Infectious disease)
  • Disagree. these relate to different topics. LT910001 (talk) 23:37, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Disagree-- the lead of both articles is clear that they are indeed separate topics. Lesion (talk) 12:50, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
• Merging Wernicke's encephalopathy and Korsakoff's psychosis to Wernicke-Korsakoff syndrome (talk here: Talk:Wernicke–Korsakoff syndrome)
  • Agree. these are part of the same spectrum of diseases and information is significantly duplicated. LT910001 (talk) 23:37, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
• PET/MRI, PET-CT and Positron emission tomography (talk here: Talk:Positron emission tomography)
  • Disagree -- They're three different imaging systems and enough can be said about each to justify an article. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:19, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. Any chance you could comment on one or two of the other proposed merges as well? I'd like at least one or two more opinions before I act on some of these merges. LT910001 (talk) 11:38, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Resolved

• Muscle weakness and weakness (talk here: Talk:Weakness)
  • Disagree--according to the definition in the weakness article, the topic of muscular weakness is one possible meaning of weakness, but there are others such as fatigue, malaise, etc. Lesion (talk) 00:01, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Have removed the tags. LT910001 (talk) 00:05, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Depending on consensus I will either remove the tags or perform a merge. LT910001 (talk) 23:37, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Might want to take a look at Active metabolite & Active metabolites(prodrug). Seppi333 (talk) 06:40, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, good point. I've proposed a merge (talk here: Talk:Prodrug#Proposed_merge). LT910001 (talk) 11:38, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure that active metabolite and prodrug should be merged (I left a comment there), but for now I have retargeted the redirect Active metabolites to active metabolite rather than prodrug. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:38, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Bump, need clear consensus for these merges... Lesion (talk) 10:01, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Still looking for input? Are there particular merges you're still puzzling over? Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 20:16, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes please! If you could comment on any of the un-resolved issues that would be wonderful. In particular the aneurysm of heart and chronic venous congestion topics. LT910001 (talk) 00:09, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I found a cure for the common cold...

... in Misplaced Pages:Articles for Creation, at Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Zinc lozenges and the common cold, and wondered if this is concerning. The author of the AfC submission seems to share a name with the author of some of the cited sources. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 11:34, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

What a hook! LT910001 (talk) 11:56, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes and he added a comment to a journal article and than attempted to use that comment to refute the review article in question. I am not impressed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:52, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

The tragic thing here is that the author of our article here had built it predominantly around his own paper, but has put a chronology online of that paper's systematic rejection by quality journals before it ended up in a pay-to-publish marginal one. This was intended, I think, to show that mainstream journals were biased against his findings; but in Misplaced Pages terms they have the opposite effect in categorizing the paper as less-than-ideally RS. Suffice it to say, there was a lot of undue weighting here which I have attempted to address in a moderate re-write of our text. Alexbrn 19:39, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Tea tree oil

I have been editing this article recently, and there are some differences of opinion on how/whether certain information about safety and clinical effectiveness should be mentioned; more eyes would be helpful. (Also posted to WP:FT/N some days ago, but the topics at hand are now more pertinent to this project). Alexbrn 14:39, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I made a recent revert. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 17:00, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Blausen Medical donation

Over at DVT there was recently that edit. I suspect there is an issue with the external link added in the caption, but thanks for the image, User:BruceBlaus. We need more medical images. See WP:MEDPIC and m:Grants:IdeaLab/Medi-Graphics, please. Also a ping to User:Ocaasi. Best. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 09:58, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I left a note in the "External link" section on the user's page, though there might be more promotional links out there to blausen.com. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 15:56, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

For reference, you can find all of the external links to a given website by using Special:LinkSearch; for all the blausen links, see . It looks like the aptly-named Deli nk is removing them as we speak. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:40, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I have finished removing all the inappropriate external links attached to the image captions. They were promotional in nature, in my opinion. Deli nk (talk) 16:47, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Ten and Deli nk. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 16:58, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Although a link is not appropriate and they should be removed, the Blausen Medical collection should be highlighted somehow. This seems like the kind of thing that User:Ocaasi would put in both the health and library newsletters. Lots of users who make large media donations need their collections processed and presented in some nice way. What would be an appropriate response for acknowledging donations like this? Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:10, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

An external link in the caption is inappropriate but can we wikilink to Blausen in the caption?

Colin, might one or more of these make the cut for Misplaced Pages:Featured pictures or Misplaced Pages:Picture of the day? Would a thank you letter from Sue Gardner be appropriate? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 19:31, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps we could link that, but unfortunately the Blausen Medical article needs a cleanup first, in my opinion. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 08:37, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I almost never review diagrams at FP, as I'm mainly interested in photographs. But good quality diagrams can be FPs. They tend to attract/need reviewers knowledgeable about the subject who can appreciate/criticise the qualities and perhaps compare to the literature. There are also reviewers who know what to look for in a good diagram (e.g. font legibility). The SVG format is encouraged as it scales so well, but for some images, PNG is fine. You could post a message on the FP talk page on Misplaced Pages and/or Commons and see what other people think. Alternatively, look at the FP criteria yourself and pick one you think may be a winner. For WP, the image has to be in an article, but on Commons this isn't required. Colin° 22:36, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll take a look tonight. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 10:00, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

