Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Preclinical Medicine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
To discuss and create guidelines, please see the Guideline Discussion page.

Contents

[edit] Initial comments

Hi and welcome all to this project. I have outlined the ideas in the front page and will begin work on the anatomical position page with some editing and adding a few images. This page will be an anchor to most of the anatomical pages. If you have anything to say, please do! PhatRita 22:20, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

The goals of the project (written in bold) should sound more positively, if you understand what I wish to say ;) --Eleassar my talk 14:29, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

thanks for your advice and welcome to this project. I'm just trying to lay the foundation work right now. Feel free to put up more suggestions, I could do with the help :) PhatRita 21:28, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Hi all - I just joined WP and found this project today. I'm a recent college grad, biochemistry major, and pre-med. I'm really excited to be able to help out with the basic biological sciences this project covers. I just wonder if we might be missing out on some potentially interested contributors by putting so many subjects under the umbrella of "Pre-clinical" medicine. When I first saw this project, I thought "pre-clinical" meant something more public health-related, rather than hard science. I'd love to collaborate on different projects, so feel free to contact me if you have a project you need help on. Mr.Bip 21:00, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

hi there, welcome to wikipedia. Yes unfortunately I made the name. I'm studying in a British university and we don't have pre med - just preclinical (basic medical sciences) and clinical attachments in hospitals (we go into a 5/6 yr medicine course striaght after high scool at 18). I knew about the US system but didn't see how significant that would have been. I suppose in retrospect this may have been a bad name. We can always change it in future, like WikiDoc did to Clinical medicine.
But I'm glad you've came just now as the entire medical administration side of things is a complete mess. You are more than free to contribute and to raise discussions however you can. If you have any questions or help mail me here - PhatRita 23:24, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Categories for anatomy

From the main page:

Lots of random categories. The only subcategory of upper limb anatomy is...fingers. Articles are usually placed in just the anatomy category, and not more specific ones such as upper limb etc. I suggest that each article belongs in the anatomy category, then the regional anatomy category, and then the specific category, so for example, the thenar muscles in the hand, for example will belong in Category:anatomy, category: upper limb anatomy and then category:hand.

I suggest that individual articles on anatomy be categorized into two categories each - one for the specific region and another for the relevant organ system. For example, the thenar muscles in the hand would come under category:Hand and category:Muscular system or something like that. We do not need the thenar muscles to be in *all* the following categories of category:anatomy,upper limb, hand, muscular system. As Category:Hand is already a subcategory of Category:Upper limb anatomy which is a subcategory of Category:Anatomy, it's unnecessary for thenar muscles to be listed individually in category:Anatomy. It just leads to a ridiculous number of articles in the parent category making it less useful. In fact, I encourage you to go through Category:Anatomy and recategorize articles there to more relevant subcategories. Alex.tan 19:45, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

good point. However, a lot of the articles follow a similar pattern, and even more don't and follow some other pattern. I would be happy to go along with your idea. What does everyone think? PhatRita 23:16, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
btw, in something like category: Head and neck, amongst others, there are several sub categories of subcategories. For example, Cent. Nerv. System is a subcat of head and neck, and cerebellum is a sub cat of CNS. What would people think of a limit for categories? PhatRita 11:51, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] -ology articles

A newcomer's observations on the state of pre-clinical articles: it seems to me that the biggest problem to deal with first is the lack of consistency between the quality/depth of articles describing basic disciplines, like Histology, Embryology (only one line!), Microbiology, Immunology, Developmental biology, etc etc. The list goes on. These are big topics, each one of them (though something like Embryology probably doesn't need as much depth as Developmental biology). Once those are more consistently organized, one can branch out to related articles under those disciplines. A lot of work has already been done on articles on more specific topics. I think it would be great to join all of that work together under the umbrella of a well organized -ology article. This is along the same line of thought that Alex.tan has started. Organization of links could help the sciences a lot. Thoughts? Mr.Bip 07:35, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

