Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Reference Desk Article Collaboration

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Template 2 To-do to-go? 3 Focus 4 This article was created by... template 5 Prison preacher/religion/ministry 6 Attention! template 6.1 List of African-American inventors 7 Juice box 8 Wing walking 9 Lets see if this project actually works 9.1 Dopamine reuptake inhibitor| Antidepressants | NEED REFERENCES 10 Breezeway 11 Water Cooler # 1 - Please come on by and chat!

[edit] Template

I think that it was originally suggested on the RD Talk page, but I think we need a template that says something like "This article was created thanks to a Reference desk question; support your local reference desk!" (or whatever) to reinforce a positive image of the RDs (that is often lacking) and spread the word about this project (including a link to it). We can then stick the template on the talk page of any new articles that we create. Could somebody with better design and wording skills than me take a crack at it? --Maelwys 15:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. Please add your idea somewhere on the main page (To Do or wherever). --Justanother 15:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] To-do to-go?

Is it just me or do others think that the below template is more trouble than it is worth. I suggest we remove it and just use bullet points or sub-headings. That is what we are used to and is easier, IMO.

	To-do list for Wikipedia:WikiProject Reference Desk Article Collaboration:	edit  · history  · watch  · refresh
Here are some tasks you can do:

Comments? --Justanother 19:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Remove it from our eyesight, please. Seriously. ---Sluzzelin 23:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Focus

I'm not trying to create a false dichotomy here, but there is some contrast in the text:

Under Goals it mentions:

"First and foremost to improve Wikipedia through the addition of new articles on notable subjects and the improvement of existing articles."

... later under Scope

"This project is, to a large extent, about adding articles so if there is doubt then the default would be to add and let the larger community decide by means of normal deletion processes."

... and under Guidelines

"Concentration will be on new articles and existing stubs.'"

Ok, this is why I'm being annoying and nitpicky: Is creating a new article a value in itself? Often, contributing large chunks to existing articles (not just stubs but decent articles too) might be the the better option and also the one with greater chances of survival under the community's relentless weeding process. Maybe I misunderstood the text though. In any case, it's a great idea and I have to hunt for orvietan, Kimera and Masquerade (erm maybe this is a good example of merging into an existing article). ---Sluzzelin 23:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. This is a collaboration and there is room for lots of different opinions; here are mine:

1. I know you are not raising this issue but it I really think that this project is a bit "i-word" in its nature.
2. New articles should not be added for their own sakes and due diligence should be exercised before starting a new article to ensure that the material is not already covered under a different name or as part of another article. I mention in the Goal that new articles should be notable.
3. This wikiproject, like everything else here, is a wiki and you can edit it. I, personally, would like to keep "new articles" as an essential part of the collaboration. That is because the huge range of questions that we field on the RD highlights areas that are not, in any way, sufficiently represented here. For example, compare the level of detail on any blue-collar job (or perhaps any job at all) with the level of detail on computer and video games or anime.
4. As I said, there is room for different approaches here and those that prefer new articles can work on those and those that prefer to improve existing articles can stress that aspect. The important think is that this project encourages contribution.

Thanks --Justanother 03:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Justanother. I didn't mean that adding to existing articles vs creating new ones were two different approaches or a matter of personal preference or favored approach. I don't prefer either. I'm just not very wiki-crafty and want my additions to stick the first time around, before I see them at AFD or before they get removed by an existing article's "owners". I'll seek feedback here first. ---Sluzzelin 09:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Here we go. It took 4 minutes for the newly created article on orvietan to get tagged. ---Sluzzelin 01:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC) .. Alright, never mind, I admit I freaked out. I categorized the article now, the tag proved to be helpful and I proved to hyperreactive. ---Sluzzelin 01:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Nofear (smile). What a cool article! Good start. There are a lot of editors here and some like some tasks and some like others. That was a helpful tag. Now some day, we will get a delete tag as quickly but that is OK, too; just means that the article needs to justify its existence a bit more. --Justanother 01:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This article was created by... template

I'm no artist by any means, but I have had a go at creating the following template: Template:WPRDAC:

PAGENAME was created or significatly enhanced as a result of WikiProject Reference Desk Article Collaboration, a project to leverage research efforts made on the Reference Desks into a more lasting contribution to the encyclopedia. If you would like to help, please consider joining us.