• aortic stenosis
• eye anatomy
• cochlear implant
• synapse types

• The collection uploaded by this user and currently uncurated at commons:Special:ListFiles/BruceBlaus constitutes one of the most significant media donations made to health articles on Misplaced Pages. These illustrations are excellent. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:01, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
  • I sense at least one barnstar is coming, if one hasn't arrived already. ;-) Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 21:26, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Why should we link to Blausen in the caption? This is specifically something we do not do. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:48, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree that linking to contributors in the caption is something that we do not do. An exception in which this is done for unusually desired content is at Misplaced Pages:GLAM/smarthistory, and even though I really appreciate the linking to that content I also wish that it could be replaced with an unbranded alternative. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:19, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

We link to the artist in historical articles and when the illustration is by a dead artist (example). I see no problem with linking to the artist in this case either. Why would we do it? To inform the reader, and acknowledge the artist. Can anyone tell me what harm it would do? "We don't do that" is no reason at all. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:56, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

That's quite a good point Anthony, by pointing out that "We don't do that" is no reason at all. I think the "no" impulse comes from a place of reason (the no watermark preference). However, any wikilink should inform the reader about the subject of the article. So I would actually argue against linking in the ectopic pregnancy example. But, because I think we should acknowledge the artist, the best solution currently in my mind, is to have a subtle greyed out Blausen Medical at the end of the caption text that does not link to Blausen. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 11:48, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

We do not give attribution within the articles for authors of the text, why would we give attribution within the articles for those who have taken the pictures or created the pictures? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:04, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree that many of the images are really good. We have had many other large donations of images including from ECGepedia, ECHOpedia, and Radiopaedia and have not attributed them. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:16, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm still not seeing any reason why we shouldn't cite the creator of an image in its caption and link to their article if they have one - as we do frequently throughout this encyclopedia. Is there a policy-based reason for opposing this? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:56, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Because photo credits and similar in-caption publicity for image creators is WP:UNDUE in most cases. In the case of a historically important image, the name of the artwork or the artist is often useful and relevant information: readers will recognize the names of certain of very famous artists, and some may want to learn more about the style of artwork or the history of the specific image. For example, there has been a famous painting in the lead of Suicide off and on, and people looking at that image might like to read more about it (e.g., to find out if it's really a picture of a suicide). In those cases, we provide information about the image and links out to the relevant content.

In all other cases, we don't provide any in-article information about the image at all. Modern graphical images are part of the "all other cases" category. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:04, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Awesome explanation, as usual What. Thanks. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 18:22, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

CCSVI...again

There is an active dispute at Chronic cerebrospinal venous insufficiency (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) regarding what to include from – or whether to mention – a recent imaging study in The Lancet on CCSVI: . The article was accompanied in The Lancet by a third-party comment discussing some of the context, past work in the area, and implications of the study: . More eyes would be very much welcome on the talk page: Talk:Chronic cerebrospinal venous insufficiency#Lancet trial. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:29, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Have weighted in. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:55, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the absence of a very well known info on SEXUAL DESIRE on wikipedia

This question is related to sexual desire of males. In the article SEXUAL DESIRE i could not find a very well known fact. It is generally seen that in sexually active active males, the time gap between the ejaculations affects their sexual desire. For example, if a man masturbates or ejaculates regularly(say once a day or once every two days or twice a day) and suddenly stops it, his sexual desire(or what we call libido) increases..It is also observed that the orgasm after a period of abstinence are also intense and getting and erection in a short term abstinence period is quicker..Why does this happen..? And why does wikipedia not mention i under the factors affecting sexual desire ..? I know that males are made to release their sperms once in a while. But why could i not find a reason or mention of it on wikipedia...many thanksEd beerman (talk) 05:52, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Most Misplaced Pages articles are incomplete and are a work in progress. There is a Wikiproject Sexology and sexuality, where maybe editors with specific interest in improving this article with you might be recruited: WT:SEX. Not to say that someone here might respond to your query, I am just trying to be helpful. Lesion (talk) 09:06, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Request for mentor for new user

We have a new user who's created the article Zinc and the common cold. This user is a new user and I feel they would benefit from a warm-hearted mentor willing to explain about this project, our goals, and some of our standards (eg use of reliable sources). That user is User:Hhemila. LT910001 (talk) 08:59, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Maybe that's a section we should have on the WP:MED page. Who is willing to be a mentor? I'm willing. We do have a Misplaced Pages-wide mentorship program, though I've never participated it in. See Misplaced Pages:Adopt-a-user/Adoptee's Area/Adopters. Maybe we should seek to have some people named explicitly on the project page and listed at that Adoptee's area page. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 13:12, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm now reminded of outreach:Talk:Welcome to Misplaced Pages (Bookshelf)/2013 edition/draft, where I mention how bad the "community portal" is.... Hmmm... Adoptees should feature prominently (in the pictures at the top) wherever we have a portal, I would imagine. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 13:17, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

What happened to that special med user introduction proposed a while ago, Biosthmors? LT910001 (talk) 22:08, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

You mean Template:MedWelcome Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:45, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Doc James, what do you mean? And LT, that should go on the WP:MED page, but it hasn't gotten there, nor have I started doing it myself, if that's what you're getting at. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 15:00, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Collaboration with students, editor retention, shared goals, etc.

