Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:59, 2 June 2013

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

• 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

Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/WikiProject used

Human vaginal size article

Note: As mentioned below at the same time as this small piece of text, I should have initially thought of this topic outside of anatomy in a strict sense/medical sense when seeing this article. Flyer22 (talk) 22:43, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

So this article was created late the previous hour in response to the Human penis size article, though the vagina is not homologous to the penis. Since the editor participates at WP:Feminism, and was at that project right before creating this article, a feminist aspect might also have something to do with the creation of this article; I know that some of our feminist editors, and non-feminist editors as well, feel that Misplaced Pages lacks balance between the sexes/genders. And while I understand the need to create such an article in response to the Human penis size article, the Human vaginal size article clearly cannot be expanded beyond a stub and therefore I see no reason that this topic should not be directed to the Vagina article and covered there instead. The editor has already taken some information from there, using this and this poor source (the latter source is also a dead link), and added it to the Human vaginal size article. Once I get around to significantly fixing up the Vagina article, which is long overdue, I would likely redirect the Human vaginal size article there. But I am obviously open to hearing comments on this matter. I'll alert the creator of this article, and WP:ANATOMY, to this discussion. Since this WikiProject (WP:MED) is significantly more likely to leave a few or more replies on this matter than WP:ANATOMY is because WP:ANATOMY is significantly less active, I've decided to have this discussion here. Flyer22 (talk) 20:45, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for offering to improve it, and bringing it to notice here; a poor stub is all I could produce, and it could be greatly improved. I think the relevant factor in interlinking the two is not that the structures are homologous (they're not), but that one is (typically) inserted into the other as part of their key biological function. It could easily be expanded, if there's data for the changes in size due to sexual intercourse (there's at least one in vivo MRI study of the mechanics of human sexual intercourse, although that had N=1), and childbirth (for which there is abundant data.) I'm not sure about merging it completely into the main article, though, unless you can find a way to pare down all the figures to something that flows smoothly as text. Perhaps this is a case for the {{main}} template? -- The Anome (talk) 20:52, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

As always it comes down to sourcing. If there's lots of good sourcing for human penis size but nothing or next to nothing for human vaginal size then we should have a fully-developed article about the one and not the other... real-world differences in how humans think about or study male things vs. female things will be reflected in Misplaced Pages content in the same way, it isn't good or bad or biased, Misplaced Pages content just reflects the sources. (I think I'm preaching to the choir here.) If doing the redirect becomes an issue, bring it to the attention of WP:MED... Zad68 21:00, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

(As an off-topic aside, yes, it's really quite interesting to compare the extreme interest in one to the relative disinterest in the other -- it certainly suggests that the primary interest in the size of the penis isn't its ability to fit the vagina -- which actually works just fine in all but the most extreme cases -- but male insecurity and competition.) -- The Anome (talk) 21:44, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree, Zad. Thanks for weighing in.