It is true that these key starting points are being ignored. Embryology was nominated as a normal coll. of the week, which I put down my name for, and later abandoned. However, there is a lack of medical knowledge out there which makes our job just that much more difficult - just look at the head, a COTW which was abandoned as the editors suddenly realised they knew no anatomy at all. The only entry in muscles was "the tongue is the strongest muscle in the head." So if you want to engage in such pages first, which is not a bad idea, I'm happy to help you, but you must bear in mind that there will be little help from others and may be forced to write a significant chunk of it yourself.
you have a very valid point, so I'll put on an ology articles on the primary page. PhatRita 11:45, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Two other finds: I added Cell biology to the main page. The page is basically a stub at the moment. Also, most of the cell organelles have decent articles, except for, surprisingly, the nucleus. The basic article is fine, but it needs to be re-formatted and fleshed out. I mean, the nucleus does everything! Well, almost. I'm going to start taking on several of these projects on my own. If anyone is interested in helping with any specific topic, let me know. Mr.Bip 06:05, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Anatomy cat

Category:Anatomy has more than 150 articles in the main category. Many of these should be taken out and put in subcategories. But I don't know much about the subject. Is anyone interested in helping with this? Maurreen (talk) 15:55, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

yes! I've been trying to change that stuff for ages, but there are just so many of them. If you check the front the project page at the organisation section, you will see we are trying to make a checklist. The anatomy category should follow this organisation. Hope this helps... PhatRita 18:36, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
btw, Maurreen, some quick advice on classification if you don't know anything about anatomy. Preclinical teaching revolves around 6 areas of anatomy -
  • head and neck, self explanatory
  • back (the back muscles and the spine and all the problems associated with it)
  • Abdomen and Pelvis self explanatory
  • perineum - a special area just below the pelvis, an area the gynecologists specialise in

These main categories can be used for every anatomy article. PhatRita 11:37, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

There is also a lot of room for consolidation and redirects. Bowman's capsule and Bowman's membrane don't need seperate articles. Kerowyn 07:02, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm actually a veterinary student, i'd like to help out with your project but my primary aim is actually to consolidate some veterinary material on WP as well. Might be a good idea to work together as alot of our concepts are similar.

Unfortunately, alot of "vet" categories seem to redirect to the human medicine stubs without any particular veterinary perspective and I was wondering if we could either A) separate vet/human articles or B) have both consolidated and linked accordingly in relevant categories. Biliskner 12:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I think perhaps a system based organization would be better. I know teaching generally involves region based, but that is mainly to coincide with cadaver dissection. The problem with regional sections is that a structure can be found in more than one region. While I think that regions are best for learning, for reference, systemic organization is better. The Terminologia Anatomica, the international standard for anatomical nomenclature, divides structures up into the following sections:

  • General (general terms, parts of body, planes, lines, regions)
  • Skeletal system (bones)
  • Articular system (joints)
  • Muscular system (muscles)
  • Alimentary system
  • Respiratory system
  • Thoracic cavity (this is regional, but it only contains pleura & mediastinum related topics)
  • Urinary system
  • Genital systems
  • Abdominopelvic cavity (another region, mainly peritoneum and fossae/cavities)
  • Endocrine glands
  • Cardiovascular system
  • Lymphoid system
  • Nervous system
  • Sense organs
  • Integument

I believe this is a superior system. This represents an international standard that all of the anatomist organizations agreed to, and any anatomical term/topic has a predetermined place in the index system. --Mauvila 01:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] IRC, collaboration

Does anyone here ever hang out in IRC, in #wikipedia or elsewhere? I'd love to bounce some ideas off of people in real time. Maybe we could decide on something to tackle together. I'm having a hard time choosing exactly what to work on atm. Mr.Bip

Don't really use IRC - too time consuming, esp at med school. I don't know if anyone else uses IRC around here. How about you starting an "ideas factory" section or similar on the main page? PhatRita 14:12, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
I agree that it would be useful to have real-time chat to discuss ideas with people, but personally I don't use IRC. Plus it has its own associated pitfalls - being here in Australia I doubt I'd be able to organise a time to speak to many which is convenient to both of us. An "ideas factory" sounds promising, what is it? -- Serephine / talk - 01:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Improvement Drive

The article H5N1 has been listed to be improved on Wikipedia:This week's improvement drive. You can add your vote there if you would like to support the article.--Fenice 06:42, 4 August 2005 (UTC)Fenice 06:29, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the heads up Fenice, and kudos on all the hardwork you seem to do for WP:IDRIVE. H5N1 is of course critically important these days. I'll have a look at the article and vote if necessary. →Encephalon | ζ | ∑ 14:27:51, 2005-08-07 (UTC)