Because we want to do/are doing outreach to medical students/nursing students, etc., I think we should do a favor for them. That way they will be more willing to continue working with us, in my opinion. At least that's how I view it. I notice WP:MED has 0 featured lists. I think we should make the goal of having list of medical mnemonics become our first a featured list. That way we'll have 5 goals, and I think we should stop there. Right now we have 4, so I think there is room for one more. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 13:07, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Would this be suitable as a collaboration of the month? Lesion (talk) 13:40, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

If people want to work on it, then that's great. For myself, I can't say I'd do any more than do outreach to medical students about it though. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 13:47, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

And then answer any questions those newbies had about editing the page, which might involve me making direct edits to tidy things up. =) Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 13:49, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Ocaasi, aren't you familiar with reddit? Maybe we could do some other internet outreach about this page. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 13:49, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

• Timeline of tuberous sclerosis
• List of polio survivors

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Awesome. They weren't showing at WP:MED#How_to_help. No I just can't read. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 13:51, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

In fact, there are 10: Category:FL-Class medicine articles (reflecting a good deal of work by User:Colin). More importantly, does anyone have a single example of a student editor who has helped content and has stayed around to continue helping? (Since both Colin and I are consumed lately with correcting student edits?) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:55, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I hear there's this Nephron guy who started as a medical student... and NCurse, and Eleassar, and Diberri, and a bunch of others, actually. Not everyone lists themselves in Category:Wikipedian medical students or displays {{User medical student}}. WhatamIdoing (talk) 10:04, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

No, WhatamIdoing, those are all volunteer editors who happen to be students, not "student editors", and they don't make "student edits". The difference is absolutely huge and I'm disappointed you are confusing them in order to make some kind of point in response to Sandy. Colin° 11:05, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Causes of autism is generating the most trouble now, I gather? I'll take a look later today. But to answer your question, I've seen two, if I remember correctly, but I've personally observed a trend where the more positive interaction they get with a Wikipedian, the more likely they are to make edits after the class ends. I'll one up you, though. ;-) The professor I helped the most, and had the most interaction about Misplaced Pages with, makes an edit here and there on occasion. I'd say that being able to get the professor to vouch for student edits is superior than just having a student stick around. =) Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 14:01, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

No, that course is only one of many that are hitting my watchlist now ... for example, we also have potential meatpuppetry at echolalia, which is most likely unidentified student editing, although I can't get a single editor there to respond to talk. I'm still looking for a single case where results amount to a fraction of effort expended. Yes, the course discussed at User talk:Sanetti is going to hit multiple medical Featured articles with text that is likely to be UNDUE based on the course focus; who gets to help? Also, Colin knows featured lists better than I do, but I doubt that the comprehensive criterion could be met for list of medical mnemonics. Meaning, I think we could find far more useful ways to do something about editor retention, student editors, and the effect the latter is having on the former. (For example, beefing up a guideline to deal with these messes.) But WMF employees will fight and put up faulty analyses of the benefits of student editing every step of the way, so ... soldier on, unpaid troops !!! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:09, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh I only did three of the ten medical featured lists and that was a long time ago. And I haven't reviewed at FL for years. But actually now you mention it, doing a list might be quite a good thing for a newbie or students. Lots of editors at WP cut their teeth on featured lists before progressing to full articles. You are much less likely to end up with an essay, or something controversial, or repeat work done elsewhere. I'm not sure about the medical mnemonics -- unlikely to be of interest to anyone other than medical students. Colin° 14:23, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, because this reminded me, and it was before Biosthmor's time: I remember good student work going into Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Osteochondritis dissecans and Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Phagocyte, but those two editors had 1:1 wiki mentors who were very experienced with FAs. These students were from a high school biology class, and a project which ran in 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011. The classes primarily edited natural science articles; only 8 articles were WP:MED related. Out of a total of approximately 50 students, a few were arguably retained for a short period, but none is still editing except the teacher. Maralia (talk) 14:47, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Phagocyte had GrahamColm and Colin on board, and you may have noted that I did not promote Osteochondritis dissecans. Just sayin', because I don't see an example of good student editing yet. To further clarify: I cannot speak to the other content review processes, but at WP:FAC, every student-edited nomination I saw, promoted, or didn't promote concerned me to the extent that the work had to be pulled up to standard (and sometimes not) by established and knowledgeable FA writers, to such an extreme that I worried about the overall drain on the process and wondered if our scarce resources were being well used. Not only that, but in some cases so many of our FA writers and FAC reviewers were involved in some projects that they became cheerleaders for the article, critical review slid, and I had to wait for independent reviewers to point out issues that were abundantly apparent. It would be possibly worth the effort if any of the new or student editors stayed around to return the favor, but as far as I know, they do not and have not. So, we put a drain on our scarce resources, where FA writers who could be doing many other needed tasks end up doing a prof's work for little return, and training students who most typically move on after they've done the obligatory work to get their grade. The students are not invested in Misplaced Pages: they are here for a grade. When we can barely keep articles clean, how do we have time to be doing TA work? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:45, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I understand your concerns. I hope we do things right at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Medicine/UCSF Elective 2013, and in such a cautious way that we don't eventually overburden WP:MED if we're successful. Is anyone interested in pairing up with students for that class, if pairing occurs? Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 15:53, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

