Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:16, 22 July 2015

• 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 10 days are automatically archived.
• Please see Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Medicine/Newsletter/Mailing_list

Category:Infectious causes of cancer

Yesterday I wrote an article about a mouse oncovirus and put it in Category:Infectious causes of cancer, which I discovered is currently hosting an odd mix of articles: some are actually about infectious causes of cancer (human papillomavirus), some are more accurately described as "cancers at least sometimes caused by infectious agents" (cervical cancer), some are semi-related topics that I certainly hope are not infectious causes of cancer (cervical screening), and some are very general articles where the category only applies to some members of the group (virus, parasitism). The category page says it is intended to contain articles in which pathogens are "linked to increasing the risk of cancer in humans", which is not the same as an infectious cause, and is unnecessarily confined to humans when there are plenty of animal pathogens known to fit this description.

What's the intended scope of this category? At first glance I think the causes and the effects should be separated, moving the actual cancers to something like Category:Cancers with infectious causes, but that's a problem because most of them are only sometimes caused by pathogens, and there are plausible biological mechanisms for lots of cancer types to occasionally be caused by a pathogen. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:39, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

according to the history it was made on 14 April, and I do share your concern (causes and effects should be separate)...as far as its intention, that is a question that we might need more editor opinions on(I think its intended scope needs to be clarified)...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:07, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't really mind the cat containing information about both pathogens that (sometimes) cause cancer and cancers that are (often) caused by pathogens. I don't even truly mind including cervical screening, because probably 99% of cervical cancers are caused by viral infections, and the point behind it is very much about identifying cancers caused by said infectious agent. But the very general articles, e.g., Virus, don't seem like a good match. A person looking for information about infectious causes of cancer might also want information about cervical screening, but is probably not looking for general information about viruses. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:30, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I removed the worst offenders from the category and made the text less anthropocentric. I still think this is terrible organization, but honestly, the software (non-)features for viewing, searching, and sorting categories are so bad that I think they're rarely worth fussing about. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:16, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

If I remember, I believe I was the one who created the category in question. It was not intended to cover cancers in animals. It was meant to simply connect the various causes, effects, links, associations, infections, symptoms, screenings, treatments, risks, diseases, organisms that can be linked to the category. An analogous category might be named: Environmental causes of cancer or Genetic causes of cancer if such information were contained in the article that is part of the category. The problem with a more accurate title of the category in question is that in some cases there is complete consensus that an infectious agent is the cause of cancer. In other articles, there is a strong link between the infectious agent and cancer. In other articles, there is an increased risk to develop cancer, In other articles, there is an association between the article topic and cancer. In other articles there is a synergistic association between one infectious agent and another, for example HPV and AIDS. Coming up with a better name for the category might be warranted but to include cancer in animals is not really helpful. That category probably needs to stand on its own.

  Bfpage |leave a message  01:29, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like you're going for something more like Category:Associations between infectious agents and human cancers? I entirely disagree that a category called "infectious causes of cancer" should only contain information about humans, which are not the only organisms to get cancer. A huge part of the history of oncovirus research involved animal models for obvious reasons, and species specificity in many of these agents is driven by cell-surface receptors, not by substantial differences in molecular mechanism. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:32, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Could you two accept, as a compromise, a sub cat specifically dedicated to infectious causes of cancer in (non-human) animals, including research models? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:59, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

The category we are discussing was intended to be anthropocentric. Animal cancers would be a better category for someone looking for information on the topic of cancers of animals. The purpose of creating this category was to tie together the very diverse articles that describe those cancers that are: 1. caused by infectious agents, 2. that are linked to infectious agents, 3. that are associated with infectious agents, 4. found consistently in cancerous growths, 5. found to have an increased risk of development when infectious agents are present. In addition this category should be including articles about the vaccines that protect against infections that prevent/reduce cancer by infectious agents. This category should also contain the history involved in the topic, which has been very controversial but has resulted in Nobel Prizes to at least three recipients who 'discovered' the link between certain infectious agents and cancer. I understand why other editors balk at the name of the category: Infectious causes of cancer, and I am certainly open to changing the name of the category, but change it to what? This is the shortest name I could come up with. Isn't Project Medicine anthropomorphic by definition? I am open to any and all suggestions. I am not sure what needs to be resolved, and have the tendency to only see individual trees rather than the forest. Nice discussion....Best Regards,

  Bfpage |leave a message  02:24, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I originally noticed this category because I put an article in it and was WP:ASTONISHed to find a category called "infectious causes of cancer" that did not contain the topics I expected from the name - e.g. avian sarcoma leukosis virus (the first oncovirus discovered), Rous sarcoma virus (which earned its discoverer a Nobel), or SV40 (which was suspected of causing cancer in humans and caused a huge debate when polio vaccines were found contaminated with it). I mentioned it here in part because it looks like an example of over-focus on thinking of the reader as looking for patient-oriented information rather than documentation of the relevant biology. The latter type of reader is not well served by splitting up human and animal infectious agents, since the underlying molecular mechanism of carcinogenesis is generally very similar between agents of the same family (and is often better understood in the animal case) - and in any event, species specificity may not be absolute.

