Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine

Welcome to the WikiProject Medicine talk page. If you have comments or believe something can be improved, feel free to post. Also feel free to introduce yourself if you plan on becoming an active editor!

We do not provide medical advice; please see a health professional.

• Unsure about something? Make sure to look at our style and source guidelines.
• Please don't shout, remain civil, be respectful to all, and assume good faith.
• Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
• Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~).
• Threads older than 10 days are automatically archived.
• Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Newsletter/Mailing_list

List of archives

Merged Archive WikiProject Preclinical medicine: 1 Merged Archive WikiProject Clinical medicine: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 WikiProject Medicine Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172

Collaboration of the Month

Spondylolisthesis

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Collaboration of the Month

That time of month again. Any thoughts as to what article should be the next COTM? Personally I was not very motivated for the last choice, transverse myelitis which I felt was too rare a condition to justify focus above other far more common and neglected medical articles. Perhaps this was the reason it received limited attention from others too, although undeniably the article has been improved overall. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 09:36, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

(Ping to a random selection of some of the individuals who have shown interest in the recent past. CFCF, Peter.C, Ozzie10aaaa, TylerDurden8823, Biosthmors).

I'd like to see Cancer of unknown primary origin improved some more. It's a very common and frustrating "interim" diagnosis (and final for a significant proportion), but most people don't know anything about it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:00, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to see Spondylolisthesis improved. It is a really low quality, as are most of our orthopedics articles. If noone else fires this up in the coming days I'm going to add it as the topic from say Sep 10–Oct 10. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 08:55, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree Spondylolisthesis could use some help and is an important article for readers--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:49, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Index templates

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Some time ago, I came upon Nervous system, which at the time had an insane collection of navboxes - three containers with a total of 10 navboxes, each of which had a complex structure. With the help of Tryptofish, I narrowed the list down to two. But each of these templates, in addition to a large number of its own links, transcludes two "Indexes" to more templates. This was my first hint of a broader problem.

The articles in this WikiProject are in an advanced state of template creep and need surgery. I have never seen such a maze of templates before. Indeed, medical articles have a monopoly of the so-called index templates, also called subnavs, which are footer templates that provide links between templates instead of articles (see Category:Medicine navigational box footer templates).

I would like to explore a recent example of the supposed usefulness of these subnavs provided by at a recent TfD:

• Case study 1: A person is diagnosed with heart disease and wants to know more about treatment and relevant anatomy. The subnavs provide easy links.

To see how this works, I go to Heart disease, which redirects to Cardiovascular disease. At the bottom of the page, I see four navboxes. If I expand the second ({{Heart diseases}}), I see a three-layered hierarchy of link groups. Seeing something like that, my inclination would be to abandon the navbox and try a search (see below). But suppose I carry on, wading through dozens of terms like Monckeberg's arteriosclerosis, and eventually make it down to a box titled "Index of the circulatory system" (which is {{Vascular navs}}). And there I see a link to anatomy and a group devoted to treatment. If I click on "Anatomy" I get another template, {{Arteries and veins}}, with another two-level hierarchy and {{Vascular navs}} transcluded at the bottom. At which point only the fear of death would keep me from giving up.

But is that how someone is likely to look for this information? The first thing I would try is searching Cardiovascular disease for "anatomy" and "treatment". If I search "anatomy" and the navboxes are in their normal, hidden state (because there are four of them), I get no hits. So how about "treatment"? Now here is something really strange. The word appears nine times in the article - and none of them are linked to anything, despite the existence of Management of heart failure. There is a section, Cardiovascular disease#Management, with a single sentence in it: "Cardiovascular disease is treatable with initial treatment primarily focused on diet and lifestyle interventions."

Anyone who really wants to help that person diagnosed with heart disease would do something like this: Expand Cardiovascular disease#Management into a decent summary of Management of heart failure and link to it with a {{main}} template. Or, if that is not general enough, create Management of cardiovascular disease and summarize it.

So much for "easy links". But it goes much further than that. Say we click on one of the less general links in {{Heart diseases}}, like Mitral valve. This is an anatomy article, and does not itself transclude {{Heart diseases}}. But it does transclude {{Heart anatomy}}, which transcludes {{Heart navs}}. So this anatomy article has access to several templates for drugs. How likely is it that a user will find this useful?

Wikipedia provides guidelines that are intended to make navboxes useful. It states,

Navigation templates are particularly useful for a small, well-defined group of articles; templates with a large numbers of links are not forbidden, but can appear overly busy and be hard to read and use. Good templates generally follow some of these guidelines:

1. All articles within a template relate to a single, coherent subject.
2. The subject of the template should be mentioned in every article.
3. The articles should refer to each other, to a reasonable extent.
4. There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template.
5. If not for the navigation template, an editor would be inclined to link many of these articles in the See also sections of the articles.

But what is the subject of {{Heart navs}} - Heart or Heart navboxes? As for the other guidelines, how would you even check them? Over 750 articles transclude {{Heart navs}}, but it wasn't placed directly on any of them. However, it is pretty obvious that any given article will refer only to a very small fraction of the others. When you add a subnav to a template, you are, in effect, giving up on the guidelines.

The guidelines also suggest, "If the collection of articles does not meet these tests, that indicates that the articles are loosely related, and a list or category may be more appropriate." I am going to make a proposal here rather than at a TfD, because I would like to give editors the chance to cooperatively brainstorm a solution.

Proposal: Delete all of the templates in Category:Medicine navigational box footer templates, or replace them by lists or categories. RockMagnetist(talk) 21:27, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Clarification: Replace some of the templates in Category:Medicine navigational box footer templates by lists or categories, delete the rest. RockMagnetist(talk) 22:46, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

so..you do seem to have a point, however something "in between" 1. deleting all the templates (in Med[1]) and 2.replace with lists might be more balanced (having said that, I believe more opinions would be best)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:47, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

If you mean, delete some and replace others by lists, that sounds reasonable (I wasn't really implying an all or nothing scenario). Some templates might convert into good categories or lists, others may not be suitable. RockMagnetist(talk) 22:26, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

exactly what I meant, this might be better,(but we need more opinions)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:31, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Rock, this may seem a little indirect, but I can offer you a complete and immediate, if superficial, solution to the problem. Just go to https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heart_disease and you will see the the navbox problem is completely removed. Also, if you are reaching the age at which presbyopia becomes an issue, then you may find that you like that display anyway. Quite a few readers using that even on desktop systems. And, on a more serious note, if anyone's hoping that readers will use navboxes to reach important, related articles, you should note that navboxes are completely invisible to 30% of our readers. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:46, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, but I wear glasses. What do you mean by invisible? RockMagnetist(talk) 22:49, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I mean "not able to be seen". Follow the link, scroll to the bottom, and see what you see. Navboxes are not displayed on the Mobile site, and that's about 30% of our page views. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:15, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Naturally, if navboxes are useless, we could delete them all. But I believe they are useful if done right. RockMagnetist(talk) 22:55, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Ping LT910001 who I think is/ has worked on these. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 02:28, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

RockMagnetist might help if you did a mock up by way of demonstration of what you are proposing. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 02:30, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

O.k., here is a demo where I replace {{Ear navs}} by Outline of the ear. Mostly the links in this demo are to articles, but "Inner ear" links to Outline of the inner ear. There would also be outlines of the outer and middle ears, but the rest of the links would continue to be to articles. This outline cuts across the templates listed by {{Ear navs}}, many of which have a group for the inner ear. Links to these outlines would have to be added to the See also section of articles. This would increase the likelihood of it only being added where it is useful. RockMagnetist(talk) 04:16, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your gentle introduction to this topic, RockMagnetist. Links between medical templates have existed since at least 2008, and recently with some other users I attempted to make these templates somewhat more useable, with a goal to reduce the (huge) amount of navboxes plastered on our many articles by linking them .

Part of your frustration with this template series seems to relate to the incomprehensible jargon we use to describe medical articles and medical diagnosis. This is a frustrating fact of life and with any luck will improve within the next 200-300 years as we move away from Latin and Greek-based names.

For these "indexes", I use these links occasionally myself but having been editing them I am not too impartial about their use. I would love to hear from any editors who have used these to good end. A question that hasn't been asked at any point in the last 6+ years is are these templates actually useful. A few long-term editors agreed last TFD but I am really unsure what other users think and if actual readers use them.