And I'm not sure what your critera are, but I would imagine at least one associated with the classes mentioned at Misplaced Pages:Student_assignments#Examples_of_best_practices has left behind a quality contribution. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 16:09, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the list would probably not meet the comprehensive criteria, and would most likely be an absolute monster without some tricky formatting such as the Abbr template (or other fancy formatting). I think welcoming new editors is probably more effective than engaging classes in retaining users, but on the other hand there a lot of articles that need attention and classes may be able to provide that. That said, I would hope that contentious articles or high-class articles are not the focus of such editing. LT910001 (talk) 22:28, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

MEDDATE wording

I have concern about how a sentence in MEDDATE may be giving the wrong impression from the rest of the guideline on WP:MEDRS. Discussion here WT:MEDRS#Suggested reword to MEDDATE section.

Also, is the archiving bot still not working? Did this occur because of the cosmetic changes to the templates recently or is it a wider issue? Lesion (talk) 13:36, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I think it may be due to a wider issue, I mentioned this in somewhere in a thread on Archive 39, the bot was down then and may still be. I've archived threads > 5 days old. Also, have posted on the talk page, your wording is much more readable. LT910001 (talk) 22:13, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Leaky gut

I have just done a major re-write of this article. It seems to me one of those cases where a fringe altmed topic is piggy-backing onto something more legitimate: that while "leaky gut" is a real phenomenon, the world-view in which it causes most things (e.g. autism, diabetes, etc.), and in which those can be "treated" with diets and supplements, is full-blown quackery. We were wondering in Talk how to deal with this. In particular I am wondering whether the legitimate "leaky gut" bits can be moved into legitimate articles, leaving this as a clearly-categorizable article on "leaky gut syndrome". Any gut experts in the house? Alexbrn 14:58, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

No gut expert, but I am surprised to hear you say that this is "piggy-backing on something more legitimate"... was not aware this topic was considered legitimate at all... I feel a good example of what you describe would be "small intestinal bacterial overgrowth"; for which there is a legitimate scientific literature, and also a larger topic of commercially-motivated, CAM industry claims. I could draw a venn diagram of this. Lesion (talk) 15:15, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your efforts btw. Watchlisted in case anyone shows up and tries to revert back to how it was before. Lesion (talk) 15:19, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

IMO, should probably be redirected to protein losing enteropathy, with merger of any appropriately sourced content. MastCell  15:25, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

As Alexbrn said, this is a real thing which has been hyped up in popular culture. The scientific name is typically intestinal permeability which redirects to leaky gut. There's actually a pretty substantial body of high-profile literature around intestinal permeability, and it's not clear that it's directly related to losing protein. Although you wouldn't guess it from QW's perfunctory note about its faddishness, the research dates back to at least the late 1970s (probably earlier) with Menzies et al 1979 (which was about sugars, not protein), and numerous reviews including the highly-cited Gastroenterology review by Bjarnason et al 1995. It's a fairly common and problematic thing in intestinal disorders. I was able to find a fully copy of a review PMID 11907349 (2002) online, but given the aggressive interpretations of WP:MEDDATE these days I won't bother citing it. A better choice if someone has access is Intestinal Permeability Defects: Is It Time to Treat? (2013). With regard to the autism connection, the 24 gastroenterology experts who wrote the 2013 review Non-Celiac Gluten Sensitivity: The New Frontier of Gluten Related Disorders don't say it is quackery (although they do say "only a small, selected sub-group of children affected by ASD may benefit from an elimination diet"), but perhaps they're just part of the growing woo conspiracy. A suspected connection to autism is not new; see for example D'Eufemia 1998. II | (t - c) 02:19, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for those useful pointers to modern sources; I have incorporated them into the article. I suppose the money quote from the Gluten piece is: "The leaky gut/autism connection has fuelled a strong debate within the scientific community, far from being settled" - which is a bit more "open" that our NHS and skeptic sources; however the piece looks respectable enough. I don't suppose performing studies in the autism/leaky gut area is quackery; but delivering a "diagnosis" would be, and doing business off it it would be health fraud. Alexbrn 06:00, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

A modified tool (perhaps STiki) to help us keep track of articles?