As for names, Category:Infectious agents and human cancers isn't so long and is agnostic as to the nature of the association, leaving Category:Infectious causes of cancer (or maybe Category:Infectious causes of carcinogenesis?) for the actual causative agents for all species. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:58, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that will work under the category guidelines. It doesn't matter what name you put on it: "all the stuff that is associated with cancer, infection, and people, however vaguely or tangentially" isn't going to meet the category guidelines. I think this needs to be a list or an article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:30, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

It already is an article: Infectious causes of cancer. There are also two relevant lists: List of human diseases associated with infectious pathogens* and list of oncogenic bacteria (but strangely not list of oncoviruses, though the oncovirus article has a table). I don't quite follow your comments, though, WhatamIdoing - previously you seemed to want to keep the general health-related information together (i.e., a common category for human papillomavirus, cervical cancer, cervical screening, etc.)? That's not very far off from "stuff associated with cancer, infection, and people". I have no particular objections to such a category restricted to Bfpage's items 1 and 5. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:28, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

*Wow, there is a lot of strange stuff in here. I see Bfpage has made some headway but there's plenty left to muck out. I am usually against the 'banish all old/primary sources' meme but: 13 mostly mental illnesses 'associated with' Borrelia!

Having read the comments by Opabinia, I have changed my mind about including animal topics in the category since I am familiar with the work of Rous and have found a systematic review article that has clearly demonstrated the value of animal cancers and the application of those animal studies to the study of infectious causes of cancers in humans. How about Category:Infectious agents associated with cancer? And you are right about the connection between infection with Borrelia and mental illness!Best Regards,

  Bfpage |leave a message  11:38, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Opabinia, I don't object to including information with a clear and obvious relationship. But I would omit all vague or unproven relationships (e.g., general articles about infection, or "one study said there might be a connection of unknown importance"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:57, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree w/ WAID--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:16, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

The general articles were already removed. Bfpage, "Infectious agents associated with cancer" still sounds like it would contain only the agents, not the cancers. "Infectious agents and carcinogenesis"?

I may just AfD the list as a WP:TNT case. The primary author also spent a lot of his time POV-pushing about Morgellons. Opabinia regalis (talk) 02:43, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with many of the changes that are proposed, especially the AfD. I don't think that there would be any problem with categories such as Genetic causes of cancers or Environmental causes of cancer. Please remember that the assertions that there are associations, links, increased risk between infectious agents are largely supported by systematic reviews and meta-analyses and are not vague or unproven relationships, or based upon one study. I don't have a point of view on this topic. The assertion that there is a connection between an infectious agent and cancer are conclusions of researchers. I would be quite pleased with the renaming to "Infectious agents and carcinogenesis". As for POV-pushing by Morgellons, I have no idea what you are talking about. I was under the impression that I was the primary author and (I'm not sure due to a lazy memory).

  Bfpage |leave a message  10:40, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Morgellons, LOL! Opabinia regalis, you can't be suggesting, and I'm not a 'he', that this category is based have a "... delusional belief that they(me?) are infested with disease-causing agents described as things like insects, parasites, hairs or fibers," and that this category should be WP:TNT. I will treat this comment with seriousness and with the idea that you might mean what you wrote as a comment. Firstly, I thought that editors were supposed to stay away from personal comments regarding the possible motivation (and mental status?) of other editors. Initiating an AfD based upon my mistaken identity {he?) might be a waste of time for those with an interest in this category. I can assure you that I am actually quite fascinated with all things 'creepy crawly", raise mealworms and flightless fruit flies as a hobby to help feed my son's frogs. I don't have a point of view about this mental disorder except that it is a sad thing that some people suffer from it and should be treated with compassion. Best Regards,

  Bfpage |leave a message  20:14, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

@Bfpage: I think you've gotten mixed up; sorry if my last post was confusing. The AfD is for the article list of human diseases associated with infectious pathogens, and has nothing to do with the category you created other than being a member of it. The creator and primary author of that article is Drgao, who is currently topic-banned from medical topics due to past tendentious editing on Morgellons (see also AN thread). Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:24, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Medical meetup at Wikimania Mexico City

I was just about to create a medical meetup at Wikimania, but it turns out Daniel Mietchen beat me to it. Please check out the page and if you're at Wikimania you're more than welcome to take part! The meet up is organized by WikiProject Med Foundation, which aims to bring together editors from several Wikipedias, not just the English Misplaced Pages!

Best, -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 12:11, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks User:CFCF Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:13, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not going, but for those of you who are, you might want to look at the public list of attendees and see if there's anyone you want to connect with. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:46, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Bluerasberry? -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 19:36, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

A Help Desk topic of interest

Please see WP:Help desk#Reiki page where someone seems to want exemption from MEDRS. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:54, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

will see--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:55, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Steatohepatitis

Would an experienced editor like to review this article and how we are dealing with recent drug trials. Recent debates about COI, make me I think I am too close to this topic to make edits. Jrfw51 (talk) 18:46, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

so,,,references #8,9,11,15 are primary not secondary as is best via Misplaced Pages:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)...also #16 seems to be dated (per the same prior link ),,placed inline citations on non-MEDRS compliant references thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:02, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

We should be using review articles. Have trimmed some content. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:53, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

This is a pain. We have articles on fatty liver and articles on steatohepatitis. One is simply the lay term of the other. I propose we merge them to fatty liver disease. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:58, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

could merge,--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:20, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Not sure what I've started here. NASH is not the same as fatty liver. There is additional inflammation in NASH. NASH is thought to be a more severe form of NAFLD. There are drug trials in early phases for NASH and these needed careful balance. Consider putting good secondary reviews back! Jrfw51 (talk) 21:09, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Consider PMID 26155043, PMID 25920092 and especially PMID 26057287. Jrfw51 (talk) 21:16, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

WRT "putting good secondary reviews back" were some removed? Could secondary sources can be used to discuss ongoing research in a "research" section. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:24, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes agree that NASH is a severe form of NAFLD. Thus it would make sense to discuss NASH on the NAFLD article.

This is like the situation were blindness is a severe form of vision impairment. We discuss both together at vision impairment.