The Anome, wow, how did you type a response so fast? Considering that you posted here before I posted on your talk page about this topic, were you already alerted to this discussion, perhaps by the new notification system? Regarding the article, I still don't think it can be expanded beyond a stub, certainly not much beyond a stub. It wouldn't be an issue at all to have it as a subsection, or as a few subsections, in the Vagina article. I'm more for not creating a WP:SPINOUT article unless needed. But I'll wait and see what more editors state on this matter, if more comment on it. And the "main" template wouldn't be needed unless there was a section in the Vagina article specifically about the size of the vagina; we would use the main template to point readers to the Human vaginal size article for in-depth information on the topic. But again, there is not a lot of information out there on this topic, and the Human vaginal size article is a stub, so not having the Human vaginal size article merged with the Vagina article means that the Vagina article would have a very small section on the topic just to point readers to the main article on it; and per Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Layout#Paragraphs, "hort paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading." Flyer22 (talk) 21:16, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm happy to defer to the subject experts here about both content and layout. Yes, it was the new notification system. I'm surprised to find the new system, which I initially disliked and found gimmicky, is actually more useful than the old one. -- The Anome (talk) 21:36, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I have no expertise here, but two points. First, it seems that human vaginal size is a notable topic. Searching for "vaginal size" in GScholar nets 248 hits. Glancing at the first few papers suggests that there are a number of relevant issues surrounding this topic, both medical and non-medical: vaginal dilation at birth and during sex, physical anthropology studies of different human ethnic groups, size issues surrounding sex-change surgery, sociological and psychological perceptions of size, vaginal tightening surgeries, etc. There are nearly 800 hits in GBooks. I wouldn't think that lack of material would be a problem. Second, this article is being actively developed by an experienced editor. It is already beyond a stub, IMO. Why the rush to merge? --Mark viking (talk) 21:43, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Not a rush to merge; after all, I did bring the topic here for discussion. It's that I have doubt, as expressed above, that the topic should have its own article. Besides that, it doesn't seem that The Anome was aware that this topic, aside from social aspects, is going to require WP:MEDRS-compliant sources. But you have touched on aspects that now make me think that the article should exist. As for the article's size, it has been divided into sections, but it's still not beyond a stub. I am waiting to see how it develops, and may expand it as well. But discussing whether or not it should exist is productive. Flyer22 (talk) 22:12, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I apologize for the assertive tone of my question; I intended no challenge. I agree that it was good to bring the topic here for discussion and look forward to seeing what others think. Thanks, --Mark viking (talk) 22:18, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. At the moment, I know it's a very crude stub article that does not meet WP Medicine's standards, for which I apologise. However, I believe it was still worth creating, as fruitful soil for developing a proper article on the topic. In particular, the sexual arousal, intercourse, pregnancy and childbirth aspects are surely of medical and scientific interest, both from the viewpoints of sexology and obstetrics, but currently non-existent in the article. There must surely be material out there in the literature that is more recent than Masters and Johnson that touches on all of these. (Also, as an afterthought, perhaps the article should also touch on the topic of vaginal atresia, Müllerian agenesis. and intersex conditions which create unusually-sized, missing or deformed vaginas?) -- The Anome (talk) 22:21, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Mark viking, no problem. When seeing this article, I should have thought of this topic outside of anatomy in a strict sense/medical sense, especially since the Human penis size article also covers social aspects. Taking into account the aspects you mentioned, some of which the article already touches on, it can be easily expanded beyond a stub. Flyer22 (talk) 22:43, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I am not yet convinced that this proposed material covering vaginal size should be anywhere else besides Vagina. "Chamberousness" (if I may make up a word) is part of the essential nature of the vagina's two main functions: to support sexual intercourse and childbirth. Vaginal size already has some coverage at Vagina, and that article is only 13 Kb of readable prose, there is plenty more room for content to be expanded there before considering spinning it off to a subarticle. Absolutely Misplaced Pages should cover it, but with the information we have right now it should be in Vagina. Zad68 23:04, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Try: vacuousness (I think that is a word). While you guys are talking about this stuff I noted on potential space that the vagina had been listed as an example. I understand that a potential space does not exist in health, and requires pathologic separation to be created, e.g. spread of pus that dissects between fascial plains. If someone can confirm that the vagina is anatomically classed as a potential space with a source please add to article. Lesion (talk) 00:56, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm a dyed-in-the-wool mergeist, so you may discount my view, but I really think that this should be integrated directly into the main article. All of the basics and at least most of the pathological variation needs to be covered at the main article anyway, so there would be a lot of overlap.

My suggestion is to merge now, and to split later if it's really necessary. It is far easier to merge in a stub and split out a major section than to merge in a more significant article, especially if there is significant overlap in the two independently developed pages. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:52, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with this. Biosthmors (talk) 19:07, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with a merge too. I think the most important related parameter is the maximal potential size of the canal during childbirth, which is completely missing now, and I can't recall any study on this topic. The current contents of the article describing baseline dimensions are relatively unimportant, but if we merge this article to the Vagina article we can deal with this issue later. Mikael Häggström (talk) 14:32, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

As it looks like there's good support here for the idea that this content should be merged directly into Vagina I've tagged the article for merge, discussion is here: Talk:Human_vaginal_size#Proposed merge into Vagina. Please voice your opinions, and if there's consensus to merge we'll complete the merge. Zad68 02:03, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to create/maintain disease infoboxes

I run an academic research group, and one of our current projects is to develop the Gene Wiki project. Basically, we helped to create/maintain a template for key information on human genes. In cases where a gene page already existed, we just added/updated the template. When they didn’t exist before, we auto-created stubs. Now, we maintain a bot that keeps these infoboxes up to date with the source databases.