If we get rid of them we should consider removing them completely, as in my experience in the dusty corners of Wikipedia outlines are either forgotten for many years and unusable for that reason, or excessively edited with links from all and sundry that they are also unusable. On the other hand I fear if we remove these links we may end up with users adding more and more navboxes again. Hoping to hear from other users, --Tom (LT) (talk) 09:06, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

@Tom (LT): Thanks for keeping an open mind on this - always hard when something you have worked on is challenged. I hope that anyone who has found them useful will provide some details. In the TfD, you were the only one who did. Some people will go to a deletion debate and more or less equate "navbox" with "useful navigation tool." But is it as useful as it could be? RockMagnetist(talk) 15:52, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

As for delete vs. outline, I lean towards delete; I just provided the demo as an option to consider. Also, I don't think the way to prevent users from adding navboxes is to add meta-navboxes; that just changes the baseline for template creep, and navboxes get added anyway, as the Nervous system example demonstrated. RockMagnetist(talk) 15:57, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I think that considering specific examples will make it easier to think about these templates. So I will do two more case studies from the TfD. I will describe my experience as I try the exercises:

• Case study 2: A student has an exam on the nervous system. The subnav provides links to all the relevant anatomical templates for the said area.

  The first thing that occurs to me is, if I were facing an exam, would I rely on Wikipedia instead of a textbook? But, pressing on, I go to Nervous system. I look at the table of contents and see Anatomy in vertebrates. This section has a link at the top to List of nerves of the human body, and it has a discussion in prose of how the nervous system is organized. Possibly good enough already. Now I go to the bottom of the page, and see {{Nervous system}}. This has a nice, compact list of articles on the main parts of the nervous system. Below it are {{Central nervous system navs}} and {{Peripheral nervous system navs}}, with links to templates on many of the same subjects. However, if I want to know more about the meninges, I have already clicked on the article link. I know that meninges is different from meninges; but that would never occur to a first-time user. RockMagnetist(talk) 16:18, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

• Case study 3: A lay reader wants to know about what bones we have in our body, but don't know their names. The templates provide easy links to said bones by body part.

  I start at bone. A quick scan gives me the impression that this article is mainly about the structure, development and so on of individual bones. I try human anatomy, which redirects me to human body. Browsing this, I see a link to human skeleton (now why didn't I think of that immediately?). This has the section Divisions, with a few lines each for Axial skeleton and Appendicular skeleton. Now, I must admit, this is a bit slow, so I try going to the bottom. I find a box, "Bones of the human skeleton", with 7 templates inside of it, all but one of them massive and multi-leveled, and all of them transcluding {{Bone and cartilage navs}}, which in turn links to all of them. Just think of the reduction in complexity if {{Bone and cartilage navs}} were here instead of all those templates! But {{Bones of skeleton}} without any subnav might be even better.

At this point it occurs to me that I went to the navboxes earlier than usual because I am discussing them. Normally, I would look at See also first. So I go there, and what do I find? List of bones of the human skeleton. RockMagnetist(talk) 16:45, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I must be crazy, because I don't find this system terribly difficult to navigate, and these little user vignettes read to me like scripts for the wiki-equivalent of those late-night infomercials involving someone who sets their kitchen on fire trying to boil water. I don't object to simplifying it - it's certainly unusual to have meta-templates that navigate between other templates - but converting to outlines doesn't really appeal to me; those things are un-watched and un-edited backwaters, and the vertical-ness makes them harder to read than the condensed navbox format. Opabinia regalis (talk) 17:10, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

No doubt the more you use this system, the better you get at using them - and the less you need them. Each of the indexes has a doc page that says "These are geared towards lay readers". I am an appropriate person to test them on - lots of experience with Wikipedia, but not a lot of medical knowledge. And the thing to note about my case studies is that I can get the information I'm looking for very quickly if I ignore the navboxes. Hardly setting the kitchen on fire. RockMagnetist(talk) 17:24, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, I don't really use this system often - I work on molecular biology articles; anything as big as a bone is beyond me ;) - though I did look into it when one of these was TfD'd awhile ago. No doubt the navbox pileup at the bottom of an article like human skeleton is a problem, but I'm not sure what the best solution is. Separate "outline"-type articles with navbox-y formatting maybe. Opabinia regalis (talk) 17:43, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

The truth is, the above scenarios are how I would search for information if I started within Wikipedia (because otherwise navboxes couldn't possibly help me). But that's not how I really look for information. I would go to Google and do the following (by case number):

1. Search heart disease treatment. No Wikipedia pages in sight, so maybe I would go to the Mayo Clinic page.
2. Search anatomy of nervous system. No Wikipedia pages in sight, so just for the heck of it I restrict it to en.wikipedia.org. The first hit is for Nervous system, and I follow "Jump to anatomy in vertebrates", which lands me at the section by that name, where the link to List of nerves of the human body is at the top.
3. Search bones in the human body. The top link is to List of bones of the human skeleton.

That was 30 seconds or less for each search. I think the moral of this story is, structure the articles well and you won't need navboxes at all. RockMagnetist(talk) 17:44, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

On the question of usefulness: They are doubtless "useful" for de-WP:ORPHANing articles. They may be used significantly by a small number of editors. Whether anyone else uses them is unclear. It seems unlikely that typical readers use them very much. As I said above, they're systematically stripped out of the mobile version. You can't see them, and therefore you can't use them (even if you go to the navbox's page in the template namespace) there. Therefore we can guarantee that 30% of readers aren't using them, and despite these being invisible on the mobile site for a very long time, I have never heard a complaint about their absence. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:39, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

So what is your recommendation? Get rid of all the templates? Leave them as they are because it doesn't matter? Or something else? RockMagnetist(talk) 21:49, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

@RockMagnetist I think you are conflating three issues, all quite relevant:

1. We do not name articles in a way that is easy for readers to understand
2. We use way too many navboxes in our articles
3. Our navboxes are overburned by these internal link boxes.

Issues (1) and (2) won't be solved in this discussion but will be by editing away -- and I've opened a thread at the talk page of Wikiproject Anatomy to see what we can do there, also. With regard to these internal navboxes, what would you think about moving them to template space or template documentation? You may a good point as to why they may not be used by readers, but they are supremely useful in part because they help keep track of our project's numerous templates, ensuring that we don't start to have duplicate ones. So one option would be to move them all so they only display in template namespace. This will mean readers are no longer confused. An alternate option would be to include all of the 'index' templates as collapsed, so that only a line "Index of..." is displayed and users can open it at will. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:59, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Conflating these issues is hard to avoid in a case study. I think the naming is not a big problem because the redirects work well. Article content may be more of an issue (more below). Absolutely you use too many navboxes and the navboxes have too many links. I'm not sure what you mean by moving the internal navboxes to template space, since they are already there; but moving them to documentation pages is a good idea. RockMagnetist(talk) 23:55, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

And now I would like to say something positive about the internal navboxes. They are well organized; I like the division into description, disease and treatment. Some of the articles like Cardiovascular disease would benefit from closer alignment with their content. And, converted into regular templates linking to articles, they would be an improvement over some of the existing regular templates. RockMagnetist(talk) 23:55, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

While a navbox may appear redundant to a category or list, it is not the same as a single category, a group of categories under one parent category, or a list. Each section of a navbox may seem to be a carbon copy of a category or list, but that is not always the case, and in many cases, the navbox "categories" do not reflect Wikipedia's custom for creating and organizing categories or for lists.,,,The success of navboxes can be seen in this (uncontrolled) study of this navbox, which has shown that in the month following its creation, readership of the articles contained within increased by 8.5% (an average of 406 views per article) and editing of these pages increased by 37% from the month prior to its creation [2]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:44, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

We already agree that some form of navbox is useful. RockMagnetist(talk) 02:40, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Reading through the above, I'm not convinced you've really shown a convincing reason or consensus for a change. I've minimised the extraneous comments in your case studies to illustrate this. I think unfortunately most of your frustration emerges from the way we've structured our articles. I just don't see a way to solve the problem you pose (how to keep navboxes small and compact in an up-to-date way) without using a system like this to ensure that the templates are compartmentalised. Perhaps "Index of..." could be renamed to be even more clear, or a small (?) question mark could be provided with an explanation for lay users to explain what these subnavs do.--Tom (LT) (talk) 10:21, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

• Case study 1: A person is diagnosed with heart disease and wants to know more about treatment and relevant anatomy. The subnavs provide easy links.