Steatohepatitis is a severe form of fatty liver disease / fatty liver it appears thus those two can go together. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:18, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:23, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

That's an appropriate review too. Not sure if other good ones were removed but they would have been older. Re combining the terms, we do have separate entries for coronary heart disease and myocardial infarction. Jrfw51 (talk) 21:30, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

CAD refers to angina, unstable angina, NSTEMI and STEMI. As the topic is really large having separate articles makes more sense.

NAFLD and NASH are smaller topic and dealing with them together IMO makes sense.

We had NASH redirection to steatohepatitis while steatohepatitis is of two types. alcoholic and nonalcoholic thus it was not the greatest redirect.

I guess there is not one right answer to how to best do this. The two articles had a lot of overlap Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:36, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Blindness

Doc James indicated above that Blindness redirects to Visual impairment, which surprises me. It makes sense to discuss blindness, of course, but in a summary style with a link to a main page, not to just lump it all in. There's a big difference between someone who develops cataracts in old age and someone with no light perception from birth. Was this discussed anywhere? I can only find a stale old discussion about merging in information about low vision – but nothing about merging in "no vision". I've been sick for days, so it's probably obvious, but could someone find it and give me the link? Thanks. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:43, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

NIH certainly has separate links and (hope you feel better)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:32, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

The two prior articles had a great amount of duplicate content. Basically all of blindness was discussed within visual impairment. And often visual impairment leads to blindness. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:24, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

WHO discusses both together , NLM discusses both together and includes low vision as an alternative name. NHS discuss both together . Additionally we have an article on Childhood_blindness. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:53, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

More precisely, we have a pathetic seven-sentence stub at Childhood blindness. I firmly disagree with the current state, in which No light perception, i.e., total Blindness, is treated as nothing more than a variant on "you need to have glasses" or even "you would benefit from cataract surgery".

I know that some blind people are offended to have their condition minimized as being merely an "impairment" of vision. The needs of a typical totally blind person are very different from the needs of a typical person with a vision impairment. If the two articles were largely duplicative, then that's only proof that we've done a poor job of writing them so far. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:07, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

While I would agree with you on the last point. The article on childhood blindness deserves to be much better. I have been planning on working on it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:56, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Suicide attempt article

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 July 13#Suicide attempt. No need for me to link to a WP:Permalink in this case since the discussion will presumably always remain in that spot. Flyer22 (talk) 04:03, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

give opinion (gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:29, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Effect of Taking Chicken Essence on Stress and Cognition of Human Volunteers

Yes, it's the wonders of the Articles for Creation torrent again. Some things that seem to be medical claims, for health supplements indeed, are in User:JasmineJLM7/sandbox. Comments welcome.

Disclaimer: I say this without challenging the long-accepted efficacy of chicken soup in treating everything. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 08:04, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

the draft in question draft:BRAND seems very PROMOTIONAL...it does not have Misplaced Pages:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:12, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

WP:PAG insists that Misplaced Pages doesn't do ®'s -Roxy the non edible dog™ (resonate) 12:06, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, I have declined it mentioning these concerns. Declined Drafts normally get resubmitted, however, so watch out for it coming back... Arthur goes shopping (talk) 10:22, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

anticoagulants/NICE

Offer anticoagulants instead of aspirin for stroke prevention...NICE’s latest quality standard, which sets out advice on the treatment and management of AF, recommends that people with AF who have a CHA2DS2-VASC stroke risk score of 2 or above are offered newer anticoagulants, such as apixaban, dabigatran etexilate, rivaroxaban or a vitamin K antagonist like warfarin --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:45, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Domestic violence against men article

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Domestic violence against men#Primary sources?. A WP:Permalink for that discussion is here. Flyer22 (talk) 19:52, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Note: The discussion has now shifted to whether or not there is health content in the article, whether or not WP:MEDRS applies, and whether or not domestic violence, including domestic violence against men, is a medical topic. Flyer22 (talk) 21:48, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Terminology

For a condition that only affects women should it be "those in their 20s and 30s" or "women in their 20s and 30s"? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:28, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

if its been "pre-established" , logic dictates its already assumed...those in their 20's and 30's...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:33, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Depends on context. If both seem awkward, look for other options. Looie496 (talk) 14:19, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't remember the last time we had a complaint about this that didn't involve a trans person who was trying to make articles about sex-specific medical conditions be gender-neutral. For a few conditions, it might be possible to resolve such disputes with greater specificity, e.g., pregnancy only happens in people who are genetically female. Typically, though, we write "women in their 20s and 30s" because it improves clarity for typical readers. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:49, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

An example is here Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:12, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Surgical submission

See Draft:Surgery for the dysfunctional sacroiliac joint. Much appreciated, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 23:57, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

#1....Since that time several publications have documented the evolving changes that have occurred to date to the original procedure, and other procedures that have been created this "sentence" has 14 references?(per the prior reviews advice Help:Referencing_for_beginners (MEDRS will wait)...#2,Misplaced Pages:Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles.thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:17, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

GA help for Pelvic Inflammatory disease

Can someone get me this reference: Ultrasound evaluation of pelvic pain, Amirbekian S, Hooley RJ. doi: 10.1016/j.rcl.2014.07.008. It would be a great help since I can't pay for this article. Best Regards and thanks ahead of time,

  Bfpage |leave a message  01:57, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I have access to it; how can I send it to you? (it also appears to be available here)

Unenthusiastic (talk) 15:25, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Childhood blindness

have been working on this important article , any help would be appreciated, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:51, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Do you have any good leads on medical review articles to use for it? Peter.C • talk • contribs 02:59, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