After the success of the gene pages, the idea of expanding to other biomedical topics has been suggested several times by other scientists I’ve talked to. The set of human diseases is one natural area. Clearly, Template:Infobox_disease is already doing a great job organizing many links to related resources. Relative to what already exists, I can see a few possible ways we might contribute:

• Systematically determining, adding, and maintaining the mappings (e.g., to OMIM, MeSH, GeneReviews, etc.)
• Adding new data sources (e.g. NCI Thesaurus, Disease Ontology)
• Identifying a “comprehensive” list of notable human diseases for stub creation
• Providing wikilinks to related genes and drugs/compounds (with references)

We would appreciate any feedback, thoughts, and suggestions on whether this community thinks our involvement would be useful and productive. (Note, we’ve also started a very similar discussion with Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Pharmacology on the idea of expanding drug topics as well.) Cheers, Andrew Su (talk) 22:01, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I like this idea. This would mesh well with the efforts we are working on with the WHO ICD division. ICD 11 is coming out soon and the ideas we are mulling around is not only partly basing the ICD 11 on Misplaced Pages but looking at updating the infoboxes to ICD 11. This will require bots to do so and if you have a similar bot already developed that could definately be a starting point. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:10, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

We by the way have a fairly exhaustive list of diseases here The difficulty is many diseases are known by a number of names and some of these should simply be redirects. Could we come up with a bot that would search disease name synonyms and see if Misplaced Pages has an article for one while adding redirects for the others? That would be a first step. Than we could have a bot that adds the disease infobox to the rest as well as adding the disease infobox to articles that do not have it already and maybe filling in the disease infobox where there is data but it is not included :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:21, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Great, glad to hear there's some enthusiasm of this idea. Absolutely, no human should have to deal with any ICD codes, so systematically dealing with ICD 9 and ICD 10 while still prepping for the arrival of ICD 11 seems to be perfect for a bot. The list of diseases looks remarkable! We should definitely figure out how to incorporate this effort. We have been working with the Disease Ontology folks. The plus-side of DO is that they track many of the synonyms, so setting up redirects should be straightforward. However, by quick spot check, I see many diseases listed here that aren't in DO. Anyway, I think figuring out the overlap there could involve a very productive collaboration in both directions. Cheers, Andrew Su (talk) 06:23, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Overall, I think this is a great idea. I'm a little uncertain about the "links to related genes and drugs/compounds", but I'm willing to see how it works out.

May I request an addition? One of the things we've talked about, but never managed to accomplish, is a |specialty= parameter, to answer the very basic question of "What kind of a doctor usually deals with this?" It wouldn't be necessary on many articles, but it would be very handy for some of them (e.g., most autoimmune diseases are handled by rheumatologists), and I hope that it would be mostly simple to figure out whenever it is relevant. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:56, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the "links to related genes and drugs/compounds", another one of our collaborators has systematically curated links between diseases and genes and diseases and drugs. There is a mix of database imports and human manual curation, and they've tracked each link with the strength of the evidence. Clearly we'd restrict ourselves to the highest-confidence links. I was thinking about displaying this info in an infobox (either a new one, or expanding Template:Infobox_disease), but we're certainly open to how others think this information should be displayed.

