Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Help needed with Diet and heart disease and Saturated fat

The POV pushers from THINCS and the Weston A. Price Foundation have been busy on Wikipedia. The articles in question are written with the intent of pushing their minority viewpoint while discounting the current scientific consensus regarding the role of saturated fat in heart disease. The articles need complete rewrites, presenting the majority view while recognizing the minority view. --Javance 23:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Help needed with Emergence phenomenon

Hello. I just categorized the stub Emergence phenomenon but it's in dire need of cleanup and expert attention. It's not even clear to me that there's much in there worth keeping but hopefully someone from the project can make a better judgment on that issue. Thanks, Pascal.Tesson 03:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lesch-Nyhan syndrome

LNS is featured, but in bad shape; does anyone want to help work on restoring it to featured status? All of the needed info seems to be there in the links to the references. Unless someone can help me clean it up, I'm going to submit it to WP:FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll have a look at it later. L.J.Skinnerwot|I did 02:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Very nice article! I don't know about featured articles, but a thought on content: you may consider adding some stuff about the clinical spectrum of Lesch-Nyhan. There is a broad range of variability, from isolated hyperuricemia to full-blown Lesch-Nyhan Disorder. You may enjoy the 2006 article by Dave Schretlen et al in Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology.Shwmtpf 23:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:MEDMOS

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (medicine-related articles) is a proposed guideline discussed and developed over recent months. Please visit the talk page to indicate whether you support or oppose Manual of Style (medicine-related articles) becoming a guideline. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder Treatments

I'd like to add the newborn article Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder treatments to the wikiproject Medicine. I'd also like to ask your opinions on the subsection: #Treatment_Endorsed_by_American_Psychiatric_Association where it talks about Family Doctors. So any comments about this these matters? Thanks Edward Bower 07:39, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Be bold and add it to the project. You find related information here. NCurse work 08:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Diseases database

Others might want to look at this; I don't have much time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requesting input on stub proposal: Pathology-stub

Hi all. I've proposed a new stub, {{Pathology-stub}}, to mark the many proto-articles on topics related to Pathology - including various tools and techniques of pathologists, subspecialties of pathology, and microscopic entities which are part of disease processes and are used by pathologists in diagnosis. In assembling the items that would be appropriate for the stub, I found that some of them had been labeled as medical signs and marked with {{Med-sign-stub}}, under the broad definition that anything which is detectable and relates to a disease is a "medical sign". In my experience, named eponymous signs, and other medical entities specifically referred to as "signs" are concepts which refer primarily to a appearance or observation rather than to a physical entity which is part of the disease process itself. Thus, observations made on physical examination (e.g. strawberry tongue) or radiographic study (e.g. Kerley B lines) are "medical signs" but entities such as fibrosis, astrogliosis, and auer rods are not, and would be appropriate for my new stub & category. Whether you support or oppose my idea, I'd apprciate your joining the conversation at WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals. Thanks. -RustavoTalk/Contribs 02:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Arthrogryposis

Merged Arthrogryposis multiplex congenita into Arthrogryposis and while doing so I happend to stumble on this list of sub names under Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/Missing diseases/1 for Arthrogryposis:

  • Arthrogryposis due to muscular dystrophy
  • Arthrogryposis ectodermal dysplasia other anomalies
  • Arthrogryposis epileptic seizures migrational brain disorder
  • Arthrogryposis IUGR thoracic dystrophy
  • Arthrogryposis like disorder
  • Arthrogryposis like hand anomaly sensorineural
  • Arthrogryposis multiplex congenita CNS calcification
  • Arthrogryposis multiplex congenita distal
  • Arthrogryposis multiplex congenita neurogenic type
  • Arthrogryposis multiplex congenita pulmonary hypoplasia
  • Arthrogryposis multiplex congenita whistling face
  • Arthrogryposis multiplex congenita, distal type 1
  • Arthrogryposis multiplex congenita, distal type 2
  • Arthrogryposis multiplex congenita, distal, x-linked
  • Arthrogryposis ophthalmoplegia retinopathy
  • Arthrogryposis renal dysfunction cholestasis syndrome
  • Arthrogryposis spinal muscular atrophy

Do all of the above really qualify for their own article? Are there any diff's bout them? Anyone here with a bit of med background give me some pointers or suggestions as to what to do with them? Would really love to just redirect them onto Arthogryposis but the article itself isint in the best shape in the world. Thanks in advance. petze 07:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Many of these missing articles should be redirected to the Arthrogryposis article, but it is in a bad shape. If you could improve it, then we could also create the redirects. Until then, I don't think so. NCurse work 14:01, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Sweet, i shall put Arthrogryposis on my 'to do list' and will see how far I can improve it. Then we can redirect most of those above terms and the "List of Diseases not in wikipedia begining with A" can go that one step closer to going complete... hehe. petze 06:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Ok I did a whole revamp on the Arthrogryposis article and hopefully now its better (hopefully not a complete utter mess), would really appreciate it if someone with more general wikipedia skills can take a look and see if they can tweak it so it's better, and remove/modify any info that might be repeated or possibly copyvio(All the reff's is there, im just having clashes with the unreferenced info that was there initially...and trying to incorporate it with all the stuff i found is a bit tricky)... particulatly check the causes section... i found that a bit hard to "fix"... After you made the appropriate changws( gave it the O.K!) please by all means redirect all the subtypes of arthrogryposis into that article. (The ones that are suited of course). Wanted to put them down as a list, but that's just not wiki like and will get messy.... So yeah thanks for ur time.PS. Just remembered though (While im posting i guess i can ask here: Are we allowed to use the "infobox" links from the article as references to the entire article... i wanted to but i thought ur not meant to for some reason and decided to make life difficult for myself and look for other jorunals,random webs that talk about this disease...So use infobox as reff for entire article? Or the fact that the infobox is there, assumes that we used those ref's for the entire article?PPS. One more Q, whats up with the external links? Do we actually allow support group type sites or what? Like what's allowed, whats not allowed in external links section? Thanks in advance. petze 04:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I think we should continue this discussion on your talk page. NCurse work 15:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
In case anyone is intrested, i finished doing all the redirecting of all the disease sub types into the article. Please don't hesistate to make correct modifications incase i made a mistake somewhere, and ur more than welcome to find a free GNU pic to add for the disease. And while ur add it ur also more than welcome to fix up the references so they read nicer. Im not to sure how to do that otherwise i would have done it myself. Thanks. petze 08:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I am new to this; please let me know if I am not communicating properly. I don't yet know how to edit articles, so maybe I can just put a few comments here. The article overall looks pretty good, I think. Basically, arthrogryposis is a clinical description that refers to multiple congenital contractures. The statement, "The cause as such, is unknown," may suggest that there is a single cause that has yet to be discovered. Rather, arthrogryposis can be caused by a number of different things (many of which you list). Uterine crowding (e.g., in twin pregnancies) can be a cause, but most often it is due to decreased fetal movement secondary to a number of different reasons (CNS dysfunction, peripheral nerve dysfunction, muscle dysfunction). When evaluating a baby with arthrogryposis, you just have to go through all of those different possible causes. The list under "Classification" seems to be a number of entities from OMIM--single gene or single locus disorders that have arthrogryposis as part of the symptom complex. These are not a classification scheme for arthrogryposis per se, but just some genetic disorders that each can cause arthrogryposis. Anyway, hope that helps some.Shwmtpf 23:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] cerebral circulation