To see how this works, I go to Heart disease, which redirects to Cardiovascular disease. At the bottom of the page, I see four navboxes. If I expand the second ({{Heart diseases}}), I see a three-layered hierarchy of link groups. Seeing something like that, my inclination would be to abandon the navbox and try a search (see below). But suppose I carry on, wading through dozens of terms like Monckeberg's arteriosclerosis, and eventually make it down to a box titled "Index of the circulatory system" (which is {{Vascular navs}}). And there I see a link to anatomy and a group devoted to treatment. If I click on "Anatomy" I get another template, {{Arteries and veins}}, with another two-level hierarchy and {{Vascular navs}} transcluded at the bottom. At which point only the fear of death would keep me from giving up.

• Case study 2: A student has an exam on the nervous system. The subnav provides links to all the relevant anatomical templates for the said area.

  The first thing that occurs to me is, if I were facing an exam, would I rely on Wikipedia instead of a textbook? But, pressing on, I go to Nervous system. I look at the table of contents and see Anatomy in vertebrates. This section has a link at the top to List of nerves of the human body, and it has a discussion in prose of how the nervous system is organized. Possibly good enough already. Now I go to the bottom of the page, and see {{Nervous system}}. This has a nice, compact list of articles on the main parts of the nervous system. Below it are {{Central nervous system navs}} and {{Peripheral nervous system navs}}, with links to templates on many of the same subjects. However, if I want to know more about the meninges, I have already clicked on the article link. I know that meninges is different from meninges; but that would never occur to a first-time user. RockMagnetist(talk) 16:18, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

• Case study 3: A lay reader wants to know about what bones we have in our body, but don't know their names. The templates provide easy links to said bones by body part.

  I start at bone. A quick scan gives me the impression that this article is mainly about the structure, development and so on of individual bones. I try human anatomy, which redirects me to human body. Browsing this, I see a link to human skeleton (now why didn't I think of that immediately?). This has the section Divisions, with a few lines each for Axial skeleton and Appendicular skeleton. Now, I must admit, this is a bit slow, so I try going to the bottom. I find a box, "Bones of the human skeleton", with 7 templates inside of it, all but one of them massive and multi-leveled, and all of them transcluding {{Bone and cartilage navs}}, which in turn links to all of them. Just think of the reduction in complexity if {{Bone and cartilage navs}} were here instead of all those templates! But {{Bones of skeleton}} without any subnav might be even better.

So basically you're saying, skip the article and the regular navboxes and go straight to the index boxes? All the rest is "extraneous"? I think you're having a hard time visualizing how a first-time user might approach this page because you have been developing these indices for so long. One view of how regular users behave is to look at page views, because if you use a link in an index box, you actually visit a navbox. In the last 30 days, 29,049 readers visited Cardiovascular disease, 492 visited {{Arteries and veins}}. And the latter is linked to over 50 other navboxes through {{Vascular navs}}. One of the links in {{Arteries and veins}} is to Venous plexus. This is a stub with no references, yet it got 781 hits in the last 30 days. Unfortunately, I know of no way to determine how often a regular navbox is used because readers can click one of its links without visiting it. But clearly it's the index boxes that are extraneous. RockMagnetist(talk) 16:19, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

On second thought, I can get some idea of how often the regular navboxes are used because a lot of them duplicate lists. For example, {{Heart diseases}} duplicates a lot of List of ICD-9 codes 390–459: diseases of the circulatory system, which got 4430 hits in the last 30 days, and List of ICD-9 codes 760–779: certain conditions originating in the perinatal period, which got 2606 hits. And they got all of these hits even though most of the links to them are through navboxes. RockMagnetist(talk) 16:51, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Actually I'm equally confused about what you're saying, RockMagnetist. You identify that index boxes are confusing. Yet you also lump together a whole lot of other concerns about they way our articles are linked. My point is that removing index boxes won't fix any of those other concerns. So by fixing index boxes (or removing them) we get rid of any of the problems in clear text. However the preceding problems (which I have struck through) remain. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:43, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

These things you refer to as "conflating" and "lumping together" are what I call "context". The purpose of all those numbers is to compare the use of an index box with the use of links from the article itself and in regular navboxes. The answer is not definitive, but it does seem to suggest that index boxes are used very little compared to the alternatives. However, I think it is worth exploring the usefulness of certain groups of regular navboxes as well. RockMagnetist(talk) 01:09, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Here is another statistic that might be easier to understand: {{Vascular navs}} links to 32 navboxes. Collectively, in the past 30 days, they were visited 13,856 times. The index box appears in about 1600 articles. Thus, it was used an average of 9 times per article over 30 days. At the other end, I would estimate the navboxes have a total of about 1000 links, so on average each target article was accessed about 13 times. Is it really necessary to gather more information? RockMagnetist(talk) 02:12, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

References

Note that the above only provides information on access to the navboxes through the index template. The navboxes themselves might be useful because they are transcluded in each of the articles that they are linked to. That is the kind of thing that could be studied by the method described below. RockMagnetist(talk) 07:09, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Decision point

Okay, guys: How serious about this are we? I see some comments here that may degenerate into my-link-is-better-than-your-link, but the fact is that nobody has the overall data.

There is a kludge that will let us see how often links in navboxes get clicked on, if we really want the information. It won't let us separate search engine spiders from real humans, but it will let us get page view counts for clicking a link in a navbox vs other ways of reaching the page. It's not elegant, and it's got some small WP:PERF costs, so we shouldn't do this on a grand scale, but we could certainly try it out for a small number of links in one or two navboxes.

Is that interesting to you? More to the point, is it interesting enough to two or three editors to do the work involved? It'll take an hour to pick templates and links, an hour to set it up, a few minutes each day to check the links for problems/potential corruption, and (after a few weeks or so) an hour to revert the whole setup, and an hour or two to collect the data and write it up. Whether anybody uses these navboxes would actually be a useful thing for WPMED to know, and the results would probably be more or less applicable to all subject areas at the English Wikipedia. But it takes sustained work over the course of a month, and there's no point in starting if the project won't be finished. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:10, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I like that. It would be interesting to gather some information. I can't guarantee that I could be involved the whole way - next month, real life will be pretty demanding for me. I think the experiment should be carefully designed, with links to closely related and more remote articles. Here is one possible set:

One article that is mentioned frequently in Cardiovascular disease: e.g., Vascular disease

• in article body
• in {{Medical conditions}} as a lower level link to an article
• as a main article for {{Vascular diseases}}
• as a top-level entry in {{Cardiovascular system symptoms and signs}} (accessed through {{Heart navs}})

One that is not mentioned as such but is in at least one regular navbox: e.g., Mitral stenosis

• link in {{Heart diseases}}:
• link in {{Congenital heart defects}} (accessed through {{Heart navs}})

One that is not linked in the article or any regular navbox: e.g., Superficial vein

• link in {{Arteries and veins}} (accessed through {{Heart navs}})

For a bonus, we might want to look at connections between these lower-level articles.

A possible control experiment: replace any templates that duplicate lists by links to the lists in ‘’See also’’:

• e.g., {{Heart diseases}} -> ICD-10 Chapter IX: Diseases of the circulatory system, List of ICD-9 codes 390–459: diseases of the circulatory system.

RockMagnetist(talk) 05:22, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

There's no rush. If somebody else volunteers to help out (always good to have more than one editor involved, because real life happens) and nobody objects, then we could start by picking a couple of navboxes and targets, which will save us some time when we actually want to do it. We could make a list of things to test and how to do it at a page like WP:WikiProject Medicine/Navboxes.

I kind of like the idea of using an actual random number generator to pick which links we'll test in the navbox. We can change some links and not others. Does that sound good to you? WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:25, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, a separate page sounds like a good idea. I think random choices are good in principle, but some thought still needs to go in the implementation. I think it's best to have controls in the experiment, which is why I suggested comparing different ways of getting between the same pair of articles. Also, since the purpose of index boxes (as I see it) is to provide links that are not in the article or regular navboxes, we should compare links from each of the three groups I described above. Another control experiment is my idea of replacing navboxes by lists and monitoring them for the same length of time as the navboxes. RockMagnetist(talk) 14:57, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

I'd be very interested in a data-driven approach that may have implications for our navboxes in general. Template_talk:Medicine_navs is a place we've been centralising discussion about this and may be a suitable hub while we investigate what impact (if any) these index boxes have. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:43, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

It's not very active. I tried to ask a question about eponymous categories and got zero response. RockMagnetist(talk) 01:02, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

[3] yes its a little slow--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:15, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

It might be slow, but it'll be higher traffic than a brand-new page. Why don't we copy this whole thing over there, and make some plans? We can always post reminders here about it if we need extra input. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:23, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Good point. I think it should be prefaced by a set of proposals, so we know what we're trying to find out. I will do that in a new subsection. RockMagnetist(talk) 15:53, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Proposals

Here are my suggestions for how to fix the template creep in the articles covered by this project. They go beyond my initial point about index templates, but that is necessary because the index templates themselves were designed to fix template creep. I think the suggestions below are consistent with the principles behind good navbox design.