Regarding the specialty parameter, sounds like a reasonable idea to me. I'd love to prepopulate that field with data from a database with our bot runs. Are you aware of any source of that information? Perhaps we could use the Disease Ontology hierarchy to infer that information. The fallback of course is simply to let editors fill that in one-by-one. Cheers, Andrew Su (talk) 06:23, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not aware of a good source, and each specialty tends to have an expansive idea of its scope, so that a dermatologist would include several heart conditions as being derm issues, or a neurologist would include cancers, etc. I'm hoping to get the primary specialty listed, not just any specialist who might encounter it. I think that pre-populating with an inferred specialty would be fine, and then we can manually correct it or expand it as necessary. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:49, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Agree that you'll need a very reliable source, because this will be contentious for the reasons you've touched upon. Nothing starts fights like turf does. -- Scray (talk) 17:34, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

The good news is that we're not required to limit it to one answer. Skin cancer could easily list both oncology and dermatology, for example. I think that I'd avoid citing this (should be obvious 90% of the time, right?) unless and until someone actually challenges it in a specific article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:34, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

And of course, this is exactly the sort of data that ought to be present in the Wikidata entry, http://www.wikidata.org/Q192102. It's also worth noting that if we're really going to be ahead of the game, once we supply more than one item of information in a field, we really ought to be marking it up as a proper list like this: {{hlist | oncology | dermatology}} for example. --RexxS (talk) 22:54, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

The issue of Wikidata and accessible lists in infoboxes is also being discussed at Template_talk:Infobox person#Parameters that can optionally be called from Wikidata. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:45, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks all for the additional thoughts. First on the subject of classifying disease, just a couple of thoughts. We are actively coordinating with the Disease Ontology folks, and classification/organization of disease terms into higher-level concepts is definitely something they've thought a lot about. We are hoping to include some elements of that structure into the disease infobox. However, it's not quite the same as linking a disease to the primary specialty. Perhaps we should also follow the model of {{Breast_cancer_types}} and |{{Systemic connective tissue disorders}}? Again, this is not purely a bot issue since it will take human input to do the classifications...

Second, on the issue of wikidata, 100% in agreement. I apparently neglected to mention this, but we definitely will plan to put all the infobox data that we add/maintain into wikidata. And that includes all the old stuff we've done with {{GNF Protein box}}. Having said that, I think we're going to leave the discussion at Template_talk:Infobox person to others. Just know we'll be on board once all the options for querying and inclusion are worked out... Cheers, Andrew Su (talk) 00:47, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

re Classifying disease, I note in one the examples given at User:ProteinBoxBot/Phase 3 "inherited metabolic disorder" used. Now this is disease classification rather than the specialism that addresses the disorder; could have both I suppose. The risk is this gets idiosyncratic between articles with endless variations confusing medics as well as the non-specialist. Would we wish to restrict this to sub-parameters to enact a surgical sieve ? Hence have 3 variables of "Acquired-Congetial"; "Cause" (or 'Mechanism') eg inflammatory, infectious, cancer; and "Target_system" (eg Cardiac, Renal, or Systemic) ? David Ruben 23:59, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

This looks like a very interesting project. Where can we go to stay abreast of the progress? Klortho (talk) 13:22, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Great, glad you find it interesting! For the moment, we'll keep the discussion on this page (and the parallel discussion on compounds/drugs). Eventually we'll bring together all of the various activities into a single place -- probably at User:ProteinBoxBot. Cheers, Andrew Su (talk) 21:26, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes when a more defined proposal has been put together will definitely look at it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:36, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

In an effort to centralize the discussion with all interested parties and actually work on tangible prototypes, I've created User:ProteinBoxBot/Phase_3. We'd welcome your input and continued involvement over there! Cheers, Andrew Su (talk) 19:22, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi! I just caught on to this discussion and I'm glad I'm not totally late. The past 2 months I have been busy discussing and creating properties over at Wikidata. I should have actually informed this project earlier that already four properties have been created from the diseases infobox (MeSH, OMIM, ICD9, ICD10; d:Wikidata:List of properties/Terms#Medicine) which can now be assigned to every disease (e.g. d:Q2840). I would like to suggest that we create a task force page on Wikidata and centralize the discussion, the data gathering and the centralized infobox design there. By the way I really like the way the new infoboxes look. If you need any help with Wikidata I will watch this page and respond in a timely manner. (There are more medical property proposals here) --Tobias1984 (talk) 18:52, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: I requested the property you suggested at: d:Wikidata:Property_proposal/Term#doctor_specializing_in --Tobias1984 (talk) 19:06, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