this article could be easily improved. Even just labeling arteries on the picture would help. Tkjazzer 18:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The imaged used on Circle of Willis could go there, or I'd be happy to add labels into that Gray's one. Scott 23:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Medicine Portal and Medical collaboration of the Month

I'm still looking for contributors. The portal would need at least one additional maintainer and the collaboration of the month is actually empty... NCurse work 19:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a lot of time at the moment, but the portal hasn't been updated for a while so I guess a little bit of effort would be better than none. Think it's about time this talk page was archived too. Scott 23:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
First the portal is updated always (regarding the selected image and article box), but I don't have always time for the other boxes, that's why I'd need help. Anyway, I arhcive this page now. NCurse work 06:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Started an update on the Things you can do box which hadn't been changed in some time. Will keep an eye on news to add there, but quotes are more tricky - not sure where to get a stash of medical-related quotes. Scott 16:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
It's great, thanks for the help. You can find medical quotes here. NCurse work 21:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Renal tubular acidosis

I'm after reactions/suggestions/input for this article which I've been polishing for a bit, and have been failing to get anyone else interested in. Hoping to get it ready for GA or even FA.

Go on.

You know you want to.FelixFelix talk 16:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I had a bash at it, I'm afraid that it was only superficial changes though, not my area! -- Serephine ♠ talk - 02:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inflammation update

Just letting you know that the article for Inflammation has undergone a large amount of work, fundamental principles are now in place for people to expand upon if they wish. Cheers, -- Serephine ♠ talk - 02:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease

Found another article with 21 different subtypes: Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/Missing diseases/2, see 383-404. Since the article Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease is in not bad shape (compared to what Arthrogryposis looked like a few days ago) , I decided to just make a redirect for most if not all of them into that article. (I shall research the actual disease and make checks for each subtype though to make sure it's not allready a article b4 redirecting). Feel free to have a look urself, add ur input etc. Thanks for ur attention.petze 08:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Where did this list come from? It has some similarities with NIH Office of Rare Diseases: Rare Diseases Terms: C. But that list has 40 variants to the core Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease. Do we have guidelines on when/whether to create redirects for disease variants? How should such variants be formed? For example, some documents have Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease, Type 1A rather than Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease type 1A. Colin°Talk 11:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Dunno where the list came from, i just looked at the list at the wikiproject's missing disease page 2 and saw that long list. I then googled each term to make sure it was generally real (If it had a OMIM number), the ones that are more researched even have genes affected and loci so they more than qualified for a redirect to the Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease article. In terms of redirects I assumed that redirects dont cost bandwith or wikipedia resources so having both Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease, Type 1A and Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease Type 1A wont hurt? That is my random newbie opinion tho and if it aint the case, im gonna have to go through a lot of "delete redirects" (see my contributions*cry*). As to make a bit of a update this is what i was left with:
  • Charcot Marie tooth disease deafness mental retardation
  • Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease type 2B1
  • (Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease type 2B2
  • Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease type 4B
  • Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease, intermediate form
  • Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease, neuronal, type B
  • Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease, neuronal, type D
  • Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease, neuronal, type A

I am not to sure what they refer to, and the info i found on them was confusing, so hopefully someone else can add em on to the article and then redirect them (unless they were allready in the article but spelt out in a diferent format/way).Thanks once again for ur attention. petze 11:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

  1. Don't trust OMIM to prove a disease exists. Both tuberous sclerosis 3 and tuberous sclerosis 4 have OMIM entries but don't exist.
  2. Read Wikipedia:Redirect. You haven't done anything wrong, or that needs deleted. There are lots of reasons for creating redirects. The main ones, I think, are helping with internal links and ensuring the "Go" button will find an article. With the former, someone might want to refer specifically to Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease type 1A and hope that if eventually a specific article is written for it, then the link will just work. With the latter, it is useful to know a little about how Go works (see Help:Go button). For example, having a form where all (but the first) letters are lowercase, can help with such searches where mixed case is used.
  3. If you want redirects for all variants of a name, you could be here all day. Autosomal recessive hereditary motor and sensory neuropathy with focally folded myelin sheaths (CMT4B)?
Colin°Talk 12:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Darn, thats a bit strange, is there any site on the net we can trust?! But anyway thanks for the reply. Cleared a few things up. I wont make all variants of a name:). But if they are on a wiki list (like the one where i initially found them) i try to assume, that they were placed there cuz someone requested them or such (and not just taken from a random list and dumped here for someone to make tedious redirects for em :). Cya later. petze 13:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh, definitely just dumped. I guess it was thought to be useful to highlight genuinely missing diseases. An alternative to creating an article or redirect might be to just place a comment next to an entry in the list to say "Article not required" or whatever, when you think that the name or variation is just too obscure to be worthwhile. Colin°Talk 14:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cannabis rescheduling FAR

Can folks here please look in on Wikipedia:Featured article review/Cannabis rescheduling in the United States; I left some questions at the bottom of the FAR that are over my head. I have no idea if this article is accurate or completely POV; not versed in the topic. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

We don't know what to do with this; no one on the FAR has any idea if the info presented there is accurate, outdated, POV, whatever. The questions haved to do with dopamine and cannabinoid receptors. Can anyone take a look and give us some direction? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Medicine:Collaboration of the Month