1. Delete the index templates or move them to project space.
2. Before deleting each index template, examine each navbox that they link to, and do two things:
   1. Eliminate excessive levels of hierarchy (for example, in {{Arteries of head and neck}}, go no deeper than the link to Maxillary artery).
   2. Make sure that each navbox is transcluded on the remaining pages that it links to and only those pages.
3. If there are still a lot of boxes on some pages, for each page see if the article subject is closely related to the other subjects in each navbox (i.e., the articles are likely to link to each other directly). If not, take them off the template.

I would also recommend removing those templates that duplicate lists of ICD-9 codes and ICD-10 codes and replace them by links to those lists in See also. In general, these templates are long and intricate, and the information is better presented as a list. RockMagnetist(talk) 16:09, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Category "fascia"?

Should there be a category "fascia"? In German Wikipedia it already exists: de:Kategorie:Faszie --Sonabi (talk) 22:02, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

if its a category that helps in German WP, then it should do the same in English WP as well...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:00, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Surprised this doesn't exist already? We have at least "category:Fascial spaces of the head and neck" Matthew Ferguson (talk) 12:30, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

So i have created the category: Category:Fascia--Sonabi (talk) 16:24, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

well done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:21, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

ack. we already have Category:Connective tissue. Sonabi would you please speedy delete with {{Db-self}}? Thanks -- Jytdog (talk) 19:25, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Isn't fascia a specific type of connective tissue, which is a wider topic? No reason why fascia cannot be a subcategory of connective tissue... Matthew Ferguson (talk) 19:38, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

meh. microcategorization. people will do as they will but it is best to understand the tree before you start adding branches. 20:01, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

This discussion should be had at WT:ANAT. There is a TA-group for fascia, so I guess one could create a category from those. But honestly it doesn't matter – categories are not really utilised within the anatomy project because they will be defunct once Wikidata takes over. Creating this category is a waste of time–it has no utility. @LT910001:. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 21:41, 10 September 2015 (UTC) 

In my opinion it is not a waste of time to create this category. Articles describing fascias has been sorted into a number of various categories, e.g. Category:Soft tissue or Category:Muscular system; this behavior made me think that autors of these articles actually didn’t know how to categorize theirs articles, because there wasn’t any category clearly describing fascias. To sort an article about a fascia in the category muscular system (maybe because a fascia is very related with the muscle) is like to sort an article about an muscle in the category bone, because a muscle is related with a bone. But a fascia is not a muscle as a muscle is not a bone – and because of this there are these various categories. I can better understand the point that the category connective tissue already exists, but it is a wider topic what Matthew Ferguson already said (and fascia is a subcategory of connective tissue already). And CFCF what do you mean saying categories will be defunct? --Sonabi (talk) 22:23, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't mean that they are pointless, just that working on them right now is. A categorization system is massively useful, but the Wikipedia one isn't–it often hides things and makes it very hard to get a good overview of various nested categories.
We recently imported the entire TA98 as well as FMA into Wikidata and linked it through {{Infobox Anatomy}}, and these are far more useful.
What I meant is that it would be a better use of time to use Wikidata to automate category creation using FMA entries–or even to just wait until someone goes and does this. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 22:36, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Ah, ok. So if I understood you right, you are against that I created the category, because it would have been better to do something else, but you are for creating the category (by a bot or something like that)? --Sonabi (talk) 23:04, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

And furthermore I can not comprehend why a category that contains two subcategories itself and at least 50 pages should be kind of microcategorization? --Sonabi (talk) 23:08, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

CFCF how would this work for pathology articles, would it follow the ICD 10 (or 11 when it comes out)? Matthew Ferguson (talk) 02:34, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

ICD doesn't categorize in that way–if anything it would use DOID. (Will elaborate later, wrote a long comment that was lost). -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 11:00, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

@Sonabi please feel free in future also to post at WikiProject Anatomy as with several editors in this project we have gradually been moving the care of anatomy articles to that wikiproject. As for a category of Fascia I am somewhat ambivalent. If it is easily done then so be it, otherwise if it requires a lot of effort, I'd advise that the effort probably won't make a material difference to users and is expended in a more reader-orientated direction. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:55, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I will do and apologize for not having done. I think that you won’t have any further work with the new category since I finished sorting all fascia related articles in this category (I strongly think that I’m finish with that). --Sonabi (talk) 23:14, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

it is a very good addition to category thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:55, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Engaging academic experts in creation of WP content

I am unsure of the "right" solution for engaging academic experts in WP content creation. Obviously, the best approach will be multi-faceted, but as a physician-professor I'm not sure that directly editing WP is the best way for me to contribute. If that seems anathema, please tell me why after noting the following:

1. The standards for sourcing biomedical academic manuscripts (e.g. journal articles and book chapters) differ significantly from WP standards (e.g. MEDRS). While this difference can be learned and is actually a helpful perspective (in my estimation), it's a barrier for new WP editors who have experience as academic authors.
2. Biomedical experts are expected to synthesize prior work (with their own in primary reports) to generate new knowledge. This is as it should be, but is another important difference from editing WP.
3. The forces that drive academics to create secondary sources (i.e. MEDRS) are currently almost arbitrary - an invitation to write a chapter of a textbook that will be ridiculously expensive (and therefore of limited distribution), a tenuous decision to write a review article (perhaps driven by a perceived misunderstanding in the field, or the need for a trainee to have a mentored writing exercise). I speak from experience on this.

Consider an alternative approach (leveraging that last point):

1. Convey to experts WP editors' need for MEDRS addressing particular topics (e.g. create a sortable list).
2. Encourage experts to publish in open-access, rigorously peer-reviewed journal (or similar medium) with WP-friendly CC licensing. Note that as an author it may cost me in excess of US$3000 to make a paper open access in a first- or second-tier journal.
3. Consider creating/supporting a new open-access, rigorously peer-reviewed journal to serve these purposes.

If I (and my colleagues) spent writing energies doing this, it would advance WP's goals in a qualitatively-different way from direct involvement as a WP editor (the two are not mutually exclusive, of course). In a peer-reviewed publication I would be able to use my expertise, modulated by co-authors and peer referees, to make clear statements that could find their way into WP. Similarly, I would have motivation to make high-quality vector graphics that could be re-used in WP. These are just some off-the-cuff thoughts that I've been mulling for a possible discussion at the upcoming WikiConference in Washington DC. Perhaps something like this has been proposed before (and shot down, perhaps)? Stuart Ray soupvector (talk) 20:39, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

The journal (#3) has certainly been proposed. Really the problem is not the availability of sources (we have unfilled offers of access to (some) Elsevier and BMJ content for example), but a shortage of editors with the knowledge to understand the sources and (much easier to accquire) the Wikipedian experience to write them up in articles for a wide general readership. Suggestions as to sources (#1) on talk pages are helpful, but don't think that there's a pool of editors who will fall on them & write them up. There isn't. The first factors you mention are true, but can be relatively easily overcome - the different style required for a broad audience is actually probably more difficult (or so many of our articles suggest). If you already have the knowledge, improving, correcting and updating articles within your area of expertise is probably the most efficient way to help. Johnbod (talk) 00:25, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

The journal has been proposed but only would publish the 61 Project Medicine Featured Articles, according to the description. Sixty one articles does not a journal make. The guidelines for a WP article to be included in such an open access journal would have to be altered OR a massive effort to improve med articles to FA status would have to begin. It is difficult enough to get an article to GA status in Project Medicine. Soupvector I would love to see your ideas take hold and come to be. I don't think I will be able to make the conference in Washington D.C. only because it costs so much to find lodging. Let's keep this discussion going and feel free to take it to my talk page-only because this talk page is so busy this conversation will soon be archived. Best Regards,

  Bfpage |leave a message  14:51, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