The external link at the bottom of the article to http://www.cehjournal.org/resources/prevention-of-childhood-blindness-teaching-set-full-text/ contains a comprehensive overview, written in an accessible fashion, but dating from 1998, updated 2007. It does give good pointers to the structure that the article needs, though, and the areas that it ought to cover. Once you have a reasonable idea of the varied causes (such as vitamin A deficiency, measles, conjunctivitis, herpes simplex, retinopathy of prematurity and genetic abnormalities) and their relative prevalence in different regions, it seems you have a good starting point for gathering the latest reviews needed to discuss these in depth. I'm most familiar with retinopathy of prematurity and you could take a look at the references I used in Oxygen toxicity, although they are probably getting dated now. --RexxS (talk) 06:17, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Peter.C • talk • contribs ...exactly (what RexxS said), to further expand the article of that link is good.This is a topic that, taken in-depth, could at least double the information (size) of this article...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:19, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

There's a lot of information missing. Education should mention Special schools – there are quite a few in Category:Schools for the blind, common modifications (e.g., not learning handwriting) and accommodations (e.g., reciting your homework rather than writing it out) of the curriculum, and the debate over whether blind children should learn to read with Braille or always use assistive technology like screen readers (or trained human readers; a blind professional, for example, will hire an employee to read handwritten letters). ==Society== should talk about training and employment prospects. There's currently no information about co-morbidities, which also matters. It's one thing to have a student who is blind, and another thing to have a student who is blind, nearly deaf, autistic, and intellectually disabled. The decline of children whose only issue is deafness seems to be one of the factors that results in schools for the Deaf closing, and I would not be surprised to find sources saying that it has affected schools for the blind as well. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:47, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I've done a copyedit, and want to add this: rather than accumulating a laundry list of "this rare disease could be treated that way" or "in this part of this country, the incidence was that", I think you need to leave PubMed's narrow reviews behind and go look for textbooks or WHO reports. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:59, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

you could be correct...I will "relook" at the reviews that your indicating,probably expand one of the sections (in the process).--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:05, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Drug diversion needs some love

I've gone through and fixed the lead, which had an incorrect definition, and the 1st section, which included globally uncontrolled substances and nonprescription controlled drug precursors. I haven't looked at the rest of it since I need to get off, but it's probably rife with errors/MEDRS issues too; anyone want to take a stab at helping fix it? Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 18:43, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

will look (in this case while it has instances where MEDRS is needed, it seems to primarily need WP:RS)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:32, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Exploding head syndrome

Yes. apparently it is a real thing - there are 10 reviews in pubmed. A new favorite article title for me. It does need attention. Jytdog (talk) 12:39, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I like it how "syndrome" implies there must be some cluster of symptoms that go together. So your head explodes, but a doctor can't make a definitive diagnosis without knowing accompanying symptoms. Adrian J. Hunter 14:16, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

will look--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:10, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

The name does lack a certain subtlety; but it's named for the sensation it elicits, and apparently that's exactly how many patients describe it. I did a quick search, and there's more source material than I anticipated. Probably more common under age 50 than previously thought. Dostoevsky may have had it. DoctorJoeE /_{talk to me!} 17:40, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Traumatic diaphragmatic hernia redirect proposal

Proposed the redirect of traumatic diaphragmatic hernia to diaphragmatic rupture. Same subject matter confirmed by ICD codes. There is some info on the first article, but not much. I think there is no issue with a move but I am not bold enough to do it without a consensus. Discussion is here. Thanks. Peter.C • talk • contribs 00:50, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

please give opinion--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:55, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

• Peter.C • talk • contribs this has been up for some time, if you feel Misplaced Pages:Be_bold then move, you do have one opinion,further it generally seems like a good idea....IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:23, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

 Done Ozzie10aaaa Peter.C • talk • contribs 14:03, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Infectious medicine page move

Infectious disease (medical specialty) was recently moved to Infectious medicine by CFCF. I started a discussion on the talk page as to whether this move was indicated, and think further input from this Wikiproject would be helpful. Thanks! Yobol (talk) 02:53, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Well obviously it was indicated or I wouldn't have made the move. Whether the change is supported by the community is something else entirely. Anyway, infectious medicine is a valid synonym and I hate titles with brackets so I stand by my move. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 03:01, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

"Obviously indicated"? According to whom? In 34 years of practicing medicine I have never once heard the term "infectious medicine" used. There are no infectious medicines that I'm aware of, only infectious diseases. This will serve only to confuse readers. Move it back. DoctorJoeE /_{talk to me!} 03:30, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I was being pedantic over use of the word indicated. Anyway, it is a synonym which you can find at . -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 04:37, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Not pedantic so much as unreasonable. The fact that a couple of labs in Finland and Sweden use it does not make it a "synonym" - just a non sequitur. The rest of the world refers to the specialty as "infectious disease", and so should we. Please move it back. DoctorJoeE /_{talk to me!} 05:05, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

No, I'm not being unreasonable, read what I said in my first post. I agree this may not be the best title, but neither do I think the old title is better. I'm glad this initiated debate, because then we can find a better title without brackets. To this can be added that the article had 0 views over the last 90 days before my edit, I think it needs a better title so that it can be more easily found through search. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 11:27, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Also the use is global including the United States, the reason you see the Swedish laboratories furthest up is because they are the most prominent ones to use the term. The exact search had 25000 hits. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 11:36, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that the overwhleming number of major medical sources use the phrase "infectious disease" or "infectious diseases" as the name for the subspecialty. You seem to be applying your dislike for parantheses and overriding what the overwhelming number of medical sources actually call the subspecialty. See the talk page for a brief listing of the major medical organizations that calls it "infectious disease" or "infectious diseases". Yobol (talk) 14:49, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't think some parts of the world have this speciality. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 07:44, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Is this article supposed to be about the medical specialty (e.g., equivalent to "dermatology"), or about what you've got when you've been infected (e.g., equivalent to "skin disease")? If it's the specialty, then it might be reasonable to call it "infectious disease medicine", although in the US, the actual name of the subspecialty appears to be plain "infectious disease". WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:08, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

This is a dispute regarding the title of the medical specialty (infectious disease redirects to infection). Yobol (talk) 00:37, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

• Can we get some further input on the talk page from some other editors? We seemed to have hit an impasse and further outside input would be appreciated. Yobol (talk) 18:34, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Medically unexplained physical symptoms

Desperately needs some attention. Refs are all outdated, to start. LeadSongDog come howl! 04:06, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

will look (still looking for a couple of references)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:15, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

TY, looks like real progress already. LeadSongDog come howl! 04:03, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Neuroimmune system is a bit of a travesty...