[edit] lull of material

hey all, I'm sorry I have not been updating stuff on the preclinical page. I have been away for the better part of the end of summer and now I have just got back to university. I will aim to get back into adding new stuff but am currently being plunged into the deep end with non stop pharm, micro and path lectures and practicals. Please would someone have a look at the head article and maybe help complete it with me - I have started the anatomy section but it is possible to go very deep into the subject. Also please feel free to carry on adding to the project, eg submit something for peer reviewing etc. PhatRita 10:27, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] circulatory physiology

The topic of "what makes blood enter the right atrium" came up at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science#Heart, and I think points out a deficiency in our articles on heart. blood circulation, and atrium. Perhaps someone with a better understanding and more recent exposure to physiology would like to have a go at expanding those articles? - Nunh-huh 19:51, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Article for deletion

There's a AfD posted for George Yi. The article looks like a hoax. Someone here may wish to comment on it. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Yi -- Ian ≡ talk 00:26, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine

As discussed at Wikipedia talk:Medicine Collaboration of the Week#Systematic coverage of topics, it would be nice to have a place we can identify articles that need work, even though they may not be selected for the Collaboration. As I think I mentioned before at the Doctors' Mess, I have begun work to try to organize this at Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine. I don't know the best place for this, but since I'd like it to include both clinical and pre-clinical topics, it didn't make sense to place it at either one, nor does it really fit at WP:MCOTW either. The design and inspiration come from Wikipedia:WikiProject Anti-war#List of pages covered by the projectand Wikipedia:WikiProject_Chemicals/Organization. Wikipedia:WikiProject Clinical medicine/top priority and Wikipedia:WikiProject Clinical medicine/categorizations will be useful in providing inspiration. I welcome any comments, suggestions, or assistance at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:37, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pre-clinical Medicine

It's a little odd that we have a whole WikiProject on Preclinical Medicine, but the encyclopedia itself doesn't seem to explain what that means. Perhaps pre-clinical medicine and preclinical medicine could redirect to medicine, where discussion could be added to the "branches" section? -- Beland 10:38, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I myself was a little put off by this project as I'd never heard the term before. I think my degree is similar in that I study sciences applicable to the human body, such as biochemistry and anatomy - but it's called biomedical science. Perhaps this is just more multiple terminology. I think however, with the project on Wikipedia being called "Pre-Clinical Medicine" the encyclopaedia should know a little about it! Go right ahead Beland -- Serephine / talk - 01:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Metolazone: peer review/feedback requested

I just wrote metolazone. I'd appreciate if editors would take a look at it, leaving suggestions for improvement or revising it as they see fit. Thanks! — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:43, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What about Kinesiology?

The article needs a lot of work- it's very fragmented (applied kinesiology and diagnostic kinesiology, which I'm assuming is something like Orthopedic assessment, none of which seem to have enough material or sources)... but where does it fit in? Here in my college Kinesiology is coded as Anatomy 5, so can we add it to Anatomy? --Eilu 14:08, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Articles for the Wikipedia 1.0 project

Hi, I'm a member of the Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team, which is looking to identify quality articles in Wikipedia for future publication on CD or paper. We recently began assessing using these criteria, and we are looking for A-class, B-class, and Good articles, with no POV or copyright problems. Can you recommend any suitable articles? Please post your suggestions here. Cheers, Shanel 20:15, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Latin terminology

Most terms are listed with english terms, and some half english, half latin. Shouldn't we give the reader a chance to know both?