This is not about re-publishing WP articles in journals. It the opposite - it is about getting review articles written that we want or need, so we have sources on which to base WP articles. Soupvector says that experts (doctors, scientists) generate reviews randomly/haphazardly and it costs them money if they publish the review in an open access journal. What soupvector is proposing is that Wikipedia somehow sponsor/drive/commission/promote the writing of reviews that it needs written to keep medical articles up to date. My take on the suggestion, is that I am uncomfortable with it. There is something cart-driving-the-horse about it. Jytdog (talk) 16:49, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't generally think that we need reviews on whole subjects; outside of the (jillions of) rare diseases and experimental treatments, we can usually find something on what we need. But we fairly often need a source that explicitly states some fact that experts consider too WP:BLUE to bother writing down—especially when we're dealing with a MEDRS warrior or POV pusher who is demanding a recent review article in a decent journal for not-exactly biomedical things, like how long a surgery usually takes or how satisfied patients are with the treatment or something like that. But these are idiosyncratic things, and there's no good way to predict what we might find handy. As a systematic issue, though, reviews that "compare and contrast" actual practice in different countries is very helpful. An open-access source that says, "In Rich Country, when we suspect malaria, we run all these tests, we treat with X and Y, we test again (and ignore the patient's social situation entirely), but in Poor Country, when we suspect malaria, we just tell them to go down to the corner store and pick up some anti-malarials over the counter (and then make sure that there's an auntie nearby to take care of the house and kids this week)" is incredibly important. A lot of review articles (especially systematic reviews) talk about what ought to be done in developed countries. Finding good sources about actual reality, in all of its breadth and diversity, is harder than finding good sources about the ideal treatment. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:09, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Heck yes WAID reliable sources that discuss actual clinical practice would be amazing; the compare and contrast b/n rich/poor countries would be amazinger. In my experience, it is not easy to find good, current sources describing what practitioners and sick people actually do most commonly, for many conditions. Jytdog (talk) 16:31, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

As for option 3, a variant thereof exists as Topic Pages in PLOS Computational Biology. I have discussed with PLOS an expansion of this scheme to their other journals, and they are open to it but need someone to drive it. Perhaps soupvector could drive this for PLOS Medicine? -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 23:38, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

This seems like a fantastic idea. Let's let the discussion mature a bit, but I'm game (though I might be more inclined toward PLoSPathogens). Intriguing. soupvector (talk) 00:29, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

it does seem like an idea(but more opinions should be sought)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:56, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

PLOS Pathogens should work too. Do you have an article in mind that's missing here or just a stub? -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 10:27, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

As just mentioned in the section below, annotating Wikipedia articles by way of Hypothes.is may be worth a thought in terms of getting expert feedback. -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 23:35, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I have been talking a bit with some people at PLOS Medicine about a wiki-collaboration. I am especially interested in PLOS's continued outstanding success of integrating with reddit to convene scientific conversations of hundreds of participants multiple times weekly, and to format, document, and archive the discussion with a doi on it. I think history is being made with this project of theirs, and I wish Wiki could be a part of it merely by being a partner to be sure to include the paper discussed in a relevant Wikipedia article. I wrote some about this at meta:Grants:IdeaLab/Reddit Science AMA + PLOS + Wikimedia. A couple of weeks ago I met in person with a PLOS staffer doing communications outreach and discussed doing more. He is open to hearing proposals and I am still thinking of what to suggest. If anyone wants to talk through something with me then consider emailing me for a video chat. Personally - considering that the Wikimedia Foundation invests money in partnerships with closed access journals, I would like to see a WMF investment in paid staff - perhaps in PLOS' own nonprofit open access office - to encourage them to develop their relationship with the Wikimedia community and make for more seamless conversation between us. In the long term Wikipedia and PLOS must have a close relationship as leading nonprofit publishers. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:28, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I can see advantages to making a list of topics for this purpose, as long as a few safeguards are in place. So e.g. I'd say that entries should be subject to consensus, they shouldn't be too specific (like a request for reporting of a specific fact or a specific research result), there shouldn't already be reviews available, and there should be enough primary literature available to support one - otherwise, we might end up promoting biased or low-quality sources. The list could double as a collection of topics for which editors could search for MEDRS that others may have missed. I also wouldn't prioritize open-access status over journal quality, since a few editors will still be able to access the articles, and the increased weight would let us include more information. Sunrise (talk) 00:01, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

having given it further thought I would go with My take on the suggestion, is that I am uncomfortable with it. There is something cart-driving-the-horse about it [4] thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:46, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

BMJ is offering us an expert-review service

Fiona Godlee, editor-in-chief, and Peter Ashman, Publishing Director of BMJ (the company owned by the British Medical Association that publishes a suite of first-tier journals including The BMJ) have offered to put their best reviewers on the job if we would like them to check our medical articles for accuracy, up-to-dateness, completeness and neutrality (due weight). There's no rush. (I've told them I think we'd be lucky to submit ten articles in the first year.) So, if you've got an article that has recently passed the Featured Article or Featured Article Review process, and you'd like it rigorously peer-reviewed, let me know. (Peter mentioned their list of reviewers is particularly strong in the fields of rheumatic diseases, gastroenterology and sports medicine but any medical topic should be fine.)

Assuming we can get it past the community, there will be a badge at the top of the current version of any reviewed article, pointing the reader to the version that passed peer-review, and that reviewed version will have a doi and will be a WP:RS (and may well be PubMed indexed - though discussions on that haven't yet begun). --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 01:56, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Anthony, this is a great offer, which I know you've put a lot of work into over a long period! Well done, and thanks to the BMJ too. Johnbod (talk) 03:10, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, great, Anthony! I am exploring the possibility of using Hypothes.is as a way to provide feedback (example), which a group of climate change experts has recently applied to news articles in their field. I spoke with them, and they are willing to give Wikipedia articles a try, so I have notified WP:ENV of that. Hypothesis said they would be interested in helping with similar review efforts in other fields, including medicine, so perhaps we can combine or complement this with the BMJ initiative. -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 23:05, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

both (BMI and h.) ideas seem good(however more opinions should be sought)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:42, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

• I like the annotation idea (e.g. using hypothes.is; reminds me of the defunct Third Voice that I thought was cool at the time) and I just created an account there, and the overlay on WP is nice, but I don't see a way out-of-the-box to make those profiles authoritative or the annotations sufficiently visible to be compelling as peer review. As is, it doesn't seem like a big leap from the Talk page. -- soupvector (talk) 00:15, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

• Hypothesis is integrating annotations with ORCIDs, which will be one way of assessing authority. The current plug in requires activation, but if it is embedded in the Wiki, then that won't be necessary. I think the larger question is how can annotations be used to improve the quality of Wikipedia articles. In my view, annotation is an immediate and quick way for individuals to add knowledge to a page. It takes me a few seconds to note a typo, for example; a little longer to add a reference. These same individuals, in my domain biomedical researchers, may not be willing to go in and actively edit an article, which requires a steeper learning curve but might be willing to give feedback by Hypothesis. In-line annotation is incredibly useful as you can target the specific phrase or sentence that needs attention. A talk page is removed from the article and requires more effort to add information; annotation involves highlighting and adding short bits of text. Those used to working with Wikis can often forget that the majority of researchers don't do this regularly and there is a definite activation barrier). Editors would then have the option of incorporating the feedback or not. So my experience as a researcher (who, in full disclosure,now works for Hypothesis) is that it is a lighter weight, more efficient means to solicit feedback from experts. I think it is definitely worth testing as at least in my domain (neuroscience), it has been difficult to get experts to go in and edit Wiki pages. Memartone (talk) 17:11, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps this is off-topic here (say so and I'll go away) but for a physician-scientist like me, hypothes.is may be a non-starter - the browser extension requires access to all sites I visit, which would be disallowed in my clinical environment. Theoretically this could be something that gets relegated to computers or browsers from which I would never look at clinical content in a browser, but practically this isn't something I'll sign up to track. Not sure how to crack that nut - maybe non-physician experts will agree to those terms (but I'm not sure they should). soupvector (talk) 20:53, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

The browser extension isn't required. There is a proxy service which will inject the annotation layer on to any open page. For instance, this one: [5]. The proxy is available via the Hypothes.is home page, or you can just edit the URL by hand. Also, we have a bookmarklet available there which does not have access to all your browsing. For the record, with the extension, we do not record, save or track that data even though we have access to it. (Full disclosure, I work at Hypothes.is) dano5050 (talk) 17:27, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

This is a really interesting idea; assigning DOIs to specific revisions (by crossref?) would be a big step forward in integrating Wikipedia into the academic literature. I don't have much investment in the types of articles BMJ would review, but I like the idea of working in this direction - pointing the citation to Wikipedia - as an alternative PLoS approach of hosting static copies on their own site as citable "topic pages". How is this going to work - will the text of the reviews be publicly available, or the changes made in response to the reviews annotated somehow? Will the reviewers' identities be known? Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:14, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Opabinia regalis, the review will happen on the article's talk page as a conversation between the reviewers and the authors. The reviewers will use their own names and will have affiliations and potential COIs listed on their user page. I'm hoping we'll have a lead reviewer who is a scholar in the E.M. Forster sense, who "masters all [of the subject's] facts and the leading facts of the subjects neighbouring", to assess the article's neutrality and comprehensiveness, and enough specialists in the sub-topics to be reasonably confident about its accuracy and up-to-datenes. We'll somehow highlight who is endorsing which sections. And yes, Geoffrey Bilder from CrossRef said he'd help us with the DOI when we're ready.