Comments, criticism, improvements? Rockpocket 07:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

hmm. Any particular reason for the hat? V-Man737 07:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Not really, it seemed scholarly and I couldn't find anything more reference desky at the Commons. If you can think of something better then I would be happy to change. Rockpocket 07:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

What is that kind of hat called, anyway? More importantly, do we have an article about it?? ^_^

As far as alternative ideas (and this is really stretching it), I'm thinking of getting someone to make an image that incorporates all the WP:RD images into one graphic somehow, and we could use that. V-Man737 08:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Its a mortar board! I thought about trying to merge the RD symbols, but the image on banners should be kept pretty small, it would be difficult to fit them all in. Rockpocket 08:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

"Academic headgear"!! ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!11 *whew* Yeah, I dunno... I just might take a crack at it. Maybe. V-Man737 08:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Very nice! Well done. :) --Maelwys 13:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I love those hats and always wanted one. ---Sluzzelin 13:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

That looks great! I like the mortar board but if others don't then you might be able to find something "library-ish" like books or building detail (stairs, door, columns, like that). But I am not too particular myself. --Justanother 14:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I have changed the template to incorporate a link back to the original question. I think this helps to build the web and also increases awareness of the RD from articlespace. However, the one slight problem is that the link will change when the question is archived. Once (if?) the archive bot is back online and archiving quicker this hopefully will be less of a problem. Rockpocket 03:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Prison preacher/religion/ministry

• • Sounds good. I would go with "Prison ministry" and I think there is nothing on it but a few specific churches. --Justanother 07:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I think prison ministry is the preferable title - UK link http://www.hmprisonservice.gov.uk/adviceandsupport/prison_life/religion/ 213.249.237.49 15:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

What do you think of the title Prison religion? V-Man737 03:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Or would that be a different subject? V-Man737 04:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Meh. I've titled it "Prison religion" for now; if it was too WP:BOLD of me, feel free to change it. V-Man737 05:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

If you mean where an organized outside church or pastor ministers to inmates by an outreach program or setting up some satellite church in the prison then that is called "prison ministry" (see http://prisonministry.net/ for example), IMO. What is "prison religion"? --Justanother 06:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

See the article for full details; basically it is religion that is practiced in (and sometimes because of) prison. And hey!! I added that as an external link in the article!!!1 V-Man737 06:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

So would it by then that it is a point-of-view issue? If an outside church sets up in a prison then it is "prison ministry" while "prison religion" might descibe the epiphany that some inmates have and any efforts to save others that results? --Justanother 06:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

That sounds about right. "Prison religion" is what the inmates experience or practice, and "prison ministry" is the organization of such. Do you think it is enough of a difference to elicit a separate article? V-Man737 01:15, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

<left> I think that that one article is fine for now. If it develops it may split. --Justanother 04:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Attention! template

WikiProject Reference Desk Article Collaboration This question inspired an article to be created or enhanced: Name of new article Please consider contributing

I have had a go at creating the following template to be added to questions that we wish to expand into articlespace: Template:WPRDAC attention:

Again: comments, criticism, improvements? Rockpocket 09:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it might be a tad bit large (thus, distracting; I dunno, is it that bad to make a big deal out of a new article?) to stick right in the middle of a question; contrasted with my earlier request to make it catch the eye, this opinion must be really stupid looking... The template looks really nice, IMHO maybe we should try reducing its height by a line by changing the wording? V-Man737 09:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