I made a laughable attempt to address the problems in this article using the neurotoxicity/neuroinflammatory refs that I've read up to now, though I don't really know anything about peripheral nervous-immune system interactions. If anyone with some familiarity with this topic wants to be bold and un-bork the article, that'd be great. Otherwise, I'll probably get around to expanding the section I edited sometime after I'm finished rewriting the toxicity section in the meth article. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 22:08, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

will look--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:45, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Ty. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 02:06, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Turning on Feedback tool 5

I would like to get feedback tool 5 turned back on for medical articles (or at least some medical articles). I personally would find knowing what our readers think very useful and of research interest.

Support

• Support as proposer Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:44, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
• support--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:47, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support and I also suggest it turned on for WP:ANATOMY & WP:PHYSIOLOGY -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 14:52, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support to my knowledge this is the only tool that allows us to understand how useful the reader finds the information we provide. Mrjohncummings (talk) 14:53, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support: reader feedback is potentially useful to improve content. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 15:36, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support - How can we improve if we do not know the way readers feel/interact with articles? Peter.C • talk • contribs 15:50, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support - Please do this. Please. The only thing turning it off accomplished was to slow the pace of article improvement. And, in line with what CFCF said, turn it on for WP:PHARM as well if possible. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 16:04, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support. Worth looking at this again. JFW | T@lk 21:17, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support - on balance. See discussion. --RexxS (talk) 23:36, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support - This makes a lot of sense. Keilana| 23:37, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support if there is a central place to view feedback put under a project (eg a 'recent feedback' page). With such a system small projects would benefit, such as our related project WP:ANATOMY. However if feedback is viewed on a page by page basis, as stated below, I do not think it will be very useful. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:51, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

LT910001, we can likely integrate it into WikiProject X, which is run by Harej. I haven't got to proposing using it at WP:ANAT yet, but I think it has great potential to create such useful dashboards. Harej do you think this is possible? -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 21:45, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support a tool of some sort where people who are not editors can be solicited to leave feedback about a specific medical related article. If the feedback tool 5 can be tailored for this use then I would support its use. If not, then we need to create a different tool to let us get feedback. There are specific types of information that we want to get from readers, both the general public and topic experts. And there are ideal ways for us to have the collected feedback disseminated to us. I suggest we be specific about what we want to see and how we want to see it, and ask for the tool to be modified for this use. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 16:00, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support under the condition proposed by Tom (LT), above. DoctorJoeE /_{talk to me!} 20:56, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

• Strongly, strongly oppose. This may be the only time I ever post on this page. The AFT5 tool resulted in massive waste of time of editors. Almost zero "feedback" was useful and even the information classified as "useful" was usually at the level of "needs more photos" for pages that already had six images, or "needs more information about ." It was deliberately not added to medical articles because even the people who created it realised that what you would get is "so I have this funny lump here, does that mean I have Disease XXX?" We have few enough knowledgeable and wiki-skilled editors in this area; you should not be wasting your time in this way. Even having to take the time to point to the medical disclaimer is bad use of your time. There was never a benefit to this tool - it's why it isn't used anymore. The software is very dodgy and would require rewriting and then ongoing maintenance; it's just plain a bad investment of time and energy on the part of everyone. Risker (talk) 05:52, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

  @Risker:. We need more reader feedback. Given your opposition to AFT5, how would you propose we get it? • • • Peter (Southwood) : 06:23, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

  What do you want the feedback for? You need to really know the answer to that question before you know what type of tool is best suited. We know from the experience of the AFT5 tool that readers who wrote anything were (a) asking for information that was either inappropriate for Misplaced Pages to provide - a very serious risk for medical articles or (b) making suggestions for "improvement" that were heavily biased or were inappropriate for the particular article ("GMOs kill people, why are you supporting them?" or "Why doesn't the 7/7 article mention ?") or (c) were personal stories (e.g., on the article about a certain city, "I was there last summer, and you should talk about the great restaurants!") Less than 1% of feedback was either actionable or an assessment of the value/quality of the information provided. Meanwhile, all of the feedback had to be reviewed because people posted really inappropriate information (BLP violations, personal information like phone numbers, personal attacks, editor abuse) that needed to be removed from public view, thus making a lot of work for almost no beneficial gain. Even if there was actionable feedback, that still required someone being able and willing to act upon it.

  Effective feedback tools, especially on a project that is deliberately intended to be highly transparent, are very difficult to design. They're also almost always very labour-intensive. Unless you have a very clear idea of exactly what kind of feedback you want to elicit, and you have an action plan on how you will address the feedback you get that does not impose additional workload or burden on editors outside of the project, I'd suggest that your statement that you "need" more reader feedback is perhaps premature at best. One of the groups significantly impacted when it was turned on before were the oversighters, who were hitting about 50-70 requests a month for this tool alone; it made up about 15-20% of the suppression workload. Risker (talk) 07:03, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