[edit] Animal/human anatomy categories

The present organization of categories is especially confusing with respect to the relationship between humans and other animals. Category:Anatomy currently says "Anatomy is the study of the structure and organization of the human body", which contradicts the description at Anatomy; and then, why are Category:Human anatomy and Category:Animal anatomy subcategories? The scope of the latter is itself unclear and causes confusion, as evidenced at Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance)#Veterinary Stubs. Help! Melchoir 23:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out, I'll keep a lookout for this discrepancy when editing. I think many people forget about other animals when writing preclinical articles as the general body of information in universities and textbooks tend to focus on humans. This idea is especially relevant to the current discussion on human embryology, we'd love your 2 cents over at Talk:Human_embryogenesis -- Serephine / talk - 02:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Embryology, again

I noticed when adding in information for some articles (serous membrane) a reference to the embryological origin of these stuctures would be useful. Adding these in I noticed many of my Wikilinks went nowhere, terms like trilaminar embryo didn't exist on Wikipedia! I poddled along and created a stub for this particular entry but I see a greater need for a general overview of human embryogenesis. Those interested should look over at the discussion page Talk:Human_embryogenesis -- Serephine / talk - 09:03, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New page layout

Would anyone object if I changed the page layout to reflect the simpler layout of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Viruses page? The existing navigation bar would be incorporated into it, not replaced -- Serephine ♠ talk - 10:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Sounds sensible to me... Nmg20 18:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Update complete! -- Serephine ♠ talk - 07:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CpG island

Hi guys, when I get time to do so, I will do some expansion of CpG island. This jumped out at me because I need clarification about it the other day so I thought i may as well improve my studies and wikipedia at the same time. Viridae 07:42, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Anatomy

I am interested in seeing the (human) anatomy part of Wikipedia developed. Someone did a good job with creating stubs from Gray's, but that is only the beginning. For the articles that have been fleshed out, the terminology is often (usually) out-of-date, and so much useful encyclopedia-worthy information is left out. The breadth of this subject seems to necesitate a sub/separate project. There is already an anatomy project, but that doesn't look too active. I would be very willing to contribute if others would join me in taking an active interest in this endeavor. --Mauvila 06:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest starting it, talking about what pages you are working on and maybe people will join you. (not an anatomy person btw - know absoloutely nothing on the subject) Viridae 06:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia already seems to be suffering from an overabundance of WikiProjects - created with the best intentions in mind I'm sure, but being unable to be carried through due to small numbers. I too wish to see the anatomy part of Wikipedia developed, but think Preclinical Medicine is a perfect place to start - it has a larger, more established member list and hooks in well with the doctors from WikiProject Clinical Medicine, plus there is the Medicine Collaboration of the Week. I would suggest you set out a couple of broad guidelines as to how this could be achieved on the guideline talk tage and start from there. Direct people to the anatomy stubs list, create a shortlist of main articles needing attention and branch out from there - once the main anatomical articles are in place and satisfactory it will be simple to branch out and flesh more specialised topics. Consider placing a notice on the inactive WikiProject Anatomy page to rally people to this Project. I will watch this with interest and will participate where I can, good luck! -- Serephine ♠ talk - 07:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Clarification: When I said starting it, I meant starting the editing and talking about it within this wikiproject. Viridae 07:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I made a few suggestions on the guideline talk tage. --Mauvila 08:53, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


Seeing as how the Anatomy project is pretty much an orphan, I am going (assuming no objection, that is) to make it a child of the preclinical medicine project (and thus a grandchild of the medicine project). Anatomy is too large a project (i.e. too messy) to mix with guidelines (etc) of physiology, histology (etc) and this will allow it to have its own room to develop while at the same time preserving consistency with the other sciences. Thus, I think any topics specific to anatomy should be put on the anatomy project pages, and have the link put on this page. --Mauvila 22:15, 29 June 2006 (UTC) Anatomy project

What is everyone's opinion on eponyms for anatomical structures? While they are frequently still used "in the field", I don't predict that they will be for too long. Most recent textbooks have eschewed them altogether, and they are all non-standard terms. I am asking because I think they should be moved to standard name. (See Anatomy project.) Anyway, a list of articles still under their eponyms is available at Category:Eponymous anatomical structures.

Weeell - I'd support making the main article the non-eponymous version where that's definitively the more common usage. We should certainly keep the old ones as redirects. However, a number of those I doubt will ever get renamed - fallopian tube, Adam's apple, Broca's area, G-spot, Loop of Henle, McBurney's point, etc - a lot of these are in such common currency I can't see the uneponymous (is that a word? It should be.) versions catching on that quickly.
So I guess I'm suggesting we deal with these on a case-by-case basis, a.k.a. sitting on the fence!
Nmg20 07:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree about most of those. I'm not suggesting touching the microscopic things (e.g. Henle). For most of those words, I agree, but not for Adam's apple or Fallopian tubes. Adam's Apple is not really used in any type of anatomy text, or at least, not repeatedly. It is kind of a vague area, and might pertain to a part or the whole of the thyroid cartilage. I think it deserves its own article because it is not necessarily a synonym for something. Fallopian tubes is on its way out. I can't remember the last time I've seen it in an anatomy book (post-2000). "Uterine tubes" are the new thing.