Currenty, there aren't any nominations. Wouldn't you like to submit some articles? NCurse work 20:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Transcription factor and Oncogene are both shockingly brief. --Arcadian 21:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I've nominated both of them. Thanks for the input! NCurse work 06:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed Veterinary Medicine project

The proposed project at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Veterinary medicine now has enough members to probably function as a task force. I was wondering whether the members of this project, which would seem to be the natural "parent" project, would be amenable to the idea of it becoming a task force of this project. Any and all responses are welcome. John Carter 23:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I think a Wikiproject for veterinary medicine would be a very good idea. There have been some recent discussions about the the best way to organize pathology and anatomy pages that cover humans and non-human content, and it would be quite helpful if there was a centralized location to request veterinary input. --Arcadian 02:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cold compression therapy

I've had a hard time finding references for this. If somebody has some references, maybe from a first aid manual or something, could you please add references. Sancho (Review me) 16:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Food and Drug Administration Criticism page

There has been a lengthy discussion about the proper fate of material related to criticism of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. We are trying to reach consensus on the page Criticism of the FDA as to whether this content merits a separate page. All are welcome to join the discussion. Thanks. -RustavoTalk/Contribs 00:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lesch-Nyhan syndrome FAR

Lesch-Nyhan syndrome has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mother's Day (May 13) Main page

Baby Gender Mentor will be on the main page on Mother's Day. I won't be around to help vandalfight; hope others will watchlist. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Positive predictive value - Mistaken statement about statistical power?

The "Positive predictive value" page says "The positive predictive value is also known as the statistical power in statistics", but I think that this is incorrect. If I am not mistaken, positive predictive value = TP / (TP + FP), but power = TP / (TP + FN). Hsafer 05:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re-assessments and Tay-Sachs

I added a summary table at the top of this (talk) page, and noticed that the Medicine Project had a number of articles assessed as A-class that I backed off to B-class. A-class is above GA, and almost FA, but we had several articles assessed at A-class which weren't even cited and wouldn't even make GA. Of all the articles I re-assessed, only Tay-Sachs disease has attempted to come to A-class standard. Can medical editors please review it and see if it's assessment can be moved back to A-class now that additional work has been done, or leave comments about any additional work needed? Talk:Tay-Sachs disease, the editor has worked hard to bring it to standard. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiproject banners

First, I'll just say that the veterinary medicine wikiproject is up and running at WP:VET. Second, I've tagging some vet med articles with {{WikiProject Veterinary medicine}}, and I've noticed that some are also tagged with {{WPMED}}. Obviously, some articles contain both human and animal information (something that should probably be discussed in the future), but some are purely veterinary related, such as Salmon poisoning disease and Ornithobacterium rhinotracheale. Do you want me to leave your banner there, or was it just there so the article would be under some project's purview? --Joelmills 01:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Seems to me if they're not human diseases, the WPMED tag could go. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure I agree - it might make sense to give WP:VET a few months and make sure it stays active as a Wikiproject (since it is brand new) before removing the WPMED tags. There is nothing wrong with having tags for two different WikiProjects on a talk page. Note that Wikipedia:WikiProject Clinical medicine is a human disease & treatment-specific wikiproject - WPMED has a broader scope. You should definitely replace {{med-stub}} with {{veterinary-med-stub}} where appropriate though. -RustavoTalk/Contribs 01:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Schizophrenia FAR

Schizophrenia has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. LuciferMorgan 21:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Much progress has been made on Schizophrenia during its Wikipedia:Featured article review/Schizophrenia; more eyes to help with copyedit and issues of comprehensiveness would be welcome. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:45drive45

This user was active from May 9th until May 21st of this year. He or she got on and added a bunch of links to a Malaysian herbal remedy website that I'm assuming he or she was associated with. I am going to revert all of the commercial links (for example "*Curing Cough: Effective Traditional Chinese Herbal Cures to Cough treats the Problem not the symptom" on the cough page.) but I'm not sure if I should also huff all the pages that he or she created. Ideas?

Creationlaw 21:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

copy of their article straight forward copies of the herbal suppliers website - I've marked the articles with copyvios and posted a warning to the user. Please let me know of any further breaches and I'll take action. David Ruben Talk 00:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Therac ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therac ) is currently of "unassessed" importance. I don't know about the medical angle, but as a programmer it's highly important - it's a highly documented case where a software bug has actually killed someone, and raises all sorts of ethical questions, particularly about responsibility and accountability. 82.71.7.193 00:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Allopathic medicine

I posted a lengthy discussion on Talk:Allopathic medicine page about the need to revamp this article entirely. Hoping to get some help/suggestions/input. Seems like a very important topic. Currently ranked as high. Thanks. User:OsteopathicFreak 24 May 2007

[edit] Navboxes and ICD-10 coding of disease articles

Is there a central forum on this Wikiproject for discussion of the proper use of ICD-10 coded infoboxes such as {{Infobox Disease}}, diagnosis navboxes such as {{Tumors}}, and uses of ICD-10 coding in subheads (as on the page alcoholic liver disease) or other places throughout articles? For example, I think the latter example demonstrates overuse of coding, and the navboxes seem to be steadily proliferating, raising hackles among some editors of individual pages.

On one hand, I applaud those who are working hard to bring organization and useful information to disease articles on Wikipedia. On the other hand, I don't think ICD-10 should be the basic organizing principle for all articles and disease navboxes without some unified discussion, consensus, and set of guidelines. This Wikiproject seems to be the best place to do that. Perhaps we could create a dedicated subpage on this wikiproject for discussion of standardization issues, such as what to do if a consensus page breakdown does not correspond to ICD-10, or how to manage format conflicts arising from large numbers of navboxes on a single page. It would help to write consensus guidelines into Wikipedia:Manual of Style (medicine-related articles), but I also think there should be a forum for discussing these issues as they come up. If such a page already exists, my apologies! -RustavoTalk/Contribs 22:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