  For starters I would like a tool which is easily visible to the reader, with obvious function, which allows me to specify the type of feedback I want, will allow the reader to easily abort if/when they realise this is not where they need to be, and is only activated on demand, by the person/s who will get the notification, and who is/are looking for the specified feedback. i.e, a tool, not a spam generator. Ideally it would allow me to reply to the user, usually needed to clarify the feedback, as many people do not know how to explain what they want in the first attempt. Technically the talk page should do most of these things, but it does not. Partly, I suspect, because many if not most readers do not know it is there, or if they do, don't have a clue how to use it (our user-unfriendly software again), and partly because the talk page is not a good way to ask people for specific information when you are fairly sure they will never read it. This should impose no burden on people other than those voluntarily watching the feedback system for the specific article, other than creating it in the first place. I speak only for myself, but I think such a tool would serve the purposes of this project, and others, adequately. By the way, I made use of AFT5, and agree with most of your criticism. I suggested several improvements, but nothing happened. It was mostly a waste of time, but a small number of articles that I watch were significantly improved by using reader feedback. • • • Peter (Southwood) : 10:28, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

  @Risker: Both Peter and I found the AFT useful for scuba-related articles where a significant proportion of the feedback indicated deficiencies in articles that we could address. In helping to expose issues in articles from a reader's perspective, such feedback helped prioritise our efforts and allowed us to "see the wood from the trees". Does that help illustrate what we would use feedback for? According to the report, "12% of posts were marked as useful". We may have been lucky at WPSCUBA, but my impression was that we had better results than that - this implies that a particular project, like WPMED, may achieve better results than average, if the tool is well-designed. I believe we have a strong and very active group of editors at WPMED and still maintain that we have sufficient resources to cope with feedback. This would be especially true if there were a mechanism for notifications of feedback to appear on a sub-page of this project, a little like how the recent changes feed appears, perhaps? I take your point about oversighters, but there are currently 0 users with that right. If a 25% increase in their numbers would have compensated for the extra workload over the entire project with 6,938,386 articles, I estimate that just 0.09 more oversighters would be needed to deal with work arising from feedback from the 33,596 articles in WPMED's scope. Heck, even I would volunteer to do that job, just one day per fortnight. --RexxS (talk) 16:27, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

  I think we already know what the (useful) feedback will be on most articles: Readers want to know the prognosis. That was the #1 request on all the disease-related articles that I followed when AFT5 was open. They also asked for pictures, but that was the suggested feedback, so that might be overrepresented. And they wanted articles written in plain old English, not in medicalese. I also found it useful on occasion (also more than the 12% average), but since the #1 request remains unfulfilled, I don't think that we really need it to be able to improve the articles.
  On a more practical level, I doubt that this wish will be fulfilled. There are some open questions about whether the code needs dev time before it could run again. There a sitewide RFC led to it being disabled here, and this is "local consensus" at best. Also, unless someone here is an oversighter and wants to volunteer to manage the inevitable problems – User:Fluffernutter's here occasionally, but I doubt that she wants to deal with this again – then I think that the opposition from oversighters should be taken seriously. It would not be kind or collegial of us to volunteer to increase their workload over their objections. And stuff that needs oversighting can't be left around for a fortnight: it needs to be killed as soon as it's noticed, ideally within minutes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:41, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
  

  Yes, sorry, that was my (unsuccessful) attempt to inject a little levity. I was not suggesting that we wait two weeks to perform oversight, only that the additional workload on oversighters would seem to be equivalent to a requirement for an extra oversighter one day every couple of weeks. Perhaps I should have made the analogy that one extra oversighter would likely be able to accommodate feedback from around a dozen projects the size of WPMED. --RexxS (talk) 19:56, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

  I'm an oversighter and I'm happy to help with this as needed. Emily Temple-Wood (NIOSH) (talk) 15:37, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

  More specifically I would like to get it activated on at least some medical articles for research purposes. It allows us as community members to ask specific questions of our readers. We need to do more of this. User:Risker would you reconsider if this was only on ~100 articles? We could also only have the results viewable by logged in users or even admins / people with the researcher tag if we so desired. I have a number of other researchers who are also requesting it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:08, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

  User:Risker would you be okay with its use for research purposes? And by research I do not mean research to improve the tool but research to determine what our readers think? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:15, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Generally speaking, I think it is always a bad idea to activate software that is completely unsupported by anyone and was known to need significant rewriting even at the time that it was used. It is kind of the equivalent of restarting a car that hasn't been running for a couple of years and was taken off the road because it was belching smoke in order to test whether or not it improves air quality. I suggest if you want to start it up again, first it is necessary to have a (non-WMF) developer to carefully review the code, ensure that it meets the expectations for publicly visible user-created content, and then agree to remain available for any future issues. (Note: Expectations for user-created content are that it must be able to be deleted, it must be able to be edited by others, it must be able to be suppressed, and it must show up in checkuser, recent changes, and publicly-available logs specific to the content type. Any user-created content is essentially "community property", and it must be able to be curated by the community.) I specify a non-WMF developer because this is an extension that has consciously been de-activated by the WMF based on the results of the earlier trial (and let's be clear, the previous activation *was* a trial), and this isn't appropriate for even community tech because the community has already spoken on this issue. I remain gravely concerned that you will get a lot of personal stories and personal information from readers who do not understand that whatever they write will be publicly visible, or perhaps believe that a medical professional will contact them to provide them with advice or person-specific information, if the tool is tested on a page pertaining to a specific illness, condition, or treatment. Such posts should almost always be suppressed ("hiding" isn't nearly enough since almost everyone can see the hidden posts). And I'm still not seeing any evidence that there has been consideration of exactly what type of feedback is being sought, and what the action plan is to address both the desirable and the undesirable feedback. I will remind you that there is already a feedback mechanism - the talk page of the article - and that a first step may simply be to include a banner pointing to that, which can probably be done by a template rather than activating a disused extension with its heavy overhead. Risker (talk) 01:45, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes not sure what shape the peice of software is in. I agree it is not important enough to deserve either foundation or tech team resources. I only propose it if it is as simple as 10 to 20 minutes to turn it on again. Yes more or less the same thing can be done with templates. I was thinking it would work well as a format for people providing ratings for hotels and restaurants on Wikivoyage but that is another matter. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:05, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. Risker's argument is convincing. KateWishing (talk) 14:04, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
• Moderate oppose. I actually don't care all that much, because the feedback isn't hard to ignore. I wonder how many of the supporters actually tried to use it in its earlier incarnation? I certainly did. I was initially quite enthusiastic, and made a serious effort to look at the feedback and react to it. But after a month or so I ran out of steam -- I just wasn't getting enough value from it to motivate the effort it required. I can't see any reason why things would be different now. Looie496 (talk) 15:58, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Looie496 why don't we give it a chance and see, DocJames said about 100 articles (seems fair), and the result can only be positive--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:37, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I thought I made it clear that I already gave it a chance and saw. As I said, it won't bother me much either way. I can always just ignore it. Looie496 (talk) 20:18, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:25, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