ICD-O is now available as a property and MeSH and OMIM are currently being aquired by KLBot2. More properties are discussed at this page and would benefit from your comments! --Tobias1984 (talk) 15:14, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

The d:Wikidata:Medicine_task_force is now good to go. I proposed the remaining infobox fields here: this page. Can someone think of something that is still missing? Of course, everybody is invited to propose more properties on the task force talk page. --Tobias1984 (talk) 20:55, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Were are we at with pharmacology fields? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:13, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

There is no pharmacology task force yet. d:Wikidata:List_of_properties has all the existing properties. Some might still be under discussion at d:Wikidata:Molecular_Biology_task_force, because they have some overlap with pharmacology. In general any property can be proposed at d:Wikidata:Property_proposal/Term. --Tobias1984 (talk) 21:25, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I did a quick check of the drugbox and added a second table to d:Wikidata:Medicine_task_force. Currently only 2 existing properties from the infobox (not counting really general properties like "image", "chemical formula"). Anybody feel like making a list of things that should be included? --Tobias1984 (talk) 22:08, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Airway management rewrite?

Hi! I'd like to work on Airway management as I've mentioned on its talk page. As I am very much learning to edit Misplaced Pages, I just wanted to check here to make sure this proposed edit is ok. Any suggestions/objections would be appreciated. Bron (talk) 05:29, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

The title of that article initially made me think of managing airlines and the routes (airways) airplanes fly on. Flyer22 (talk) 05:39, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Have a look at tracheal intubation and the contributions by DiverDave (talk · contribs). That might be helpful. JFW | T@lk 16:26, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I have proposed merging Artificial airway to Airway management. The topics are basically identical in my view. Opinions?Ochiwar (talk) 15:12, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with your proposal.DiverDave (talk) 01:41, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Started Laryngeal tube. Needs c/e. Ochiwar (talk) 20:18, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Bupropion

Bupropion has several problems that I feel compromise its status as Featured Article. Please read Talk:Bupropion#Problems for my two cents. If these problems are not addressed, I will take it to FAR. Ten Pound Hammer • 07:28, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Agree FAR might be a good idea. A little out of date. Many refs are primary sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:08, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Psychiatric drugs and IP user

There is an IP user (2602:306:c518:6c40:f02a:330c:11cc:acdb (talk · contribs)) edit warring and doing disruptive edits at some psychiatric drugs articles (haloperidol, lurasidone, risperidone, and fluorobenzene). More eyes would be probably welcomed.--Garrondo (talk) 19:53, 22 May 2013 (UTC).

Moreover; it seems that his ip editor and User:ChemNerd (who should be said that is probably trying to control the damage) have both broken the 3RR. Maybe a temporal protection of these articles would be wise. Additionally it might not be the case, but edits, tone and topic have some resemblance to those of Mandragua/Booklaunch, --Garrondo (talk) 20:43, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah that guy looks like Booklaunch. Interesting in this edit he seems to indicate he has personal experience with antipsychotic drugs, but wasn't happy with the result. Is there an admin around? We might benefit from blocking the IP, but given the history he'll probably just come back as another IP in a matter of minutes. We might consider semi-protection on the small number of affected articles for a little while to discourage him. Zad68 20:52, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

My apologies for the edit warring. I should have known better.  :/ This editor is clearly unfamiliar with Misplaced Pages policy (or doesn't care about it), not knowledgeable in the science of pharmacology, and not knowledgeable in chemistry, in addition to all the behavior problems, and all his (non-trivial) edits have been reverted. ChemNerd (talk) 21:20, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

This is almost certainly not Booklaunch or Mandragua. A look at the history of Talk:Risperidone shows that the same person has been editing using similar IPv6 addresses since July 2012. The topic of psychosis has such a strong propensity to draw disruptive editors that we could easily get more than one editing on related themes. Looie496 (talk) 22:17, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Now is: 2602:306:C518:6C40:505A:5C79:DCDB:627E, for the moment only working at talk pages.--Garrondo (talk) 20:13, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