To address the subhead issue - I agree that the codes should not be in the subheads, and should be removed where they exist. I believe there are very few cases where they are used in that way -- in the example in question, they were inserted by me back in 2005, when there was much less precedent. --Arcadian 22:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Agree ICD codes shouldn't be in sub-heads or headings, like the use in the disease infobox (which I believe is appropriate), and copying my comments on Arcadian's talk page to here (dislike large navigational templates added to articles, in general). I'm not happy having it cluttering up the bottom of Tourette syndrome (I dislike excessive navigational templates and don't feel it adds anything to the article except size), but I guess there's nothing I can do about it :/ I also don't like the undue weight it gives to the ICD-10 coding scheme over other schemes, and the fact that TS is a neurological condition. I'd be really happy if I could remove it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
To make it easier to see the difference between the old way and the new way: this is the format of Template:Gastroenterology before I updated it to Template:Navbox generic, and organized it around ICD10. (Rustavo is opposed to Navbox generic.) On my monitor, it takes up less space vertically in the new format, even after adding several additional conditions. --Arcadian 23:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not really opposed to {{navbox generic}}, and I apologize for overreacting to your changes to {{pathology}} - not all of my concerns were regarding the new template format as you'll remember. I realize that you have been doing good work on medicine articles for much longer than I have even been on wikipedia. My concern is just that when you are going to edit a large number of articles (e.g. every disease article on Wikipedia) it is nice to have a discussion to point to which explains what you are doing and shows that there is some consensus for it. It is helpful for us (relative) newbies. This really isn't just about you, Arcadian. Thanks. -RustavoTalk/Contribs 05:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree that this isn't just about me. Template:Hematology and Template:Gastroenterology both date back to 2004 (predating my involvement with Wikipedia), and were created by User:Jfdwolff. Template:Nephrology dates back to 2006, and was created by User:Nephron. The biggest change I made to them was converting them to navbox generic, which has strong community support. Since then, I've created additional templates for medical conditions (starting with Template:Tumors, in January 2006), and the feedback I have received has been positive. --Arcadian 13:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
My concern is not over one format for the template or another; I don't see the usefulness in cluttering the bottom of Tourette syndrome with one definition of a coding scheme, nor the need to have a chunky template at the bottom of the article with conditions ranging from Schizophrenia to mental retardation to personality disorders. None of this adds anything to the topic of Tourette syndrome. Should we also add a template there listing every single breakdown in the DSM ? Then should I also add a template listing every single neurological condition? Then every movement disorder? Where do these large templates end? TS could theoretically have four templates equally as large as this one, adding nothing to the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Navigation boxes aren't controversial. A majority of the the 31 featured articles for May have them. When formatted using "Navbox generic", they automatically collapse when more than one is on the page at the saem time, so if four were on the same page, they would take up less space than one does. Clearly, as you are the author of Template:Topics related to Tourette syndrome, you see the benefit to navigation boxes. I understand that you are upset that Tourette's is classified in chapter F of ICD-10 (in the same way that you were upset by OMIM's characterization of Tourette's) and you don't agree with the hierarchy, but that's why our standard is to defer to international consensus whenever possible, and there is no more accepted international standard than ICD-10. (DSM has wider support in the US, but DSM-IV Codes use the same numbers as ICD-9, and the hierarchy in ICD-9 and ICD-10 are almost identical. That said, if you would prefer a DSM/ICD9 approach, I would not oppose that.) --Arcadian 13:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, topics related to TS are ... related to TS. I hate the proliferation and stacks of marginally-related navboxes on all FAs, but I know I can't Object at FAC because there's no criterion in WIAFA that disallows them. A DSM approach would add an equally large chunk of "stuff" to the bottom of the article. I don't understand this collapsible issue; you say they will automatically collapse if there are more than two on a page. There are two templates at TS, but the ICD box doesn't automatically collapse — how can I enact that feature? The box will bother me less if there's not a massive chunk of unrelated topics showing at the bottom of the TS article, so collapsing would be good. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
The selective collapse feature only works with the standard templates. I've taken the liberty of converting your Template:Topics related to Tourette syndrome template to Navbox generic, so you can see how it looks now. (Feel free to revert the change if you prefer it the other way.) --Arcadian 17:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Very nice result — thanks so much ! Now I can make all that clunk go away at the bottom of the article. I do hope you can appreciate how irritating it is to have an ICD10 template on the Tourette syndrome article, when they don't even have the good sense to call it Tourette syndrome, or anything remotely close to what most of the world calls it :-) It's bad enough that they label Tourette syndrome under "emotional disorders" (which it's not); it's just funny that this template is on an article where you have to label it in the template with a label not even in use by the ICD10. So that's what I think of the ICD10 :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I like where we are going with navboxes, but I do have one concern re the cancer pages. Template:Tumors used to have by-location and by-histology sections, which in made an important point about these being (often) separate. I have spent months editing pages that conflate location and histology. Eg, pages describing the same kind of germ cell tumor (by-histology) separately for each part of the body in which it is found. Now we have Template:Tumor Morphology (oops, now its name is Template:ICDOMorphology) which rather obscures this point. One of its fields is "central nervous system" or something like that, which approaches being a location. And the title word "morphology" does the same. Histology and morphology are not synonymous; may I suggest call this template "tumor histology"? Maybe someone could write a bot to make this change? --Una Smith 03:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC), corrected 03:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The proposed name sounds good to me. I have renamed it to Template:Tumor histology. If Una wanted to restore a subset back to Template:Tumors, I wouldn't object to that (though of course there are too many to put them all in there.) I've also changed Nervous system to Nervous tissue, to clarify that ICD-O is organized around tissue type. --Arcadian 03:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Booze (fatal)

While I note Category:Deaths from renal failure, etc., I don't see anything for liver failure or cirrhosis of the liver (though there is an option for cancer of the liver). Indeed, there's no category for alcohol-related deaths. My medical knowledge is near zero and I'm not even all that keen on pigeonholing people (even dead ones) by cause of death; still, I wonder what medically minded people might think about this (non) issue. -- Hoary 07:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it is a useless category... but then categories I think are useful get deleted.[1] Nephron  T|C 19:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
In the UK, "renal failure" is not an acceptable (legal) cause of death — another specific disease must have caused the renal failure. "Liver failure" probably wouldn't be a useful classification, but perhaps "liver cirrhosis" is. Axl 14:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Innaccurate medical advice

Is there a disclaimer template to put on pages where misinformation is paraded under the headings Treatment orPrevention—Gaff ταλκ 20:23, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