• Moderate oppose per Risker & Looie. My experiences were the same the last time. You got perhaps one comment per 500,000 views, & most were misplaced, missing the point & purpose of WP, if not just moronic. One or two were useful, but looking at them just wasn't a productive use of time. aren;t some of the old ones still acessible? Johnbod (talk) 04:20, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Discuss

The pilot was run with the purpose of engaging readers, rather than as a tool to help editors, and was evaluated as such. Looking at the project report at mw:Article feedback/Version 5/Report, the two major obstacles were the editor time involved in moderating the feedback, and the opposition of the majority of editors on each site. If we are to have the tool turned back on for medical articles (+ anatomy, physiology & pharma, perhaps), we are going to have to make the case that (i) there is a benefit to our editors as well as readers; and that (ii) we have sufficient editor resources within our WikiProject to cope with the feedback without straining those resources. I believe we are capable of meeting those two requirements, but I still feel we will have to spend some time and effort in making the case. On balance, I think that's a net benefit and I support for that reason. --RexxS (talk) 23:36, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

I can't remember the details, but there are problems with the software and particularly the user interface, which is somewhat confusing to the reader and elicits a high percentage of useless responses. That aside, I found it (marginally) more useful than not. Getting it restored for a major project might get the coders to respond to requests for improvements, which would be a step towards getting it acceptable to more of the community. However it should be implemented as an opt-in, to be switched on for an article where someone will watch it, as it does not yet have any way to notify an interested user directly of a change. • • • Peter (Southwood) : 05:34, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Maybe only activatable by an admin or researcher? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:10, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I'd have thought that if you want to gather useful data about the benefits (or otherwise) of the feedback tool, it would be better to try it out on a random selection of articles, rather than selecting specific ones. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:22, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

In an ideal world there would be the same amount of activity over all articles, but the fact is many of us have only a subset we work on. Activating the feedback tool randomly would garner the same useless responses as in a site-wide trial. If we focus activation we can analyze the reasons behind specific responses.

I find it interesting that the most vocal opposistion is from people who do not engage in our project. I would hope the members of WikiProject Medicine could be allowed to decide for themselves what is the best use of their time instead of having someone uninvolved dictate it for them. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 20:46, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Would it be possible to include both a scale rating (as in version 4 of the tool) as well as a feedback form with specific comments? Currently there is no easy way for readers of Misplaced Pages to give feedback on how useful they found the article. Version 4's four ratings for trustworthiness, objectivity, completeness and writing quality does not cover this. Does anyone know if it would be difficult to change the questions? Mrjohncummings (talk) 00:30, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I would be happy to just have it work on a small set of article. Articles would be changed from time to time. Once people have collected data on those articles or no longer need the data it would be turned off on those article.

I am not proposing this tool for general use. Only as a tool for editors or researchers who want it and will use the data. Agree we do not need to collect unneeded data. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:10, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

The last time it was in use there was absolutely nothing a user could do to mitigate the extremely poorly chosen features and customise it to ask more specific and useful questions of the reader (and stop it from encouraging useless input). I asked. If reactivated as it stands it will produce the same old streams of garbage input with the very rare bit of gold. • • • Peter (Southwood) : 08:22, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I had this

Tell us what you think of this article.

in a quotebox at the top of Cancer pain (where the infobox usually goes) for about a year until last April. See permalink. It linked to an edit notice above the article's talk page "new section" edit box that said

Please add comments below. We're particularly interested in hearing what's missing or wrong and whether the article is clear and readable, but any ideas on improvement would be welcome. You can find your comment (and others' comments) and any replies by clicking the "talk" tab at the top of the article.

It generated no comments (but that's probably because the article is perfect ). Maybe if you ask specifically for expert commentary, or ask for input on a specific aspect of the article people will be more likely to respond.

As someone above suggested, if you use this method, you can monitor the responses just by watchlisting the talk pages. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:20, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Building a new tool

Perhaps a template can be developed which will do what is needed (as Risker suggested above). Something that can be added to the bottom of an article, maybe with a big button with thumbs up/thumbs down icons and some text inviting feedback, that when clicked takes the user to a talk page subpage, opens an edit, fills in a feedback header, prompts a few responses if desired and instructs the user how to abort or save. Something like this would be customisable to suit a wide range of applications, and would be open to anyone to improve. If, of course, it is possible. I am no templating expert. • • • Peter (Southwood) : 08:32, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

This approach has several advantages over AFT5. (not difficult to achieve)

• You can watch the relevant pages
• It can be customised easily
• It can be used by anyone who takes on the responsibility of looking after the results
• It can be removed from any place it causes problems. No admin burden involved - the project can manage it.
• It is essentially a talk page, just with training wheels. Talk pages are standard and already covered by policy. No RfC should be required. It does have some MOS implications, but MEDMOS should be able to cover it within this project.
• It could be portable to other projects (like Wikivoyage, as James suggested)