Daniel, I'll look more carefully at the Hypothesis.is proposal later tonight. I confess I was so jet-lagged during the recent Wikipedia Science Conference that I was struggling to take in all the new ideas coming at me. The annotation idea is hot, though, and I'd like to see that or something like it built into Wikipedia for all "post-publication review".

I can envision lots of off-wiki entities wanting to review our stuff in all sorts of knowledge domains. We'll need to evolve a set of policies on whose endorsed versions we point our readers to. But there is plenty of time for that discussion and, for now, I'd prefer that we let a thousand flowers bloom and see how they develop. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 11:55, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I like the idea of preserving the review as a dialogue - the current open-review efforts in journals still seem a little stilted to me. (See e.g. the F1000 Research model.) I've always been very resistant to the idea of importing "authoritativeness" onto Wikipedia by soliciting endorsements from specific identified academics; I think academic publishing is already too reliant on trading on individual people's reputations - a feature that brings with it all kinds of systemic-bias problems. But my opinions on the matter mostly derive from basic science, not anything anywhere in throwing distance of the clinic, and from being involved in various aspects of the open-access debate. I'm really interested to see how this goes. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:56, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

• How about if as a first step we try Parkinson's disease? The editor who did the main work in bringing it to FA status, Garrondo (talk · contribs), has not been around for quite a while, but I have been involved with the article the whole time and would be happy to interact with a reviewer as needed. One thing I would like to see is whether their reviewers are able to work according to Wikipedia's criteria rather than the usual criteria for a journal article, and this seems like a good test case for finding out. Looie496 (talk) 12:33, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Looie496, absolutely. Any article that has recently passed the Featured Article or Featured Article Review process and is about diseases or treatments will be fine, I think. Somebody at the conference last week (I'm sorry I can't remember who) asked if we'd please consider Malaria, so if anyone's interested in that, please work on it.

I and BMJ will be giving them clear, concise guidelines, but I gather peer-reviewers "never" read the guidelines, so yes, it'll be interesting to see how those discussions go. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:52, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

The Parkinson's article passed in 2011. I don't know if that counts as recent, but it has been pretty rigorously maintained, and has the advantage that it is ready to go right now. Looie496 (talk) 13:05, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

OK, if you're confident about its up-to-dateness. I'll give it a bit of a scan over the next couple of days and get back to you here. I've had an email from an editor proposing an article that passed FA fairly recently, which I'm looking at just now. So this is all happening much quicker than I expected. Thank you both. I'm much relieved. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:20, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I just reached out to a group of malaria experts to see whether they would be willing to make suggestions or contribute to the Malaria article - will circle back when I have responses (and I'll try to ensure that this doesn't become a mess of newbie changes to an already-good article, but rather a clearly-communicated endeavor compliant with WP guidance). This should not interfere but rather enhance any effort to have BMJ help review downstream. -- soupvector (talk) 13:48, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

That is exactly what we're hoping to engender here: topic experts working up articles in their field and Wikipedia experts guiding them through our MOS and policy maze, ending in a review by highly-regarded colleagues, and a doi. Thank you, soupvector. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:17, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

It was me who had suggested Malaria, for various reasons. Glad to see things moving forward so quickly, soupvector! -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 20:30, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

 :o) That's the jet-lag. Sorry Daniel. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 02:04, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Looie496, I'm happy to submit Parkinson's disease and have pointed Peter to it. We have a few things to make up yet, but will keep you informed. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:52, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Great! Looie496 (talk) 18:25, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Excellent initiative. PD should probably be updated before we submit it though if it passed on 2011.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:20, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Lots of criticism and improvement (if warranted) of Parkinson's disease before the review begins would be very much appreciated. (Welcome back, James.) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:37, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Looie, today I had a meeting with Peter Ashman and Josie Breen - we're still talking about the reviewer guidelines and the process. Regarding the latter, it looks like being a fairly unstructured conversation on the talk page. Before that conversation begins, I'll give the reviewers an introduction to policy and wiki markup and create a user page for them listing their relevant affiliations and possible conflicts of interest.

Peter and Josie are approaching the editor-in-chief of the relavent journal in their suite for advice but they will choose the reviewers..

They'd like to do one article at a time and will start with Parkinson's disease. I'll keep you informed. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:07, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Cool. I'll make a detailed pass through the article in the near future to make sure everything is review-ready -- of course others are also encouraged to go over it. Looie496 (talk) 12:14, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Diving medicine

I have promoted Diving medicine to B class. Please check and let me know on the talk page if there is any disagreement. The ethics section is still empty, but I do not consider myself competent to write it. Some help would be appreciated. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 08:32, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

give opinion(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:35, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Ozzie10aaaa. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 20:13, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

The way that you promote an article to B-class, or to anything except A, FA, FL, and GA, is this: Change the |class= parameter in the banner at the top of the page, and save the page. Any WPMEDder who has a basic idea of what the standards are is welcome to do this. Any WPMED folk who want to read about the standards can visit WP:MEDA. You are encouraged to fix ratings on articles that you have improved, on the grounds that you know their strengths and weaknesses better than anyone else.

As a general rule, we tend to (accidentally) under-rate articles, so if you're waffling between Start and C, or between C and B, then consider picking the higher rating. The worst possible outcome is that I'll revert you and maybe even leave an explanation for why I did. You are even permitted to disagree with me if I do so. Seriously: WP:Be bold instead of bureaucratic with these things. If you truly can't decide, or if you don't want to bother, then you can leave a note at the bottom of WP:MEDA. Someone usually goes through that list every month or two to deal with requests. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:47, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Agree. The assessment table on our main page has a number (125,000 last I looked) that represents the number of changes that we need to incrementally make to article ratings to get all our articles to FA class. In order to avoid 125,000 discussions (or 32,000 B-class discussions) we need to be bold and make these changes, and be forgiving and assume good faith if we disagree with the assessments of others. --Tom (LT) (talk) 20:20, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

That is what I did. However, the article still lacks any content in the ethics section, and since I have no idea yet of what should go there, perhaps someone could point me to an article with a good ethics section I could use as an example. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 20:39, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Is ethics a big deal in this area? If not, then remove the section. A lot of medicolegal sections look the same: "Dear doctors: you can be held legally liable if you miss this diagnosis". If there's nothing special to say, then it's usually omitted. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:02, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Wiki Ed medical courses for fall 2015

Hi. The following Wiki Ed supported courses may work on medical topics for the fall 2015 term. I will update this page if and when more medical courses come on. Thanks. Helaine (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:53, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

• Expanding WikiProject Medicine
• Developmental Psychopathology
• Bio3595A Advanced Genetics
• Bio3595A Advanced Genetics 003
• PSYC 480 History and Systems of Psychology
• Health Communication
• Chem 455_505 Special Topics in Biochemistry Nucleic Acids Biochemistry
• Psychology of Language
• HMB436H Medical and Veterinary Mycology
• ProSem in Social Psychology
• BioG 1250 Writing for Wikipedia
• Wiki Medicine

good info--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:49, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I am supporting

• Expanding WikiProject Medicine
• Wiki Medicine

Might be good to have other reach out to the other classes if they are working on medical content. I have been providing the following advice on students talk pages User:Doc_James/Students. It is a collection of common mistakes. Others are free to adapt something similar. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:34, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Magnetogenetics

Can editors here please look at this new article? I fully protected it to stop the edit warring but the sources may not meet WP:MEDRS. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:32, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

reference #1 is a comment/news [6] and #3 is abstract only [7] (plus the "advantages section" has no references)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:48, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I do have access to Sciencedirect and I can't find anything about magnetism in that third reference.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:30, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Is there consensus for specific edits now, or do editors want to wait for protection to expire? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:44, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

it could go either way, its odd that editors on that page are very recent accounts([8] [9])?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:59, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

No doubt there's some COI involved. Added notes to both editors' talk pages. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:09, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi. It's the first time I created a Wiki page. I was hoping to do some better research so I can polish the details. It appears to me Abs2017 holds some grudge against the author of the first reference? Qisq2 (talk) 16:40, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I believe both you and your associate should answer the relevant COI questions at each talk page ([10][11] placed by NeilN ^{talk to me} thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:51, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

