Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 125

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 120 ← Archive 123 Archive 124 Archive 125 Archive 126 Archive 127 → Archive 130

An interesting look at cases were recent RCT/meta analysis came to differing conclusion from traditional practice

interesting info--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:07, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

AD research article needs attention

More detail at Talk:Alzheimer's_disease_research#Grossly_out_of_date. LeadSongDog come howl! 18:37, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes stuff like this quickly goes out of date. Not sure the solution unless someone is very interested in the subject. Much easier to keep up to date on the very very few that actually make it into clinical use. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:59, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Given that WP and especially WikiProject Medicine wants secondary sources (and I fully support that), it could be very difficult to have an up-to-date page on current research of a well-funded (and highly researched subject). I would even go so far as to suggest the page should be deleted, as it would be hard imagine that anyone would benefit from the (outdated) information provided, and the page seems to attract COI folks. Waughd (talk) 03:25, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
I should add that I'm not really suggesting the page be deleted. Waughd (talk) 13:35, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
A description at a "higher" (read: vaguer) level might be more resistant to going out of date than a list of molecules currently in clinical trials. There's research about diagnosis, research about causes, research about pathogenesis, research about drugs to stop it, and hopefully research about managing it (weight maintenance, symptom control, caregiver burnout, etc.). That has presumably been true for the last decade and will presumably be true for the next decade, too. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:23, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
I don't see the point of us hosting outdated science information. I think these types of articles are just asking for trouble. To me it seems that the solution is to keep articles like Alzheimer's disease research, if they exist, to a society- and culture-focused type of article that discusses the history, funding, and expert opinion on the field itself. The current science-based research directions should go in the parent article itself under that section. I went ahead and wp:boldly redirected the article, for what it's worth. Biosthmors 14:50, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

I see that the page has been deleted (redirected) but doesn't appear to be consensus to take such a drastic measure (see Waughd comment above "I should add that I'm not really suggesting the page be deleted"). If the research page is deleted, then someone should at least carefully review the existing content and carry over the good parts to the main Alzheimer's article. The main article should then discuss some of the prelinical research, especially since numerous efforts at Amyloid targeting are not working. Fpbear (talk) 06:50, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Thoughts on Pathology Outlines?

Pathology Outlines is a site that provides overviews of many pathology related topics - here's an example entry: [2] The articles are written by MDs and they cite their sources, but I'm not sure if it would be considered a good source under WP:MEDRS, so I'm hesitant to cite it. Thoughts? Thanks, SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 01:23, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Not a great source. What were you wanting to use it for? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:43, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
I was going to use it to cite this sentence: "Abnormal promyelocytes with multiple Auer rods, called faggot cells, occur in acute promyelocytic leukemia" in this article. Thanks for your input. I can definitely find a better source for the statement if required. I just found it convenient because it popped up on Google - easier than digging through textbooks :) SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 15:59, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
It appears generally reliable to me based upon it having people in academic positions on an editorial board of 17 and editor-in-chief that is an established author. The source states that "All topics are reviewed by multiple Pathologists before final approval". That said, I'm unaware of any reputation (good or bad) the source may have developed. Biosthmors (talk) 16:12, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm highly skeptical of this. I suspect it's an advertising play (either for CME, backlinks, or straight advertising). There's a whole page dedicated to 'testimonials' about the site?? No references for the info provided. Worse than primary publication imo. The author may have put little or no effort into sourcing the facts, even if it went thru others for a check. Ian Furst (talk) 17:04, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Since the consensus seems to be that the source is questionable at best, I've removed it from my draft and replaced it with a better source. Thanks for the help. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 17:21, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Ischemic compression

I noticed recently that this article was removed from the altmed category and stub-category, so I have added the med-stub template. However, I wonder if this is really only about chiropractic or osteopathy and altmed? When I follow to trigger point and read that they correspond to accupuncture ones, I'm wondering. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 12:23, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm a bit doubtful about the connection to acupuncture. That section says something about "the 255 trigger points", but nothing else in the article suggests that there are any particular number of trigger points. My impression is that a trigger point is a small spot that hurts (i.e., for no apparent reason, so not small spots that hurt because you poked them or something), and that those spots could exist pretty much in any muscle. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:44, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Osteopathy

I have reverted some changes there, but would be grateful if other editors could audit. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 07:38, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

references seem ok--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:06, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
    • Yeah, as a osteopathic physician myself I will say that I don't know how significant this article really is in practice. Following the introduction of single accreditation ("merger") for osteopathic and allopathic residency programs, osteopathic medicine has for all practical purposes been tossed into history. Add to that the fact that most DOs don't practice osteopathic manipulation, given the lack of established evidence supporting the practice. N. Jain (talk to me) 23:06, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