See WP:MEDMOS — the general Wiki disclaimer does that, and we shouldn't add anything separate. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
If you think something is wrong, but aren't sure enough to remove or correct it, you can add Template:Fact to the statement in question to serve as a prompt to future readers and editors. --Arcadian 21:24, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Help needed with Fascia

I did a major revision of fascia over the last few days. This is my first edit and although the article is improving nicely, I have questions about content, references, images, and layout. Content: I have considered adding other categories such as pathology and treatment interventions to the article. References: one of the finest references on fascia is in DVD form. How do I cite a DVD? Images: What images (other than Gray's) are available for inclusion? Layout: The fascia article now contains a large category by organ system. This looks long and bulky to me. Any ideas how it could be better displayed? Massagenj 11:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

For references: you may want to try Template:Cite video. --Arcadian 12:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
You can put the classification in a tabular form or move to a new separate page and give a link. --Countincr ( T@lk ) 15:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Importance & quality assessments

The table at the top-right of this page helpfully indicates approximate numbers of medicine-related pages by importance and quality. However there doesn't seem to be an easy way of listing the articles in each cell. E.g. I want to review those articles that are categorized as top importance and stub or start class. I hope that one of the admins can assist. Thanks. Axl 16:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, I've discovered how to do it. Axl 08:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Can you share? I was wondering that too... Owain.davies 08:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
This is the list: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Article_rating. Axl 19:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Emergence phenomenon

I've just listed this article for deletion. If anybody has any opinions then the AfD page is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emergence phenomenon--John24601 18:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alcohol and cancer

Could Alcohol and cancer be brought within the scope of your project? The page could be a lot worse but it could definitely benefit from some experienced editors who know how to interpret scientific papers. Spiro Keats 18:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nutrition articles

I would like to know if this project would be willing to take on nutrition-related articles. Articles like Vegetarianism, Veganism, and others are suffering from bias and a lack of peer review. If the answer is yes, I will go ahead and tag the articles. If the answer is no, could someone recommend a project willing to review nutrition-related topics. Thank you. —Viriditas | Talk 08:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

As we don't have a nutrition-related wikiproject, please tag them and if you let us know about the improvements, maybe we can help. Thank you! NCurse work 13:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sopite syndrome

I stumbled across the term "Sopite syndrome" reading news online and decided to create the article. Can someone take a quick look to make sure its not totally wrong? Its a really interesting subject so even if you can't help you should check it out. Can someone check it over and also do a pass of Motion sickness (to which I also did some clean up). Thanks alot! -Ravedave 16:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stub template: image

Can someone please have a look at the stub template. There has been some disagreement over which image to choose (see history and User talk:Owain.davies. --Eleassar my talk 16:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hemorrhoid

Could someone please have a look at improving Hemorrhoid? I'm certain that it's incomplete, but what is there is a mish-mash of fact, folklore, and advertisement. I hope someone knowledgeable has time to at least cull anything false, and/or present the home remedies in their proper context, but I'd also be glad to see the article expanded and referenced more thoroughly. Thank you for your time and expertise! — Catherine\talk 18:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Need advice

I've been editing Herpes zoster for the past few weeks, trying to clean up what I felt was a mess. Even though I'm an MD, I try to stay out of medical articles because they're no fun usually, and because my opinions can be fairly strong. I don't want to own an article. But I thought this article would be safe, because I'm not an infectious disease specialist. It was more fun than dealing with Evolution vs. Creationism debates. What I've noticed is a lot of people trying to put in what I consider unverified claims about shingles, especially with herbal treatments. I think that homeopathy and naturopathy are pseudosciences mostly. I know there is some research looking into certain herbal salves that might help the diseases, but I'm offended when I read garbage that taking this vitamin or that herb cures everything. Given that Wikipedia is now at the top of every search engine, my guess is that someone who contracts shingles comes here for information. Moreover, since with shingles getting antivirals within a couple of days is crucial, I don't want people to think that some claim that this or that works can be substituted. I've read some other articles, and mostly the editors keep out the pseudo-medical crap. But where's the line? I want to move the article to GA and maybe FA status, so I need some advice from more experienced editors. And if a couple of you could watch over the article, maybe I can get some pointers in watching how often you revert this ahem hooey. Thanks. Orangemarlin 18:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tonic-clonic seizure

I recently created the tonic-clonic seizure article and have been working on it quite intensively since, and I'm now hoping for some feedback and possibly a rating for the article. Thanks. Beno1000 22:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that you have done excellent work, and the article is well on its way, but at some point it will probably need some journal references. --Arcadian 00:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Caduceus vs Rod of Asclepius

I really don't like the merchant symbol of caduceus being used by this project instead of the medical Rod of Asclepius. I propose we switch to the image Aeskulap.png (see right) until we find a more suitable one. I've already inserted it in the med-stub template. --Eleassar my talk 09:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Agree - It really should be the rod of ascepius. Partly my fault as a transferred the caduceus to replace some 'star of life' designs as star of life is for emergency pre-hospital medicine only. Owain.davies 09:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Agree, but I strongly prefer the Rod_of_asclepius.jpg to the Image:Aeskulap.png David Ruben Talk 19:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Agree with Rod_of_asclepius.jpg -RustavoTalk/Contribs 21:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Agree. It should be the Rod of Asclepius; Rod_of_asclepius.jpg is good IMHO. Nephron  T|C 21:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Image:Rod of asclepius.jpg has white background, while Image:Aeskulap.png is transparent. So I think the latter is preferred (e.g try previewing in the template {{WPMED}}). IMHO we should use only one image to represent this project. --Eleassar my talk 08:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
There are some other .svg possibilities available in Commons. E.g. (Esclapius stick.svg), (Esclapius stick coloured.svg), (Asclepius staff.svg).
Do you like any of them more than the one proposed above (Image:Aeskulap.png)? --Eleassar my talk 09:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Personally i prefer the colour svg image Owain.davies 09:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
I prefer the stylized black & white version: Rod_of_asclepius.jpg Axl 17:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
As I said it has white background and looks awful when used e.g. in {{WPMED}}. Esclapius stick.svg is very similar to it, so probably I'll replace the caduceus with this one. --Eleassar my talk 17:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
I have made a transparent .PNG version of it, if that helps:
on colored background:
— Catherine\talk 17:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Perfect - let's use that one Owain.davies 18:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. --Eleassar my talk 21:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I have now changed all the instances of Caduceus and Star of life over to the Rod of Asclepius - i think. I may have missed the off template, so please feel free to find more! Owain.davies 07:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
I have fixed some more. Check later at the image description page if any remained. --Eleassar my talk 09:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I have now made some major updates the respective articles (caduceus and rod of asclepius), so please feel free to add more details (i think more refs would be good). It is now very clear the distinction between the two. Owain.davies 12:32, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Human Biology article