And is blocked. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:56, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Now is: 2602:306:c518:6c40:436:4cd8:3535:ce51, again for the moment only working at talk pages. (See this.--Garrondo (talk) 20:07, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Vitamin U

Does vitamin U really cure ulcers? I stumbled upon this article and found much of the content dubious, but I don't know enough to try to fix it. Can anyone here take a stab at it? Edgeweyes (talk) 11:47, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

This article should be merged to S-methylmethionine, I am fairly sure they are the same thing. Lesion (talk) 12:31, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to comment here again, but more input is required to reach a consensus here, thanks. Lesion (talk) 10:46, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

An invite to the NIH

If anyone is in Maryland, wishes to visit the NIH next week and meet with fellow medical Wikipedians join us. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:17, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Cancer village in China

Comments are welcome at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Cancer village in China.
-- Kind regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 20:37, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Clitoromegaly#The term "clitoromegaly" can refer to any abnormal enlargement of the clitoris

Comments are needed from this project regarding the above linked matter in the heading. If any of you are willing to help improve either or both those two articles -- Clitoromegaly and Clitoris enlargement -- through editing, that would also be appreciated. Flyer22 (talk) 01:11, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Hey again, everyone. Will at least one of you weigh in on the above matter? Flyer22 (talk) 16:29, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Recent changes pages

User:Kumioko has tagged a raft of pages for deletion: Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Medicine/Recent changes and its subpages from Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Medicine/Recent changes/0 to Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Medicine/Recent changes/21. I asked him to explain what he was doing, and he responded Certainly, Femto bot was operated by Rich Farmbrough. Rich has been banned from operating bots and his bots shut down. These pages haven't been updated since before May 2012 (some in 2011). Additionally multiple requests have been made to other bot operators to maintain the functionality and all have refused. One did make a Toolserver app that is fairly close. So there is no need to keep these pages, which all say recent (which is confusing) that haven't been updated in more than a year and won't be updated. I hope this helps. Kumioko (talk) 20:24, 25 May 2013 (UTC) Does this project want them, or should they be deleted? Nyttend (talk) 20:31, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

It looks like those pages have been deleted already. Only admins are able to view the deleted material. Axl ¤ 00:20, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

If memory serves, the pages were mostly lists of articles that are tagged with {{WPMED}}. INeverCry (talk · contribs) deleted them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:09, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

The contents of "Recent changes/0" were as follows:

The contents were periodically updated, as Kumioko noted; I thought perhaps you would be interested in the changes that the page experienced. I wish INC had waited to delete them, since this isn't simple maintenance; I don't think we should delete project pages unless the project says they don't want them. If you want them, I'll ask him to restore. Nyttend (talk) 02:12, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Ugh. I don't see how anyone could find such a page useful. I am happy to leave them deleted. Axl ¤ 08:36, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Last I saw of it, maybe a week or two ago, the page was still logging every edit to WP:MED articles. It functioned as a watchlist for every change to a WP:MED article (and not like that jumble above). I just went to open the page to see if there was any recent vandalism. If it can be restored and log recent changes like a watchlist, then I say restore. Biosthmors (talk) 16:49, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, since the lists were out of date, it was giving you every edit to the list of articles tagged for WPMED over a year ago, excluding all pages tagged since the last time the bot ran. But still, it's better than nothing. Perhaps it would even be worth generating the list by hand every now and again. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:36, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Deletion discussion - List of books about AIDS

1. List of books about AIDS
2. Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of books about AIDS

Ongoing deletion discussion for List of books about AIDS at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of books about AIDS.