How about this, pushing it to the right margin. This way it remains highly visible (which is what we want) but also doesn't break up the question and answers. Rockpocket 10:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The idea is great, the execution is nice and neutral (I really hate those orange and pink boxes), and I tend to agree with V-Man737, to make it even less bulky we could type it in small bold font . Gotta love those little hats. ---Sluzzelin 12:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Good idea, I have now changed it to reflect your idea. Rockpocket 17:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Beautiful! I love it. V-Man737 08:16, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of African-American inventors

• List of African-American inventors if there isn't anything similar (too tired to look right now). V-Man737 11:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

  There's the Category:African American inventors and Notable black innovators, inventors and scientists. ---Sluzzelin 11:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

  Okay, I've redirected it. I'mma put the "notable" article in the existing article collab too... V-Man737 00:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Juice box

Do you suppose it would be good to have a RDAC juicer user box made to put on our user pages? I'd like that very muchly. V-Man737 01:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Indeed - AMP'd 03:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

That would be sweeet! --Justanother 03:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Is {{User WPRDAC}} ok:

Rockpocket 06:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Nice!! I'm adding it! --Justanother 04:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wing walking

I stole the Google Queen's job and did a little search on wing walking. I foundthis. If someone less tired could work on adding that to the article that'd be peachy. - AMP'd 03:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm on it. Code four. Over and out. V-Man737 03:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Silly me, I got the one worser image from there and never looked to see what else there was. But then, wikipedia has been a bit exciting for me lately on my more "serious" front. Go get 'em, V-man! --Justanother 04:01, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lets see if this project actually works

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Reference_Desk_Article_Collaboration#Dopamine_reuptake_inhibitor.7C_Antidepressants_.7C_NEED_REFERENCES. --Parker007 21:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dopamine reuptake inhibitor| Antidepressants | NEED REFERENCES

Q1. I am looking for references to back up this paragraph:

In general, the abuse potential of DAR inhibitors depends on how they affect the pattern of dopamine release and reuptake. Compounds that inhibit reuptake and also induce release of dopamine, such as methamphetamine or phenmetrazine, or compounds that inhibit reuptake but have no effect on release, such as cocaine or methylphenidate, tend to be addictive drugs with potential for abuse in humans. ^{[citation needed]} On the other hand, compounds that inhibit reuptake but also inhibit release of dopamine, such as Wellbutrin and vanoxerine, have mild stimulant effects and little abuse potential, and can be used to treat stimulant addiction. ^{[citation needed]}

I would appreciate the references provided. Thank you. --Parker007 07:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

http://www.drugabuse.gov/NIDA_Notes/NNVol12N3/Compounds.html mentions the addictive properties, in relation to preventative treatments; http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/418525 mentions addiction's reuptake patterns in general, and then in relation to methadone and some othe B-drug that I forgot the name of. All provided by this Goog search. V-Man737 07:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Please explain how the above references are actually related to: "On the other hand, compounds that inhibit reuptake but also inhibit release of dopamine, such as bupropion have mild stimulant effects and little abuse potential." I would much appreciate a reply. Thanks. --Parker007 07:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh - now I see the first article doesn't mention Bupropion specifically... hrmph. Perhaps the sentence in the article should be changed to match the source, rather than whoring up a source to fit an exact claim? I'm sorry for the scanty help, it's past my bedtime... V-Man737 07:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• On the other hand, compounds that inhibit reuptake but also inhibit release of dopamine, such as Wellbutrin and vanoxerine, have mild stimulant effects and little abuse potential, and can be used to treat stimulant addiction. ^{[citation needed]}
• I believe the above statement, I just want a reference. Please? --Parker007 00:05, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Please say which part of the statement you want a reference for.87.102.7.169 10:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Its "but also inhibit release of dopamine" --Parker007 02:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Searching for 'zyban' another name for bupropion - gives many references saying that it can be used to treat nicotine addition.

Searching for 'vanoxerine addiction' turns up numerous references saying that it may be useful for cocaine addiction eg http://dmd.aspetjournals.org/cgi/content/full/29/9/1216 (note this says it is a dopamine reuptake inhibitor..I haven't done a full search for the best example.