--Mauvila 03:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like we're broadly in agreement. I'd suggest being conservative about these things for now (because people are!) - but I'm all for having the "right" name being the main article.
Nmg20 18:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Medical Genetics WikiProject

I started this project here. Please leave comments, help to create correct guidelines. Thanks. NCurse work 16:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lung Cancer, Passive Smoking, Smoking Ban

I've been working pretty extensively on these three (related) articles. I don't know if it's really a preclinical issue, but any thoughts / further work / checks to revert vandalism / etc would be good. Nmg20 11:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Lung Cancer: with more references, images it could even be featured article candidate. Could we work on it together?
  • Passive Smoking: what is the cause of the POV template? Anyway congrat! :) NCurse work 13:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
I think the POV template is inevitable in articles where people will work themselves into a lather about the key issue - in this case, the passive smoking "debate"... ;-) Anyway - I'd be delighted to work on it with you. Nmg20 14:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
In days, I'll let you know how much I could work on it. :) NCurse work 15:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfQ guideline: Manual of Style (Medicine-related articles)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Medicine-related articles): I've proposed this as a Manual of Style guideline to writing medical articles, please comment on that talk page!--Steven Fruitsmaak | Talk 12:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Enzyme...

...is a featured article candidate, if you wish you can comment here.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 13:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I wondered whether I should list it in Medicine WikiProject's news box or not... NCurse work 19:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Sure why not.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 23:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiversity School of Medicine

Check out the Wikiversity School of Medicine!--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 23:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Participants

I've initiated a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Participants that I would like to merge the participants list on Wikipedia:WikiProject Preclinical Medicine/Participants to Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Participants. Please comment there. -AED 22:35, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RFA

Hi,

for those interested, NCurse is up for adminship, voice your opinion here.

--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 20:43, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Project directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 00:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Expand or merge article Fascia adherens

I tripped over the article titled Fascia adherens while doing some Wikihousekeeping. It needs SERIOUS work. There are 3 problems I see with it:

  1. It is a one sentance article. I stubified it, but it has so little information, it is hard to categorize beyond "anatomy"
  2. Any non-expert would find the article esoteric and useless. Expansion may help.
  3. The particular doodly-bit described in the article seems, from my own limited knowledge of anatomy, a non notable doodly-bit. It may be better served if the article were merged with a larger subject, but the article in question has so little information, I could not even begin to find an article to merge it to.

Just wanted to give you guys a heads-up... --Jayron32 04:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:MEDMOS needs YOU!

The Manual of Style (Medicine-related articles) is entering a critical stage: I'm informing people to visit the page, make corrections where possible, and then state there support or disagreements on the talk page, so we can see if there is consensus to turn this proposed guideline into a consensus-supported guideline.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 21:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peer review of bacteria

Hi there. I'd value any input on this article. Thank you. TimVickers 03:07, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Article is now a FAC, its candidacy page is here TimVickers 17:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stablepedia

Beginning cross-post.

See Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team#Stablepedia. If you wish to comment, please comment there. ★TWO YEARS OF MESSEDROCKER★ 03:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

End cross-post. Please do not comment more in this section.

[edit] Epinephrine/adrenaline poll

Hey folks, where would the best place be to conduct a poll about whether Wikipedia should use "adrenaline" or "epinephrine"? A couple of us were chatting over at Talk:Epinephrine, but we'd like to broaden the discussion in hopes of making some changes. Thanks, David Iberri (talk) 03:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Try these:

NCurse work 06:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

BTW, Googlefight can help you answer the question:

  • adrenaline: 16,800,000 results
  • epinephrine: 4,240,000 results

NCurse work 06:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/k/Wikipedia_talk%7EWikiProject_Preclinical_Medicine_e8a2.html"