Hello all. This is just a note that long ago User:West.andrew.g expressed some level of interest in adapting Misplaced Pages:STiki to have the capability to focus on WikiProject Medicine articles. If we could find an efficient way to "team up" to watch all WP:MED articles (and triage them, though I'm unfamliar with STiki), then it could be a boon to the project. I'm not sure if Andrew would be interested, or if there is a current vocal interest in the project, but I just wanted to let people know this was a possibility. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 15:09, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I used to go through a lot of edits. But than the list of changes stopped working. Would be interested again. This tool might help. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:20, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

If we had a nice software feature like this, especially one that encouraged teamwork, it would be much more exciting to work with and to pitch to newbies as well. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 10:40, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

NCBI traffic data

If you have ideas or suggestions as to which data NCBI should make available about traffic they get from Wikimedia servers, please list them here. Thanks! -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 21:21, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

LASIK again

More unfolds in the LASIK story: . Turns out concerns about undue weight were more than justified since paid editing has been going on to generate anti-LASIK content, not to mention the meat puppet recruitment in an attempt to save the non-notable article Dean Andrew Kantis from deletion. LASIK definitely needs attention, perhaps someone would be interested in helping with this big project? (@Alexbrn: ?)

I have also AfD'd Morris Waxler here . Comments appreciated. Lesion (talk) 09:15, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Please check these unexplained changes to Endocrine gland

An IP's several edits remove a file and change HYPER to HYPO and vice versa. Needs checking, thanks. This series of edits. --Hordaland (talk) 19:38, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Some loon. Reverted. JFW | T@lk 17:17, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Jfdwolff. That's what I figured.  :) --Hordaland (talk) 23:15, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Is this theory too fresh?

. The April 2013 source article doesn't appear in a PubMed search and there don't seem to have been any responses in the publishing journal or anywhere else yet. 175.38.144.134 (talk) 10:02, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

The term medical emergency

If I remember correctly, the DVT article said it was a medical emergency before I rewrote it. I didn't see an equivalent of that term being used in any MEDRS I used, so I didn't include it in the article. Now I see that the hemolytic-uremic syndrome article also uses the term medical emergency. And maybe that's OK or maybe it should be rewritten. I'm not sure. But I think it's a very important phrase to keep an eye on, given that, if people take the term seriously, it might encourage them to go to an ER. Thus, it could have been inserted in some articles just to drive economic behavior, perhaps? It's something to think about, in my opinion. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 10:19, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Medical emergency = threat to life (according to our article anyway). DVT complications could be a threat to life...pulmonary embolism etc. Ideally a source to say this for us. Lesion (talk) 10:27, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Our article needs some work. =) Driving a car is a threat to life, so things can get muddied. Does anyone agree on when an article should definitely use the term, because that's what MEDRS do? Or do MEDRS generally not use the term? Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 10:41, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

One thing to remember would be that a fair proportion of the readers would come from countries where driving 'economic behaviour' may not be a consideration of editors (eg publically-funded healthcare systems or articles written by well-meaning editors). As Lesion says above, such edits should be well-sourced. I feel this term may occur more in textbooks or clinical sources rather than journal-based literature, but I think it's quite a reasonable term to include if backed up by literature. LT910001 (talk) 10:51, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

OK, medical emergency = a medical condition which is a threat to life, which hopefully would exclude driving a car since this is not a medical condition (although the DSM-5 would probably manage to disagree somehow...). I personally have no objection to using the term medical emergency for DVT, not sure how others feel. The article already states "Untreated lower extremity DVT has a 3% mortality". You are right that many textbook-type sources come up in google books search "DVT medical emergency" Lesion (talk) 12:11, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Personally I'd rather us just state the mortality statistics as that's factual. I'm not sure if there is any universally accepted definition for the economically-loaded term medical emergency. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 12:36, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Again, let's take a second to slow down and actually think about it. Let's reason together. In your definition the biggest word that needs clarification is the word threat. How big of a threat? In what conditions? Benign paroxysmal positional vertigo could be a medical condition which would threaten life if one were walking down stairs, no? Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 12:29, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Point well taken. Currently on medical emergency, we have: "A medical emergency is an injury or illness that is acute and poses an immediate risk to a person's life or long term health." The "acute" qualifier would rule out your example above. Perhaps that condition might be better termed a minor risk factor for a medical emergency to occur, say if serious life-threatening injury resulted from the fall. But, since our definition was unreferenced I had a quick search on google books and found this which I feel is good: "A situation which patient requires urgent medical attention to prevent loss of life and limb" ... although I think most would call an eyesight-threatening condition a medical emergency too. Here is another source which supports a "life and limb" definition.. Or, possibly a medicolegal POV . Lesion (talk) 18:46, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

1. editor in chef, PK Dave (2001). Emergency medical services and disaster management : a holistic approach. New Delhi: Jaypee. p. 138. ISBN 978-8171798889. {{cite book}}: |last= has generic name (help)

@Doc James: If he's around might have good insight. Lesion (talk) 18:50, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

We need to distinguish between a "medical emergency" and an "urgency"/"acute problem". Emergencies pose a persistent moment-to-moment risk to someone's life (e.g. STEMI), while suspected DVT is a good example of an urgency because it can evolve into potentially lethal pulmonary embolism. This terminology is also used in severe hypertension with and without evidence of organ damage. JFW | T@lk 20:51, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Jfd's definition sounds good. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:53, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I ran across a definition a few years back that said an "emergent" problem needed medical attention within one hour (or less), and an "urgent" problem needed medical attention sometime the same day (up to 24 hours). WhatamIdoing (talk) 12:20, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

MEDRS acceptable source?

by Phyllis A. Balch, to support "pain felt behind the eyes" as a symptom of temporomandibular joint dysfunction. I question this because this symptom sounds more like a feature of migraine or tension headache than TMD... Lesion (talk) 11:38, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Submissions at WP:AfC

Anyone able to review these, or at least provide the reviewers with some guidance. Thanks for any pointers you can give.