• Nice catch, shutting that down. The article should be deleted/redirected to optogenetics. it is not ripe yet. (two hits on "magenetogenetics" in pubmed, neither of them reviews). article appears to be written by someone violating WP:SELFCITE, and it appears to be edit warred over by another academic trying to claim credit for the work, who is in any case violating WP:BLPCOI which is policy. Jytdog (talk) 17:02, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, I have only read reference #1 (2010) and #2 (2015) on the topic so far. It doesn't seem to be a hot topic, but it's definitely not new either. Just found another reference by some different guys [12].Qisq2 (talk) 18:36, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

• redirect (request[13])--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:27, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

• Qisq2, is redirection okay until the sourcing details are worked out? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:59, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Yeah it's fine.Qisq2 (talk) 22:49, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Done, thanks. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:28, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

NeilN thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:32, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Work

Hello there! This draft is in need of quite a bit of work. Is there anyone willing to give it a go? Cheers, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 14:39, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

FoCuSandLeArN Is the author still around? Really could do with inline citations if they still have access to these sources. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 17:14, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

@Medicalphyls: Let's see... FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 17:53, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I note that the draft has been declined again because no inline citation. Therefore it seems a fruitless exercise to copy edit this article. Need access to the original sources or need to start over with new sources. Latter might be easier if original author not contactable. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 10:47, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

I've left a note for the latest reviewer with relevant quotations from the AFC instructions (WP:Nobody reads the directions), and a request to repeat the review. The subject is notable, and while the article needs some work, it's not delete-worthy. It should have been accepted. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:41, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Added 2 reliable sources as inline citations, so this might also help. Not going to anything else on this draft for a week or 2 because on vacation and can't stand editing on a mobile device. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 17:07, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

PBC

Primary biliary cirrhosis

There has been an initiative to change the name from Primary biliary cirrhosis to primary biliary cholangitis. Initially patient support groups advocated for this, but their views have now been accepted by professional organisations such as the AASLD.[14] Articles reviewing the name change have now just appeared together in Gut, Hepatology [15] and J Hepatol, with further reviews in J Hepatol and in Can J Gastroenterol Hepatol.

The changes I have made to reflect this have been repeated reverted by Jytdog -- admittedly initially when the cited references were weaker. He justifies this by saying this is advocacy. He may be an expert on Agro business and GMO but I think he is on weak ground here. I have written on his talk page. Please comment on your interpretations of the journals, the article and the professional reputation of the AASLD. Jrfw51 (talk) 14:44, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Those are not "articles", they are letters to the editor. This is not as straightforward an issue as you make it seem. Please get consensus on the talk page before trying to force your material into the article. Looie496 (talk) 15:15, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

while I understand your point, Looie (and JYTdog) are correct there must be consensus on the talk page.--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:23, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I can't see this as an urgent issue. Wikipedia has wp:NODEADLINE. We can wait for quality secondary sources. LeadSongDog come howl! 17:14, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

No these are not letters -- they are Leading Articles (or similiar). They are not original research, but consensus statements of leading researchers and the journal editors that accepted simultaneous publication. No this isn't urgent but let's be bold. The original name remains for those who wish to see it. Why wait? Jrfw51 (talk) 20:16, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Why? Because this name change does not yet seem to be common. If you go to the Guidelines page of AASLD, you'll see "Primary Biliary Cirrhosis" (not cholangitis). Likewise, the Mayo Clinic, the NIH/NIDDK, the Canadian Liver Foundation, the American Liver Foundation and others only list "cirrhosis", not "cholangitis". WP is not the place to advance a cause; an encyclopedia should follow, not lead, the field. soupvector (talk) 22:56, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

exactly, [16] this mentions it but in no way is that reason to change an article title--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:16, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Can we do this at the article talk page? Johnbod (talk) 12:03, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

OK -- see also discussion on Jytdog's talk page.[17] Jrfw51 (talk) 12:27, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

pdf request

If someone can perhaps give me access to the full text of PMID 25391837 (to help update/improve Ménière's disease) just sign below and I'll drop you an email. Thanks, 31.49.14.137 (talk) 21:44, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:The_Wikipedia_Library might be able to help(ive found them very useful)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:52, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 09:54, 21 September 2015 (UTC), with the disclaimer that my internet connection has been dodgy lately.

Thanks Adrian - no rush! 31.49.14.137 (talk) 13:29, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Dr Franklin Lowe

Hello medical experts! This draft about a doctor has claims to notability, but I am having trouble confirming them. Is this a notable subject, or should it be deleted as a stale draft?—Anne Delong (talk) 14:27, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

• H-index of 33 on Google Scholar, the NY Daily News source looks reliable (although none of the other ones in the draft do), and given coverage in other reliable sources, [18] [19] I think he's probably notable. Everymorning (talk) 14:33, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

notable per Wikipedia:Notability--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:15, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

The draft reads too much like a CV, and the user who created it Claireawheeler has a grand total of 10 edits, of which all are on the draft. CFCF 💌 📧 13:10, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Okay, Ozzie10aaaa and CFCF, I have postponed its deletion, and started moving it away from its resumé-like style. My descriptions are likely too simplistic, though; someone may want to reword. —Anne Delong (talk) 03:49, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Everymorning, can you please link to the Google Scholar report? I am having trouble finding it.—Anne Delong (talk) 03:57, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Here. You'll have to figure out his h-index by counting unless, as I do, you have this tool installed on your browser. Everymorning (talk) 15:43, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Dopamine at GAN

Let me note that I have just nominated Dopamine for GA, after extensively reworking it. I plan to nominate it for FA if it passes, so a rigorous review would be welcome. This is only partly a medical article, but I have tried to follow WP:MEDRS standards throughout. (I'm aware that the reference formatting is inconsistent -- I'll fix that before sending it to FAC, but it shouldn't be an issue for GAN.) Looie496 (talk) 16:08, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

references look good(consistent with Wikipedia:Good_article_criteria--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:06, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

The article currently does a poor job of discussing the medication aspects of the topic. I am thinking a split as proposed here would be a good idea for this page to Talk:Norepinephrine#Split Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:33, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Flow diverter grading system

Dear medical experts: There doesn't seem to be much on the internet about "flow diverter grading system". Is this a notable topic under some other title, maybe, or should it be deleted as a stale draft?—Anne Delong (talk) 16:20, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I would echo the prior reviewers opinion(even though I disagree in regards to his/her view of [20] flow diverters, as there are reviews available)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:22, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

It should probably be moved to Flow diverter (is that the right name for these things?) in the hope that someone will expand the article to explain what the thing actually is. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:21, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Ozzie10aaaa and WhatamIdoing, I have move the draft to Draft:Flow diverter, added some basic information, and summarized the information about the grading scale. It awaits improvement by someone who knows what they are doing.—Anne Delong (talk) 11:01, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

thanks Anne--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:15, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Proposed ArbCom motion of some possible interest to members of this project

Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions#Motion: New Religious Movements, which I believe in some substantial regards may have some parallels and overlaps with the field of medicine. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 20:18, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

good info (have commented)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:05, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Issues with Abortion and mental health

The article on Abortion and mental health was recently {{main}}-linked to Abortion and has some issues with sources that aren't WP:MEDRS-compliant.
I'd appreciate help going through the article.CFCF 💌 📧 21:36, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

commented on article talk--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 08:38, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Stroke recovery

Stroke recovery is a bit of a mess (IMO). Is it still B-class? (last assessed in 2008 by @WhatamIdoing:) Would copyeditting be enough or does it need expert input? Little pob (talk) 13:12, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

the placement of the references is unusualHelp:Referencing_for_beginners--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:40, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

It looks like someone merged together a bunch of small pieces. User:Little pob, copyediting (including wholesale restructuring) would be an important improvement, and it would probably make it easier to get expert input. The assessment level is not entirely wrong, but I would probably rate it as C-class (which didn't exist back then) on the grounds that the ==Lateral medullary syndrome== section has no inline citations (only WP:General references). WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:49, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Psych editathon

I posted a link to this some weeks ago, but thought I'd post a reminder about a psychology edit-a-thon tonight, just in case anybody notices any unusual activity from new users. (It's in North Carolina in case anyone's interested and in the area). Please excuse the cross-post with WikiProject Psychology. --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:17, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Ryan (Wiki Ed) thank you for post--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:24, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Dua's layer

Please keep an eye on Dua's layer: [21] - üser:Altenmann >t 18:00, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Ping Altenmann, moved from WT:MEDRSCFCF 💌 📧 16:22, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