I've proposed on its talk page to scrub most of Human Biology and start it nearly from scratch. It's confusing, unsourced, and IMO bears little relation to the academic discipline of human biology that it was apparently intended to describe. It's tagged as being within the scope of this WikiProject, so while I'm not proposing a deletion, I wanted to send out a heads up before I act on this in case there are objections to such a major reworking. Zenauberon 05:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bartonella rochalimae

I recently created the article on the newly-discovered bacterium, Bartonella rochalimae. I also added it to ITN, because I felt it met the necessary criteria. An administrator named Violetriga (talk · contribs) removed it, and there's an ongoing discussion at his talk page (See User_talk:Violetriga#Bartonella_rochalimae_removal. I would appreciate it if any project members could add their opinions at his talk page. Thanks, Nishkid64 (talk) 23:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Selected articles and images of Medicine Portal

Please let me know if you happen to know about a quality article or image that I could feature on Medicine Portal. You can list good or featured medical articles or images under the links. Thank you in advance! NCurse work 06:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Death

I've proposed the medically focussed section of death be branched out into a new article. Requesting comments on the proposed split, and if anyone is interested on working on it that would be terrific. Richard001 10:14, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia ad for WikiProject Medicine

I am highly thinking about making an ad for this project (see WP:BANNER). Let me know what ideas that members of this project have, and I can see what I can do! Miranda 04:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

We'd be so thankful. I'm going to contact you about it on your talk page. NCurse work 15:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. I will start on it soon. Miranda 17:11, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Qxz-ad47.gif
Y Done Enjoy! Miranda 04:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Wow! Thank you so much! :) NCurse work 15:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks great, but unfortunately, that's the wrong symbol - see discussion above. You've used the symbol of the merchant - not the symbol of medicine with just a single snake. (looks good other than that though) Owain.davies 18:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Great logo (except for the symbol). However, I wonder whether it is really suitable as it uses the GIF format. Many people use screen readers and text-only browsers. --Eleassar my talk 19:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
First, I went by the instructions laid out here. Second, GIF formatted images are the standard format for these banners. Third, these are for userspace and not mainspace. For more information about these ads, go to WP:BANNER. Thanks. Miranda 06:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Uncategorised medicine articles: diseases

I've noticed there are several large medicine-related stub types with many articles that don't have corresponding "permanent" categories; for example, in Cat:disease stubs, almost half the 1000+ articles are without a category from the Cat:diseases tree. If anyone is interested in cleaning up categorisation of such things, I could bot-populate a cleanup category (or simply generate a textual list). Alai 03:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead and make a list. --Una Smith 03:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Exploring possibility of creating child WikiProject or Task Force

Hi, I'm in an information-gathering stage to determine whether it would make sense to create some kind of Wikiproject on a set of topics. As a complete WikiProject newbie, I'm looking for guidance.

The article on "dyslexia" began as a single article, but is clearly going to branch out pretty quickly. I think that a Child Project, or even a Task Force, would be more appropriate than a full WikiProject.

One question I have is, the topics in question could easily fall into 2, or even 3, larger topics. Some of the topics that branch out from this probably would be better placed in a different category entirely. Depending on how you look at it, dyslexia could be categorized under neurological or psychological conditions; education; special education (a child project of Education). The articles that will branch out from this topic will range from eduation law, special education, learning disabilities and educational methods and instructional interventions, to several branches of psychology, neuropsychology, psychiatric diagnoses, brain research, neuroimaging, etc. How does one handle a topic that could easily be a child of multiple parent projects?

If I had to choose from the list of current projects, I would probably go with neuroscience. But that project isn't very active, and I think we will need more guidance, at least initially.

Thanks in advance for any help, Rosmoran 19:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

First, you can create a new project if your proposal is approved by the Wikiproject Council. If you're interested in my opinion, I think that we shouldn't create new projects, as even this (actually the "mother") project lacks of editors. If you would like to improve selected articles, nominate them at the medical collaboration of the month. NCurse work 13:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Help Needed

Hello. Please, what do you guys make of those two articles? Miniature Ingestible Capsule and Wireless capsule endoscopy. The articles look a confusing, but I lack the necessary expertise. Thanks in advance.Stellatomailing 14:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Miniature Ingestible Capsule should be changed to redirect to wireless capsule endoscopy. "Wireless capsule endoscopy" needs major wikification and re-writing. Axl 17:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anorexia vs inappetence

In the textbook of clinical examination I have been learning from (in Slovenian; ISBN 961-6030-35-3), the author of the section on abdomen Saša Markovič discernes between inappetence as the loss of appetite and anorexia as the true aversion to food (which is not limited only to anorexia nervosa). Should we cite this? The author has been working for many years as the chief of the Division of gastroenterology and currently is the technical director of the Clinical Center Ljubljana. However, the majority of sources seem to equate anorexia and inappetence. Does anyone have any reliable source in English to confirm this distinction? Or any other comment? --Eleassar my talk 21:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I have looked around. Both of these terms are defined as "loss of appetite" in most sources. Your Slovenian source is not using conventional definitions, although I can see that a distinction between those two might be useful. Axl 17:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Medical education

The medical education articles of this project have largely been neglected, and often experience disputes between differing views of medicine and terminology. Examples include allopathic vs osteopathic and traditional (MD/DO) vs non-traditional (alternative/ND). There needs to be a reorganization of the medical education articles.

First, we need to agree on what should be considered as medical education. Should alternative medicine be included side-by-side with conventional medicine? I think there should be a separate article for alternative medicine education, if there is content to fill the article.

Second, the "allopathic" and "osteopathic" groups articles should parallel each other. Currently, articles on the osteopathic side are Osteopathic medicine and Osteopathy. On the allopathic side are Doctor of Medicine and Allopathic medicine. One idea I had is to rename "Osteopathic medicine" to "Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine" and rename "Allopathic medicine" to "Allopathy" (retaining all of the existing content, but slightly changing the focus of the articles). I think it is fair to say that DOs might not want to be associated/confused with content from the osteopathy article, and MDs might not want to be associated/confused with the intent of the word allopathy. The word allopathy could be used sparingly in the Doctor of Medicine article (if at all). The allopathy article could link to the MD article. Similarly, the osteopathy article could link to the Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine article. The DO article could have a see also at the top for osteopathy.