You can put comments on the pages using {{afc comment|Blah blah ~~~~}} underneath the header, or I will come back here.

Rankersbo (talk) 13:03, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for creation/autoimmune autonomic ganglionopathy

Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Parents’ Index of Quality of Life in Atopic Dermatitis

Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Quality of Life Index for Atopic Dermatitis

Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Early Mortality Syndrom / Acute Hepatopancreatic Necrosis Syndrome

Acute Hepatopancreatic Necrosis Syndrome is a disease of shrimp. I'd ask the veterinarians or marine biologists. JFW | T@lk 20:53, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Rankersbo (talk) 10:57, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Pediatric Trials Network

You can also review the articles yourselves by being bold . A weekly AfC perusal would be nice. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 15:32, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

As a general comment the AfC system is one of the most confusing and labyrinthine systems that has arisen on Misplaced Pages. It takes about two days and maybe five reviews to get to grips with good article nominations, yet it's been a month and I still can't make head or tail of how to accept or reject an article on AfC. No wonder there's such a backlog! LT910001 (talk) 00:21, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

These articles do appear to be reasonably cited, however I doubt they will ever progress beyond stubs. How about creating these as redirects to a list such as List of patient-reported quality of life surveys? That would preserve some of the content but also ensure there's not a whole farm of such articles individually created. I would be happy to assist in such a process if help is needed. LT910001 (talk) 00:28, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Coley

Hi all,
We have two separate articles on William Coley and Coley's toxins. They overlap each other (Coley only seems to be notable for his work with the "toxins"). Perhaps it would be a good idea to merge them? However, I'm concerned that the articles don't entirely reflect what reliable sources say on the topic, so it's not a simple merge... any suggestions? bobrayner (talk) 18:52, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Brassiere

An article recently appeared on Wikipediocracy about our article complaining about - among other things - its medical references. On reviewing the article it seems it did (it was true) have some problems in this respect - and I have edited it to align more closely with WP:MEDRS. There is some disagreement emerging on the Talk page about this, and so wise eyes would be helpful to inform the discussion ... Alexbrn 19:26, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I saw this note and thought, "Oh dear, it's the bras-cause-cancer people again. But it's not; this is about whether wearing a (properly fitted) bra causes pain. If anyone is aware of any good sources on this subject, I'm sure they'd be appreciated. Otherwise, the article seems to have improved quite a bit recently. WhatamIdoing (talk) 12:28, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

template:User WPMED

This is a discussion to change the appearance of the above template (if anyone cares). Lesion (talk) 23:13, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Still looking for consensus. Old one is on the left, new one on the right. Lesion (talk) 17:20, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

This user participates in WikiProject Medicine.

This user is a member of WikiProject Medicine.

Eyes on plastic surgery articles

Please look at Trans-umbilical breast augmentation, Abdominoplasty, and Buttock augmentation. There is a user that is promoting two plastic surgeons quite flamboyantly, clearly violating WP:Promotion and WP:Medrs. I'm frustrated with how often this sort of thing happens in plastic surgery related articles, to the point where I barely feel motivated to resist anymore. I think assuming good faith sets the bar too high in this subject area which seems to be plagued with coi.--Taylornate (talk) 23:22, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I share Taylornate's concerns. The sources in question are nowhere near compliance with MEDRS. Eyes needed. --Andreas JN466 04:01, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

This is an obvious case of paid editing. He is working for the plastic surgeons in question. See the practice's page on LinkedIn or this screen shot of the same page . On his user page, he even states that he specializes in brand management. He should not be making any edits related to this surgical practice or any other topic where he is abusing a conflict of interest.--Taylornate (talk) 18:05, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

If this kind of thing gets out of control, we could also consider whether WP:BLACKLISTing the "sources" (my-vanities.com?) would be helpful. That said, if this guy really is a significant inventor of this procedure, we should be able to mention him—just without all the stuff about him being on TV and getting awards in school. WhatamIdoing (talk) 12:32, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Ref style

With respect to my understanding it is the primary contributors to content who determine what ref style is used. We at WikiProject Med seem to used the style created by the diberri tool (the cite templates with the full ref).

Lately we have had a number of editors (who do not add much content themselves) changing the citation styles.

One is User:564dude who is shortening the refs to just the DOI in many edits . I do not care one way or another about the changes by User:Anrnusna.