Perhaps this WikiProject and its members may be interested in contributing to this discussion, and/or a quality improvement project for this list page. — Cirt (talk) 07:04, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

DSM-5 and roll call

Who is still around? Does anyone have access to the new DSM-5 ? See the dilemma on my talk ... there are numerous subtleties in Tourette syndrome and tic disorder that will need to be addressed and corrected, other articles in the autism suite require extensive work, every DSM article needs updating, and I'm wondering if anyone is still active who can help. I need access to DSM-V to be able to do TS correctly, and Asperger syndrome needs a good deal of work. Roll call ? DSM-5 anyone? Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:30, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Have you looked at the discussions at Talk:DSM-5? There are a couple of people actively working on the article, and I believe at least one of them has ordered a copy of the new version. It might be helpful to ask there -- not sure if any of them watch this page. Looie496 (talk) 14:40, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

The DSM 5 has taken some hard hits. The head of the NIMH has stated "Patients with mental disorders deserve better" . A commentary in annals states "The DSM-5, the recently published fifth edition of the diagnostic manual, ignored this risk and introduced several high-prevalence diagnoses at the fuzzy boundary with normality" DSM specifically asked us not to use their criteria a while ago. I think we should keep our article more directed towards the ICD criteria. I need to email the WHO and ask if this will have any effect on the ICD11. Supposedly they were supposed to be exactly the same for the next edition of the ICD. So to summarize I do not think we should be in a great hurry to update. We need to let the dust settle. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:14, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

That is only half true, since (info from our article) In May 2013, Insel, on behalf of NIMH, issued a joint statement with Jeffrey A. Lieberman, MD, president of the American Psychiatric Association, that emphasized that DSM-5, "...represents the best information currently available for clinical diagnosis of mental disorders. Patients, families, and insurers can be confident that effective treatments are available and that the DSM is the key resource for delivering the best available care. The National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) has not changed its position on DSM-5." Insel and Lieberman say that DSM-5 and RDoC "represent complementary, not competing, frameworks" for characterizing diseases and disorders.--Garrondo (talk) 07:09, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Glad to have you back Sandy! Editors are here and busy, WP:MED is still awesome as one of the most active projects on Misplaced Pages, last I checked. The release of DSM-V is directly relevant to me and User:MrADHD too because we're right in the middle of the GA review for Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Right now the article only mentions DSM-IV and I don't think it'll be required to have it list the DSM-V criteria for GA, although I will ask MrADHD to do that if it's possible for him to do so. Zad68 15:44, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, all, for this info and for confirming my DSM-5 concerns (more on my talk). Nonetheless, for a Featured article like TS (or autism or Asperger), I do still need to at least update some basics like diagnostic codes, etcetera (see the list on my talk). If anyone has access to DSM5 re the issues listed on my talk, much appreciated. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:04, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

FAR

I have nominated Bupropion for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Ten Pound Hammer • 04:14, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I have thoroughly scrubbed and polished the article over the last couple of days in an attempt to address the main issues. Looie496 (talk) 14:00, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Pertussis cough audio request

I think it would be great to include an audio clip of what the whooping cough sounds like on the Pertussis article. It has a very distinct sound and is easily identifiable because of that. And since many people tend to use Misplaced Pages as their go-to source for information, it would be a good educational tool for those who have not heard it. ComfyKem (talk) 04:45, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes agree. Disease is really rare in my country. Hopefully someone can record the sound or find a CC BY version. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:51, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Pertussis has become rare in many developed countries since the introduction of the DTP vaccine. It may be difficult to find someone who has both access to a case and the means/motivation to record and upload the file. Axl ¤ 19:03, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Stroke

A user is repeatedly adding primary source material here . Comments? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:44, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I think that information does not qualify for its own level 2 heading ==Therapy==, but would better fit as a level 3 sub heading under level 2 ==Research==. It could also be further summarized. Ochiwar (talk) 08:42, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Not according to MEDRS: There are many secondary sources in research directions. No reason to include a cherry-picked primary source. --Garrondo (talk) 09:06, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

AfC submission

This submission is up for review. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 02:11, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

"LALI is not to be confused with LAPI, or Lonergan-associated Pants Injury, which is a different pathophysiology and phenotype". Hmm. bobrayner (talk) 02:35, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

"but incidence is predicted to rise in parallel with Dr Lonergan's career"...? Sounds funny. The second ref is no good. Cant seem to find the stated information in the first ref. Ochiwar (talk) 06:58, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Done. Reviewed and declined. Looked like a hoax.Ochiwar (talk) 08:25, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