FODMAP

The FODMAP diet is receiving media attention, but the article itself is chock full of lousy primary sources claiming the diet works for irritable bowel syndrome sufferers. Please lend a hand. Abductive (reasoning) 18:39, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Ping Abductive, moved from WT:MEDRSCFCF 💌 📧 16:22, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Eek, nearly 1,000 views a day! Johnbod (talk) 16:37, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Actually pretty good evidence for efficacy for IBS /FGID in high quality trials in good journals covered in systematic review and and meta-analysis. I have added these. Jrfw51 (talk) 20:12, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Honey#Discussion of anti-disease effects

An IP editor got into something of an edit war for adding information on anti-cancer properties of honey; the justification for keeping most of the edits off was MEDRS and Primary, but they aren't Primary, and I am nothing of an expert on medical sources but from my reading of MEDRS they appear to be okay; being marked as review articles on PubMed. could someone with more knowledge check out the situation?. Thanks. Falconjh (talk) 16:55, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

will look--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:06, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Frank A. Sloan

Dear medical experts: I figured out all by myself that this professor with 17,000 citations was notable. I fixed it up and moved it to mainspace, but it could use some attention from someone with knowledge of medical economics. —Anne Delong (talk) 11:05, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

looks good (added a couple of refs)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:39, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Multiple chemical sensitivity

Multiple chemical sensitivity was moved earlier this month to Idiopathic environmental intolerances with the edit summary that the condition has now been renamed. As this isn't exactly a recognized medical condition, I'm not sure how it could get renamed in any official sense, and my brief look showed no obvious source to support the claim. Available reviews like PMID 24851372 suggest that the new name includes both Electromagnetic hypersensitivity and MCS, so this might require a merge. If someone else wants to look into it, then please feel free. WhatamIdoing (talk) 13:31, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I was unable to find a source, as well (for the name change)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:48, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Isn't idiopathic a contradiction to "environmental intolerance"? Seems like a bafflegab neologism to me. LeadSongDog come howl! 16:12, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps. Maybe the intended meaning is that the exact environmental factors are unknown. Using the same logic as LeadSongDog above, electromagnetic sensitivity would appear not to be covered by this idiopathic term, despite the source presented by WAID. Here the supposed etiologic factor is identified explicitly. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 17:38, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

It's not a neologism, as it's been suggested for about two decades or so, and it's not actually a contradiction: it's "an idiopathic type of environmental intolerance", not "an idiopathic–environmental type of intolerance".

I have read rumors that the "Idiopathic environmental intolerance" name is part of a conspiracy by the "chemicals industry" to suppress the mention of "chemicals" in the One True Name™, so there may be politics in here somewhere. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:04, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

in any event, its still not clear what reference (what reason/basis )was used (and explained) for the change--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:40, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Infobox type for norepinephrine

Norepinephrine structure

Comments are solicited at Talk:Norepinephrine#Drug box or "infobox neurotransmitter"?. Looie496 (talk) 13:35, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Great to see this posted. Agree it is an important discussion. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:48, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

• more opinions appreciated--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:24, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Women's Health template

The {{WikiProject Women's Health}} template has been added to Talk:Tansy. It seems to me that this template makes a medical claim, and so should be subject to WP:MEDRS. What do other editors think? Peter coxhead (talk) 21:31, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Templates don't contain references... Matthew Ferguson (talk) 23:00, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, my comment above wasn't clear. What I meant was that the template should only be added to articles whose referencing meets WP:MEDRS, since placing the template on an article makes a claim that that article is a medical one. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:08, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

With reference to the article; the medical use is mostly historic. Of the current use and research, the last sentence of the history of use says it has current, limited use. Yet the newest reference of was published 9 years ago. Also, the last sentence of ethnomedical use is supported by a (5 year old) primary source. I've tagged both. Little pob (talk) 09:44, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

agree per MEDRS[22]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:55, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Drying (food)

Drying (food) is rather a mess. But, looking on the bright side, it seems not to attract the same level of controversy, pseudo-science or promotionalism as most other nutrition-related topics. The most medical claim there is "Dehydrated grapes have been shown to be depleted in antioxidants (Vitamin C, E, ORAC) and B vitamins", which is relatively uncontroversial. Unfortunately, it's sourced to an unidentified author writing on the not-so-wonderful Yahoo! Voices. For now I've just slapped a tag on it, but I wonder if more should be done. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 08:34, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Maybe check Google Scholar and PubMed for better sources.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:42, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Excellent online source

An excellent online professional anatomy text published in 2012 is now available online. I have found it to be extremely useful. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) (talk) 12:14, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

apparently it requires Athens login?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:47, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Healthy swimming

Not sure what to make of the article Healthy swimming which was recently created--it seems to violate WP:NOTADVICE. Eyes would be appreciated on this article. Everymorning (talk) 21:34, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

its been redirected[23]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:57, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Congenital lobar emphysema

The redirect from Congenital lobar emphysema to Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease seems not to be correct. The first is a congenital/in newbornage manifesting disease often needing emergency surgery. See Orphanet Zieger M (talk) 11:24, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

COPD is usually not congenital last I checked either. Maybe CLE is a specific form of COPD but probably no more than scarlet fever is a specific form of bacterial infection.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:33, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree that they aren't the same thing. I've taken a stab at the Congenital lobar emphysema article, but it's only a start that I can return to flesh out soon. soupvector (talk) 04:00, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I've put the ICD-10 code as P25.0, as this is where congenital emphysema "trails" to. However, this code is also used to describe Pulmonary interstitial emphysema. If they're not relatable terms, the code choice may need input from a paediatrician with ICD-10 coding/medical billing knowledge. User talk:Little pob (talk) 08:55, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

[24] [25] --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:15, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Should it not better be Q33.8 Other congenital malformations of lung? Pulmonary interstitional emphysema is not congenital but aquired due to respiration techniques. (The syntax in enWP ist quite different from deWP) Zieger M (talk) 12:55, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

(Re:ICD-10 discussion) I've copied the relevant replies to the article talk page for continuation. Little pob (talk) 14:03, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Extremely frivolous deletion request over at Commons

This image is being sent for deletion on entirely wrong and frankly stupid grounds.

The image commons:File:Sobo 1909 260.png, which is a featured picture on Wikipedia and of exceptional quality has been nominated for deletion on grounds that the illustrators are out of this world.

commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sobo 1909 260.png

• The image was published before 1923 in the United States -> PD-US-pre-1923
• The copyright is owned by the author of the atlas, not by the illustrators, Johannes Sobotta
• The independent group Hathitrust as well as Google have deemed this image to be in the public domain as stated at [26].

Please comment or close the request at commons, as I was unable to do despite its non-nature. CFCF 💌 📧 00:22, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I have added a comment. I recommend you not try to forcibly close deletion requests however absurd they are -- that's never a productive approach. Since the image would not be deleted until the end of the process in any case, it's best to let the process play out. Looie496 (talk) 02:19, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I didn't realize that Commons has nothing like WP:SNOWBALL for things like this, thanks for the tip.CFCF 💌 📧 12:05, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Even on en.wikipedia you should never try to "snow close" an AfD for an article you yourself created -- even if it is snowing like a blizzard. Let somebody else do it. Looie496 (talk) 19:25, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

• I would guess the third point you make [27] is all you need, great illustration--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:49, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

"Frivolous" is a little unfair to the initiator of the deletion request. It might have been mistaken, but it was coherent and made in good faith. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 12:54, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Driver's foot

Dear medical experts: Is this draft: User:Pawangangwar/sandbox about a recognized medical condition?—Anne Delong (talk) 12:02, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

No evidence of such on PubMed and nothing on Google Scholar either. Not a recognized medical condition based on this I'd say. More like a colloquial term for a discomfort, I guess.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:11, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I've got it in both right feet. The turmeric cure works, I've seen it myself, but I'm not sure about the roasted ayurvedic herbs. -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 13:35, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

You have two right feet? I thought that people only had two left feet.

Is this really a "thing", or is it basically a case of foot pain caused by over-use? And how do you differentiate it from things like poor posture or plantar fasciitis? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:13, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Deleted as untouched for more than 6 months. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:47, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I see that it's been deleted now. Thanks for helping decide its fate.—Anne Delong (talk) 20:58, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Honey

• Honey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Recent spate of editing on this article, and some disagreement over source quality and how to summarize. More eyes welcome. Alexbrn (talk) 17:29, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

will keep eye on--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:44, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

• • Weighted in aswell. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:46, 29 September 2015 (UTC)