All these changes are annoying as they light up ones watch list and add little. Additionally there is no consensus for making them. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:11, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Agree. Removing author sources is quite irritating, because it means any changes have to be constantly compared to a live version of the article, as poor sources can hind behind such DOIs when editing. Additionally it is possible for a user to accidentally alter the DOI and make the citation completely untrackable unless history is searched. This adds needless pain to the editing process. Other than that, I have no views about citation. LT910001 (talk) 03:15, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes that is the main bit. We need to fill in the DOI's and PMID's to keep things more stable. I am not set on an exact order. It is simply that WP:GA requires consistent ref formatting and thus I use the same style across the articles I bring to GA. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:32, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

You are looking for WP:CITEVAR, and I agree that it is very irritating to have the self-sufficient full citation (Virtanen, KA; Lidell, ME; Orava, J; Heglind, M; Westergren, R; Niemi, T; Taittonen, M; Laine, J; Savisto, NJ (2009). "Functional brown adipose tissue in healthy adults". The New England Journal of Medicine. 360 (15): 1518–25. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa0808949. PMID 19357407. reduced to a mere {{cite doi}} with only the number. If editors at the article find the full code to be disruptive, then they could consider moving to WP:List-defined references, which keeps the full citation in the article but moves it out of the way.

And, once again, for the record, WP:GA does not require consistent ref formatting. See WP:GACN. WhatamIdoing (talk) 12:36, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's right. I'll also emphasize that to Doc James. ;-) Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 16:27, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I keep forgetting to ask ... is Diberri totally dead? Do we have an alternative? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:47, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

As a followup to this discussion, I am trying to get Diberri's template filling tool running on Wikilabs. It works fine when run internally on the server, but generates an internal error when accessed via an external web browser. I have requested help, but no one is responding over there. The fix is probably something trivial, but without the help of a Wikilabs perl guru, the solution is difficult to track down. I will continue to try to fix this myself, but if anyone has a suggestion on how to get this running or how to wake up the Wikilabs administrators, I would be very grateful. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 18:29, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

It now works! At least "PubMed ID" and "PubMed Central ID" searches now work, there are problems with url and isbn and the rest). The link is here: citation-template-filling. I will try to get the rest of the template filling tool to work properly over the next few days. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 15:34, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Yay! Congratulations! Thanks! WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:05, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/The Cambridge Pulmonary Hypertension Outcome Review (CAMPHOR)

This seems to be the week for medical submissions at Afc! Can anyone help with this one? —Anne Delong (talk) 04:42, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

and here's another one:

• Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/The Patient Reported Outcome Indices for Multiple Sclerosis (PRIMUS) —Anne Delong (talk) 04:48, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

They're from the same author (several others too) and might not meet notability criteria. JFW | T@lk 13:14, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes here's another:

Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Psoriatic Arthritis Quality of Life measure (PsAQoL)

What should be done with these? —Anne Delong (talk) 23:43, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, see my above comment. Suggest move to a list. How to go about this? LT910001 (talk) 00:30, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

New MD

We have a fairly new MD to Misplaced Pages here User:Youtalkfunny. They have been working on some though subjects. May need a little guidance regarding referencing and writing style though. Extend them our welcome. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:47, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Welcome User:Youtalkfunny! I'll cite myself and say take a look at deep vein thrombosis, which I'm proud of. Too bad I haven't gotten around to rewriting pulmonary embolism as well. If you have any questions you can always ask at this page or at the WP:Teahouse. Best regards. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 09:11, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Best to ask medicine related question here than at the teahouse. Not many medicine focused editors hang out at the teahouse and thus often your questions will get more appropriate answers here. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:15, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

+1 Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 11:29, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Welcome Youtalkfunny. What nickname do you prefer: dysarthria or dysphasia? JFW | T@lk 13:06, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Cochrane editorial about WPMED

This was recently published in the Cochrane library. Not sure if people have seen it.. I am hoping that a mailing list is set up were people can sign up to receive every weeks new Cochrane reviews. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:20, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Motor Neglect

Dear medical experts: This article has references, but they are not on line. Perhaps someone here will know if they are good ones. If the article is passed, it will need some cleanup of English by someone who understands the subject. —Anne Delong (talk) 16:32, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Hemispatial neglect already exists. LT910001 (talk) 20:21, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Opinion needed

I have just finished a major cleanup on a new article about an artificial urinary sphincter. This article appears to relate to one single manufacturer's version of this device, instead of any other devices that might fall into this category (if, indeed, there are any other such devices). The present device has just been written up in BJU International (an international edition of the British Journal of Urology, I suppose). As of Sep 2012 (the date of publication), the device was still in trial phase, with only 36 test subjects so far. Is there a standard by which such experimental devices/techniques are judged notable according to this project's guidelines? Please weigh in at Talk:Artificial urinary sphincter. Thanks!! WikiDan61_ReadMe!! 18:28, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Datamining clinical imagery

An interesting item just out in Nature Med explores the idea of datamining vast stores of clinical imagery, anonymized for privacy reasons. This seems like a prospect WPMED editors might wish to explore. Can this be done in an open data way that would be useful here? Should we be engaging with such work? If interested, where should we discuss it? LeadSongDog come howl! 21:19, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

We should definitely be involved. Clinical images are exceedingly important and hard to get. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:19, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

_{Don't try to host them on Wikimedia Commons though. Axl ¤ 09:40, 30 October 2013 (UTC)}

Please feel free to put gained wisdom at WP:MEDPIC, all. Thanks for the heads up, LeadSongDog. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 11:36, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Merge Infection to Infectious disease?