Is this what you wanted references for or did you want a reference that says specifically that they inhibit dopamine release? If so see below.87.102.7.169 10:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

((Also the statement 'have little abuse potential' could be construed as weasel words when the articles on Bupropion clearly state that they have been abused by some patients.. Why not just re-write to match the facts.))87.102.7.169 11:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

From what I can find it seems that Vanoxerine inhibits other drug induced dopamine release - eg it inhibits the action of dopamine release by another drug - so that's subtly different. here http://www.mdma.net/dopamine/vanoxerine.html a 60% reduction in the dopamine release under the conditions described if I've read correctly.

Here's a reference that states that bupropion decreases spontaneous dopamine release http://www.cocaine.org/dopamine/efflux.html 87.102.7.169 11:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much friend; (I am looking for reference that states Wellbutrin/bupropion inihibits the release of dopamine; as there is already a reference in the article bupropion regarding it inhibits reuptake of dopamine.) from the last reference I got this:

“

Release of dopamine via the human transporter by Eshleman AJ, Henningsen RA, Neve KA, Janowsky A., Research Service, Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Portland, Oregon. Mol Pharmacol 1994 Feb;45(2):312-68 ABSTRACT A human dopamine transporter cDNA was cloned and transfected into COS-7 cells, a cell line that lacks vesicular storage and release mechanisms. Cells expressing the dopamine transporter acquired the capacity to take up and release dopamine via the transporter. Ionic conditions that stimulate inside-out transport in vivo, such as depolarizing concentrations of K+ or low concentrations of extracellular Na+, were found to stimulate Ca(2+)-independent release of [3H]dopamine from transfected COS-7 cells. Dopamine re-uptake inhibitors had one of three effects on transporter-mediated efflux. Some drugs, in addition to inhibiting re-uptake, inhibited spontaneous release of dopamine. Drugs in this class included mazindol, GBR-12935, bupropion, nomifensine, and benztropine. All of the drugs with the potential for abuse by humans either enhanced release (methamphetamine, amphetamine, and ethanol) or had no effect on release (phencyclidine, cocaine, and WIN 35,428). The ability to define classes of uptake blockers based on their effects on human transporter-mediated dopamine efflux may lead to the identification of structural features of the transporter that differentiate abused from nonabused drugs.

”

--Parker007 02:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Would the source http://www.cocaine.org/dopamine/efflux.html for the above abstract conform to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources ? --Parker007 07:21, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

The page references "Mol Pharmacol 1994 Feb;45(2):312-68" at the top - Molecular Pharmacology Journal I assume - I can't check this but I'd assume yes.87.102.9.15 11:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Breezeway

Should I un-redirect that page right away, or should we wait? V-Man737 04:52, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Pull the redirect. The arch use is the major one; use an {{otheruses2}}? to direct to the record firm. --Justanother 04:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Whoops, you would use {{For}} as in {{For|the film of the same name|Alexander the Great (1956 film)}} --Justanother 04:59, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Done. Now let's wrangle us up some sauce!!!!!1 V-Man737 05:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Supadoopa! Check the Google link on the project page for a start. Who knows, something might drop out from it. --Justanother 05:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Water Cooler # 1 - Please come on by and chat!

Hi. I just wanted to chat about how we can improve the project. I know that no-one thinks this is "my" (as in User:Justanother's) project but I want first to state that very definitely. This is not my project. This is our project. OK, that's done. I won't repeat myself on that point. So let's have social intercourse! What, a red link? Laff. --Justanother 19:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• An idea. Feature one article and keep on plugging away at it until it is at least ready for WP:GA review. --Justanother 19:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
• A thought. Should we make any breakdown on the main project page for which RD the new article corresponds to? --Justanother 19:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I currently have an AfD running but once that closes I will be taking a wikibreak. So if I do not see you'all before then then see ya later. I'll post something to your'alls talk pages when I get back and we can figure out where we would like to take this. Or start without me! Thanks. --Justanother 02:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)