As a starter, I suggest interested parties make up a list of:

• what they want the tool to look like on the article page
• what information they want to get from the readers
• how they propose to get useful information out of the reader
• how they intend to prevent/minimise oversight burden, and how the burden which actually gets through in spite of everything should be handled • • • Peter (Southwood) : 08:47, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

xtools (medical article edit search)

as you might have noticed various xtools have been down (which many here certainly use at one point or another) I have taken this up at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (technical)#history revision statistics (alternate tool)...have been assured it is temporary (this thread seems informative,as well Misplaced Pages:Village pump (technical)#Various tools are down )thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:24, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Had some issues and assumed they were on my end. Glad to know they will (hopefully) be up soon. Peter.C • talk • contribs 15:54, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

List of human diseases associated with infectious pathogens

Hi everyone. List of human diseases associated with infectious pathogens is up for AFD and it might be of some interest to those here. At best the article needs a lot of trimming. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:55, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

give opinion(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:37, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

• NOTE:of the 147 references quite a few are from primary sources as per Misplaced Pages:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)...also its use of Misplaced Pages:Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles is not clear.--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:33, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Invasiveness of surgical procedures

have not had time, to edit this important article, could someone lend a hand?, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:45, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Miscategorization in Category:Organ systems vs. Category:Medical specialties

E.g., heart rate variability is under Category:Cardiology but heart rate is under Cardiovascular system. Any informal guidelines? I'm afraid the confusion in rampant, e.g., between Category:Nervous system and Category:Neurology. Thanks! Fgnievinski (talk) 21:00, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

best to look Misplaced Pages:Categorization--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:41, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

There's nothing specific to this subject. Fgnievinski (talk) 22:19, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

If I were you I'd forget about it and wait until Wikidata makes categorization obsolete.-- CFCF 🍌 (email) 22:23, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

CFCF please expand. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 00:16, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Well it might be a while, but using Wikidata for searches instead of categories will come. The category system is severely outdated, and I would suggest not spending more time on in than is absolutely necessary. If you want to really improve access to articles work at Wikidata, we need more people there. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 07:41, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

So we have Category:Diseases of oral cavity, salivary glands and jaws, which is a mess. How could I use wikidata to sort this? Matthew Ferguson (talk) 08:44, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Fgnievinski, the informal guideline is that it's a known mess, and that anyone who knows the subject area, even slightly, is welcome to WP:Be bold. And if you figure out a good "rule", then please post it at WP:MEDMOS. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:31, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: How about making Category:Medical specialties a "childless category", i.e., merging its sub-categories into their respective ones in Category:Organ systems, leaving only member-articles at the base of Category:Medical specialties? E.g., merging Category:Cardiology into Category:Cardiovascular system but leaving article Cardiology under Category:Medical specialties? (Or the other way around.) Fgnievinski (talk) 02:47, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Main article blood stream infection?

I wanted to link to hematogenous spread (Blood stream infection) by an amoeba in Genitourinary amoebosis, but couldn't do it convincingly as we don't have any overarching article on the topic.

Currently we have the following:

• Bacteremia
• Viremia

Not covered:

• Amoebas

Do you think we should create an article on this, and if so under what title?-- -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 21:19, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

We also have these related:

• Sepsis (with a redirect from Septicemia),
• Septic shock, and a bit more distantly,
• Blood-borne disease which should be revised to more clearly distinguish inter- from intra- host spread

LeadSongDog come howl! 21:53, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Given the context sepsis and septic shock do not seem appropriate. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 23:59, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, appropriate for what? I'm not suggesting merging any articles, just whether we should have an overbearing article. Also I agree with LeadSongDog, Blood-borne disease isn't a clear enough name. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 15:43, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

It's possible that the title "Blood-borne disease" is appropriate for an article, I'm just suggesting that some scope clarification is needed: does it pertain to the relatively few diseases where the pathogen's life cycle depends on host-to-host transmission through blood (e.g. a viral hemorrhagic fever), is it more general, admitting any of the pathogens which can exploit opportunites for host-to-host transmission through blood (e.g. HIV), or is it any disease which infects the blood? LeadSongDog come howl! 15:57, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

An appropriate target for the term you are trying to link. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 16:36, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

FDA bot

Hey All. Wondering what people think of an "FDA bot" that as soon as a new FDA "Drug Safety Communication" comes out the bot tags the medication article in question (side effect or adverse effect section if it exists) with {{Incomplete|section|reason=New FDA Drug Alert as of "Date" }} if the url of the FDA alert is not already in the article?

List is here . There are not that many. Bot will only work on stuff going forwards. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:38, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

In theory, I like the idea. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 04:41, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

A very good idea, imo. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 06:14, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

sounds good--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:29, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Makes sense - post on Misplaced Pages:Bot requests maybe? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:50, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

A good way to look for information that needs to be updated. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 16:37, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I like the idea of reflecting the information, but given the low volume, a bot task seems a bit much. At least for starters manual edits may be more appropriate and carry less risk of community backlash. Also it's a bit US-centric to use just the FDA. The UK equivalent appears to be here. We should, I think, tweak WP:MEDMOS, WP:PHARMMOS, and template:Infobox drug to clarify how to show this information. Once that's worked out we can start to think about automation.LeadSongDog come howl! 16:45, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Chronic pain

Would someone please move the last two paragraphs from the lede to the "Management" section for me? I'm editing on an iPad mini for the next few days and just can't manage copy and paste. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 06:13, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

done. Jytdog (talk) 08:37, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Jytdog. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 09:30, 22 July 2015 (UTC)