I'd like to hear other ideas, but I believe that making the article name changes as described above should help. --Scott Alter 00:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Calf muscle etymology

What is the origin of the layman's term "calf muscle"? — Jack · talk · 14:19, Thursday, 21 June 2007

From Old Norse: [2] Axl 17:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Microscopic hematuria; further detail sought

Is it common for a 35 year old male to undergo both a CAT scan and a cystoscopy upon first detection of trace amounts of blood in the urine?

What information is available to supplement the relatively short article on microscopic hematuria?

Which of the many listed causes of frank hematuria also apply to microscopic hematuria?

[edit] Door-to-balloon

I expanded this article today, borrowing some text from myocardial infarction (but not a lot). I was going to change it from stub to start class but I thought I would consult the project first. Best, MoodyGroove 18:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove

Thanks, Moody. I have upgraded it. Axl 21:00, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate it, Axl. MoodyGroove 21:21, 1 July 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove

I added significantly to this article today. I don't think it belongs in 'start' class any longer. Could someone please re-assess? Thanks, MoodyGroove 19:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove

Okay, I've done it. Don't forget to be bold. :-) Axl 06:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Osteopathic Medicine Project?

I'm hoping to start a project for osteopathic medicine. Could this project be the "parent" of that project? How could I request that?OsteopathicFreak 19:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that the project would be too narrow in scope. I can't imagine any more than 10 articles on the topic. Also, how many contributors would there be to the topic? I don't think a project is needed to organize a couple of contributors (if that) to a few articles. --Scott Alter 22:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Ten articles?? How about 300+?Osteopathic!Freak talk 20:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Differences between allopathic and osteopathic medicine

Please check out that page and my comments on the talk page. I'm concerned about the direction this new article is heading. Allopathic medicine has recently had major changes, too. I'm interested to see what other project members think about these. Antelan talk 20:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The subsection Allopathic medicine#Allopathic medicine in the United States should be deleted. Some contents are more appropriate for Differences between allopathic and osteopathic medicine, some already discussed in other articles (for example Allopathic residency training and Comparison_of_allopathic_and_osteopathic_medicine#Residency_Training are very similar) and some sources do not pass WP:MEDRS.--Countincr ( T@lk ) 22:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
P.S. I have put a tag on and copied my concern to talk page--Countincr ( T@lk ) 22:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Is this article even helpful? Don't its contents belong in a simplified form under a basic "medicine" page, where indeed they already are? Antelan talk 15:09, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
I think there is a case for its existence, but much of the current content is about POV pushing.--Countincr ( T@lk ) 20:18, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Do you feel all the content in POV pushy, or specific sections? Are they sections that need the addition of other POVs to neutralize the tone? Or sections that should be removed all together?OsteopathicFreak T ? 22:56, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
First, it's not entirely clear what the scope of the article is or should be. I feel that the article title hints at differences between the actual practice of allopathic and osteopathic medicine, while the article talks about differences in education between osteo and allo schools. Second, I'd like to get some outside input on the POV issues. Antelan talk 04:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dispute over cancer infectious causes

I am trying to resolve a dispute over the cancer page; some editors with an interest in infectious (bacterial, viral) causes of cancer had been trying to contribute content to cancer, only to be reverted. Now there are separate pages virus cancer link and cancer bacteria, but some editors on cancer won't allow links from cancer to the new pages nor moving relevant text from cancer to those pages. I hope to avoid a POV fork. On talk:cancer is a straw poll, if you would care to help resolve this dispute. --Una Smith 05:06, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Allopathic Medicine

Is the Category:Allopathic medicine that has been created over the past day useful? Is it uncontentious? Antelan talk 15:06, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Hmm..I can see that some of the articles ( e.g. allopath, allopathy) under this category has been recently edited for contentforking.--Countincr ( T@lk ) 02:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Is some of this acceptable as per WP:SPINOUT? OsteopathicFreak T ? 23:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Assessment table

Re the table at upper right of this page, a feature I would really like to see is a link from each numerical box to a page with a table listing the corresponding pages. Eg, the handful of pages that are importance=top but class=unassessed: let me have at them in a batch. --Una Smith 04:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

You can find them here (about halfway through the list): Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Medicine_articles_by_quality/11 --WS 18:57, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:WPMED

I think this template is the culprit for ambiguity of all medical assessment templ. Links for rating and assessment scale directs to confusing "Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Assessment". Do we actually have a page for it? Other projects either have a dedicated page where assessment procedure is explained or refer to version 1 assessment--Countincr ( T@lk ) 23:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

It looks like Scottalter (talk · contribs) made some July 4 edits to {{WPMED}} that may need to be reverted? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
It used to link to Version 1; don't know how to fix it. Reverted July 4 edits to WPMED and that didn't do the trick. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
The template has always been somewhat broken - it seems like it was never truly finished. Not all of the links ever worked, and many categories were missing. What I did recently was add all of the categories in (see Category:Medicine articles by quality and Category:Medicine articles by importance. I also direct all of the assessment links to Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Assessment, which should be this project's assessment guidelines. Most other projects copy version 1 assessment as a starting point, and then add from there. I just started working on this page. The project has never had an "assessment department" before. Previously, the only assessment page was Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Article rating, which only lists articles. I will work on the assessment guidelines throughout the week. --Scott Alter 04:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
What if we started by ripping off the scale from another WikiProject and modifying from there? The first one I ran into was WP:Biology's: [3]. Antelan talk 04:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm currently using pre-existing templates to create the page. I don't think it is really necessary to create a table from scratch. The general guidelines should be sufficient. If you want to mention conformation to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (medicine-related articles), it can be brought up in an "article promotion" section. --Scott Alter 05:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
A bit frustrating; we now have a Project-specific template that is only a copy of the general template and doesn't mention MEDMOS at all; I can't figure out how or where to add mention that GA, A and FA should conform to MEDMOS. If we can't tailor it, why should we have a Project specific template rather than a general one ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
OK, now I see; we have to build a page around the grading template, similar to the bio page. Thanks, Scott. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Grading samples can be changed, but importance samples are still automatic. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
The importance examples are working now. I'm also working on modifying the assessment templates, and just added the ability to use custom examples on {{Importance Scheme}}. The culprits were '-' instead of '_'. --Scott Alter 13:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Scott. I put some articles in there to get the page started. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