File:MedicalImageSharing.jpg

File:MedicalImageSharing.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 06:36, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Does that image have names (and medical information) of real individuals? Or is that just "dummy" data used by the system vendor to make a realistic-looking screenshot for their brochure? If the former, the image needs to go now. bobrayner (talk) 18:24, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

They look real enough to make me nervous, most dummy data in testing environments has been really obvious, in my experience "John Hurt", "Ann Testing" etc...." Canada Hky (talk) 02:39, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Just a list of names, no patient data attached. Says CC BY 3.0 here and I am sure a health care company would be aware of HIPPA So unless we have proof probably dummy data.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:44, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

The file doesn't seem to be at WP:FFD, nor is it tagged for speedy deletion. I am unsure in what sense it is "nominated for deletion". The image was clearly made by the company and has an appropriate license for Wikimedia Commons. If the image is to be kept, it should be uploaded there.

Regarding the list of names, they look plausible as real patients' names, although dummy names are also possible. If they are real names, it is possible that the company has permission from those patients to use them in this way. Typically, such information is legally protected from dissemination (HIPAA in the US; the Data Protection Act in the UK).

I tried to find guidance in Misplaced Pages about using patient-identifiable information, but I didn't find any. I'm not sure if there is guidance in Wikimedia Commons.

If these names are from real patients who have not consented, I agree that the image should not be permitted in Misplaced Pages. If no guidance is currently present in Misplaced Pages, this should be added.

I have asked the uploader (Mike2murphy) to comment here. Axl ¤ 12:56, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

commons:Commons:Patient images, but note that the page is just something that a couple of WPMED folks have written, not an official policy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:53, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, WhatamIdoing. I looked at the page history and I see several longstanding WikiProject Medicine editors. I myself don't have a Wikimedia Commons account. Any chance that you could push for the page to made an official guideline at Wikimedia Commons? Axl ¤ 11:38, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi - those names were fake, but I uploaded a new file with an unnamed study, to alleviate any concerns. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike2murphy (talk • contribs) 15:57, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. That is an improvement. (Although the names are still visible on the old picture, I feel reassured by your declaration.) I believe that the picture has a license that is compatible with Wikimedia Commons. Would consider uploading it to Wikimedia Commons instead? Axl ¤ 11:41, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

You should be able to use Misplaced Pages:Unified login to turn your Misplaced Pages account into a Commons account.

I'm not sure that the page will have broad support at Commons. The community there mostly seems to care about copyright status. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:35, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Someone else uses the name "Axl" at Wikimedia Commons. I asked them four years ago, but there was no response. Axl ¤ 17:56, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Axl, if the other user has been inactive, you may be able to "usurp" their commons user name. This is what I had to do because someone had my user name on commons several years ago and didn't use it for a few years. WP:Changing username/Usurpations Lesion (talk) 19:43, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Concerns about template Narcissism

I have opened a thread on Template talk:Narcissism about my concerns regarding that template. (that it uses wikionary links, links to articles that don't mention narcissism, etc.) Since there is no Project Psychiatry, I am posting it here, hoping to get feedback from other editors on the appropriateness of these links. Thanks, Farrajak (talk) 22:04, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Did you post a note at WT:WikiProject Psychology? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:33, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Melatonin at the helpdesk

Just to bring this to the attention of participants: Misplaced Pages:Help_desk/Archives/2013_May_29#Melatonin. XOttawahitech (talk) 22:01, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Artemisia absinthium

I removed material on therapeutic claims sourced to old primary documents (Culpeper's herbal) and to primary papers on preliminary medical research from the article on Artemisia absinthium per WP:MEDRS. There is a discussion on the talk page here Talk:Artemisia absinthium about the interpretation of the sourcing policy. Please feel free to comment. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:19, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Input would be appreciated at Talk:Morgellons

The discussion there isn't very productive. More input might help the various parties gain a little perspective. -- Scray (talk) 23:15, 2 June 2013 (UTC)