Opinions, please, at Talk:Infectious disease. Both are Top-importance.LeadSongDog come howl! 21:56, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I would merge infectious disease to infection per commons usage and that some infections may not yet be causing disease. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:17, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

PubMed Commons

PubMed has began allowing people to comment on the articles hosted there. This may be useful method for us to engage with authors of papers. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:20, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Almost no one is allowed to post comments there. To get permission, you need to either have been published there or to have received a grant from them or partners. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:22, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

There may be interest to allow those of us here to comment. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:29, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Requested move of "Carcinoma of the penis" to "Penile cancer"

Hi folks, at Talk:Carcinoma_of_the_penis#Requested_move there's a requested move to rename the article to "Penile cancer". I took a quick look at the usual resources and couldn't come up with a clear direction, asking for input from here. Thanks... Zad68 19:22, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to move it as the latter term is simplier. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:35, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:Flow

WP:Flow is a software project designed to improve Misplaced Pages communication by the Wikimedia Foundation, and per User_talk:Maryana_(WMF)#Wikiprojects_interested_in_assisting_with_Flow.27s_first_release, we could participate, if we wanted. This could come with some aggravation and weird disruptions to our talk page, but we might also really help the software develop by spotting bugs and maybe we could suggest new features that will really help lots of Misplaced Pages/Wikimedia communication improve. I like what the WMF did with the recent notifications features, as you can see from my signature, so I'm leaning towards supporting this idea, but I'd still like to know more. User:Quiddity (WMF)? I think the plan would involve somehow linking some conversation from m:Wiki Project Med and here, perhaps, but that talk page doesn't get used much. Any ideas? Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 19:35, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Biosthmors, thanks for starting up a conversation here about this :) Some additional info:

• We're putting together a very early minimum viable product (basically a proof of concept of how structured discussions via Flow could work) that we're hoping to showcase to any WikiProject that's interested (so far, folks from MilHist, Video Games, and Hampshire, but we're open to more!).
• In the next couple of weeks, we'll invite you to try it out for yourself on a test wiki, play with the features, and let us know if this is something you could feasibly try out right here on this discussion space (and/or on m:Talk:Wiki Project Med – up to you).
• Then, once we've incorporated your feedback/fixed any outstanding bugs, and your project members feel comfortable with a Flow trial run, we would enable it here and see how it handles real Misplaced Pages discussions. The goal of this trial would be to 1) evaluate whether our design and product choices hold up for supporting good discussion/collaboration (and make changes where necessary), and 2) collaboratively prioritize the set of feature buckets we want to work on next to make this the Misplaced Pages discussion/collaboration software of your dreams :)

Benefits for you: your WikiProject basically becomes a part of the Flow development team, which will be incorporating your feedback into every new release and making sure Flow does what you need it to do! Risks: pretty low. We won't force Flow on you unless you want to be a part of the trial, and we can always disable it and return any Flow discussions you had to free-form wikitext.

So, that's my pitch ;) Please feel free to discuss this amongst yourselves, and we'll be in touch soon with an invitation to try out a working version of the MVP. Maryana (WMF) (talk) 20:45, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:39, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Please do leave a note here when the trial wiki is ready for testing. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 09:53, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Need a third party to provide some feedback

Hi everyone, another editor and I are dealing with a content dispute on amphetamine neurotoxicity. I'd appreciate it if a few of you could read through this thread and provide an impartial opinion. Thanks, Seppi333 (talk) 02:32, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Medical literature as top importance?

I propose placing Talk:Medical literature as something of Top importance because the literature dictates how we write articles given our reliable sourcing guideline. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 15:58, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Changed with the edit summary: encyclopedic coverage of medical topics is dominated by the medical literature, which needs encyclopedic coverage of it as well, as it is how we write articles. Doctors do things based upon the literature, etc. It's fundamental to this project. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 10:31, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

While medical literature is exceedingly important to use writing Misplaced Pages it is not exceedingly important to most people when it comes to medicine. Most simply hope that it is well done and that the results are accurate. It is more these results people care about. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:41, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't really think that it's one of the most important articles we could be working on. It doesn't seem like our readers are going to care as much about this as they do about Myocardial infarction, or even Common cold.

Importance ratings are primarily about selecting articles for offline releases. If you were putting together a list of just 100 medicine-related articles on a CD for people without internet access, would you really expect them to be excited about reading Medical literature instead of something more relevant to their lives? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:08, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes I suppose I that was a bit over the ... ;-) Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 20:14, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Sourcing at Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Acupuncture

Over at Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Acupuncture/ there is an ongoing discussion concerning the sources used to support claims about the effectiveness of acupuncture. This could really use another set of eyes looking at it. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:28, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

The WikiProject Medicine Collaboration of the Month for January 2025 is Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease! Head to its talk page to organize our efforts. Continue to nominate topics for future months at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Medicine/Collaboration of the Month#Nominations.