A-class needs to fully conform with Wikipedia:Manual of Style (medicine-related articles). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Under B-class, "a majority of the material needed for a completed article" can also be defined in terms of the suggestions sections at WP:MEDMOS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. I never investigated how Tourette syndrome came to listed as the sample FA at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment, but it didn't displease me when I saw it there :-) Just the other day, the main editor and FA nominator of Agatha Christie: And Then There Were None replaced TS with the article written by him/herself. [4] That's gutsy, considering it passed FAC with copyedit objections. Going to do my homework now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Found, TS was added back in April by an uninvolved editor, based on good logic (unanimous FAC). [5] [6] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
I took Sandy's que and expanded assessment page a bit further; suggestions welcome.--Countincr ( T@lk ) 19:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Left message on the talk page there, don't like that "significant issues" wording, and MEDMOS needs to be mentioned early on. GA, A, and FA should conform to MEDMOS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Big problem here. I noticed a huge jump in the number of Medicine good articles listed in the chart at the top of this page, and noticed that several editors are assessing Medicine articles as GA class that have not been though WP:GAC. Since it's now impossible to tell which articles are the ones that are incorrectly assessed, the list will need to be checked against WP:GA, and articles re-assessed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I found and reversed five of them, but I don't know if that's all of them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fetus in fetu

Hi. I wondered if anyone would like to take a look at this article. I was called in to help over a dispute about sources, but lack the kind of specialised knowledge that would allow me to do more in the way of sourcing. Any help would be gratefully received. Thanks. --John 18:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of places where a particular treatment is carried out

Hi, seeking guidance on this edit. Is such information appropriate for any medical article? Its author believes so; a point of dispute between us. Your input would be welcome. — BillC talk 11:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

This is a pointless list of cities and countries. Axl 13:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
It does not strike me as being encyclopedic. It would make for a nice brochure, however. Antelan talk 14:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for replying. I have copied this text to the talk page, which is probably a better place than here to continue any discussion. — BillC talk 17:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hormesis in aging candidate for deletion?

Hi, I found this article and I think it should be shortended and integrated into hormesis or deleted. It is more like an essay and of no realistic biological impact, as far as I can tell. What do you think? --Nina 15:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

ugh, since a lot of it was added at once, did you google to check for a copyright violation? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Never mind, here's the answer (at the bottom): "The above text is adapted, with consent, from a more extensive article by Suresh Rattan, to be published in a forthcoming issue of the journal “Ageing Research Reviews”, and where cross references to the original research studies can be found. The reference to the original article will be provided after it is published online." I don't think we can do that; check with the copyright people, and perhaps it can be speedy deleted on that basis. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for commenting- would you mind and do that for me? I spent a whole afternoon once to find out how an IP that contributed nothig but vandalism could be blocked, and I failed. The regularities on en.wp are far beyond manageable by now. --Nina 20:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't know how either—maybe someone else will work on it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Wow :) I will try and see what I can do. At least I found this WikiProject, that seems to have some readers :). --Nina 20:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of the relationship of osteopathic and allopathic medicine in the United States

Since this is probably of interest to WP:Medicine, I'm posting here that I'm nominating History of the relationship of osteopathic and allopathic medicine in the United States for deletion - here. Antelan talk 20:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I've been staying out of the allopathic vs. osteopathic issues for a while, but am going to propose a new idea. I agree with Antelan that the History of the relationship of osteopathic and allopathic medicine in the United States article is probably not needed. This is essentially the history and evolution of DOs and osteopathic medicine. The contents of the article have not effected MDs/"allopathic" medicine at all. (Don't bother arguing with this - it is irrelevant. This is about the fight for osteopathic medicine's equality. References could be made in Medicine, Medical education in the United States, and Medical school in the United States, but do not belong in allopathic-specific articles like Doctor of Medicine.) Some of this content belongs in an article Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine (which I think has always been more about about the physician than the type of medicine), and others in an article about the type of medicine practiced. So my proposal is this. Considering that "Osteopathic medicine = Allopathic medicine + Osteopathic manipulative medicine", why rename OMM to Osteopathic medicine, since OMM is the type of medicine practiced by DOs. The content in this article could be split between Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine and Osteopathic medicine, and the OMM/OM article would then be appropriate for some of the history. --Scott Alter 20:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
That sounds like a reasonable approach in general. With respect to the subject at hand, merging most of the relevant info from the History of the relationship... article into one of the medicine or osteopathic medicine articles seems appropriate. Antelan talk 20:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Autism

Autism was a featured article, but was demoted in December 2006. It's been rewritten, largely by Eubulides, and a peer review requested. Your input would be appreciated. Thanks, Colin°Talk 10:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Help needed with Quarantine

Greetings. This article, (Quarantine) is based on the 1911 Encyclopedia Britanica article and is hopelessly out of date. It needs some good fact checking, updating and inclusion of modern views and policy on the subject by someone who has some background and knowledge. It's especially relevant as an article given the recent Tuberculosis scare. --Lendorien 15:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stub for Immune Mediated Polygenicarthritis

I don't know what this is, but can anyone here stubify the mention of it at Beagle#Health, since Beagle is currently at WP:FAC ? SandyGeorgia (Talk)

[edit] Featured List Candidates

Apparently, few project members have {{MCOTWannounce}} in their watchlists. There are two medicine-related featured list candidates at present:

The opinion of project members would be most welcome. Cheers, Colin°Talk 22:44, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New tag proposal: Not medical advice

Is there any interest or support in developing a tag that may be placed on top of articles? WP edits are not peer reviewed prior to publication. There is some wrong information there. The tag could say that articles are not meant to be medical advice and that there are limitations in the article due to the nature of the editorial review in wikipedia (trying to put it nicely).VK35 23:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

There is a General disclaimer at the bottom of every article, which includes a link to the Medical disclaimer. As a result, Wikipedia discourages disclaimers in articles. See also Manual of Style (medicine-related articles). Cheers, Colin°Talk 23:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Colin. Axl 11:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)