A reference on cardiac pages

Advice sought on edits by User:Doctor.sebas...noticed the same paper is being adding to a few articles eg this (which I watch), this, this. thank you Whispyhistory (talk) 08:30, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Well the DOI doesn't resolve[3] to the named article, and the Journal of Investigative Medicine does not appear to be in PUBMED, and this would be a primary source even if it it did resolve correctly. So it's not a useful source in any event. Alexbrn (talk) 08:39, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Was just about to comment on the DOI. Weird. I'm going to revert these edits since they don't even link to the right article and some of them are replacing legitimate citations. Seems like someone trying to WP:REFSPAM, but incompetently. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 08:44, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
thanks Whispyhistory (talk) 08:57, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
I gave them a warning. I'll report them to WP:AIV if they don't knock it off. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 08:59, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
I tracked down the paper in question as a link to its abstract from the author's LinkedIn page. You can read the abstract at https://jim.bmj.com/content/jim/67/1/162.full.pdf page 167. It's a primary study on a group of heart transplant patients with no significant outcomes. I can't find it on PubMed, and really don't think it's likely to be useful at all for us. --RexxS (talk) 09:46, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
It's actually on the DOI in the reference, too, but you have to scroll down a long way to see it. The edits where the user added text are copyvios of the paper BTW. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 09:51, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
If the editor is the person holding the copyright (which is often, but not always, the case for academic REFSPAM), then they wouldn't be copyvios. But it sounds like these edits might undesirable for other reasons. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:40, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Differences of sexual development at WP:Redirects for discussion

See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 July 9#Differences of sexual development. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:27, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Bibliography of Ebola

Ebola Virus TEM

Feedback on this please, particularly what should be included and what WHO publications are appropriate. Thanks. Philafrenzy (talk) 19:26, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Inherently non-encyclopedic, I'd say. WP:NOT. Alexbrn (talk) 19:39, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Would be of use as this, this etc. A number of the entries have 2nd/3rd party references. @Ozzie10aaaa: and @Doc James: for advice please. Whispyhistory (talk) 19:46, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
What is the goal / use case? And why is simple the reference section of the article on Ebola not this already? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:50, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
agree w/ Doc James--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:52, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Bibliographies don't need to be justified in that way - see all the others that exist. Even if they did, a full bibliography on any topic is inevitably going to include useful material that appears in no article and is organised in a completely different way. See the examples given above. They prevent readers having to trawl through articles for sources which are not organised in the refs section by topic. I must admit I was hoping for more constructive replies. Philafrenzy (talk) 19:57, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Other bibliographies exist, as you note, so I don't see an issue. I say feel free to work on it. Best wishes. Biosthmors (talk) 20:30, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
By which reasoning, for any article X, we can have an article Bibliography of X. I think policy argues against editors deciding on what constitutes a bibliography for any topic. Alexbrn (talk) 20:34, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
I see what you're saying. I did find this, which should help. It appears that as long as secondary sources provide further reading lists, then we too can provide one (as a bibliography). Biosthmors (talk) 22:19, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Interesting! So by WP:NOTESAL a topical bibliography would be okay if there were decent sources discussing that topical bibliography. Are there such sources covering the idea of "Ebola bibliography"? Alexbrn (talk) 02:21, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
They don't have to be in one single published bibliography per the policy, they can be "recommendations for further reading on the topic published in a reliable source on the topic" so the further reading in one reliable source supports the other and vice versa over many publications. That's the corpus of the bibliography where no single stand alone book has yet been published. Bibliographies as hardcopy single purpose books may be dead now due to the internet so increasingly we will have to rely on multiple sources to establish the body of work in a particular area. Philafrenzy (talk) 08:22, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
I will have a think and do some research....thanks all. Whispyhistory (talk) 20:31, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  • So what's happening with this? There now seems to be a list of stuff sourced to itself (which is a WP:V problem if nothing else) which looks like its Wikipedia editors' arbitrary selection of Ebola-related material. Have any sources been found which discuss the topic of Ebola bibliography? Or alternatively, are any of the listed publications influential enough to deserve their own article (in which case the bibliography could be a list article). If neither holds, I think the article needs to be deleted. Alexbrn (talk) 05:04, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  • The guidance states: "For a bibliography on a topic to be notable, the members of that bibliography should be discussed as a group in reliable sources. This discussion may take the form of a published standalone bibliography on the topic, a bibliography in a published reliable source on the topic or recommendations for further reading on the topic published in a reliable source on the topic."
Here are a few reliable sources introducing the topic of literature about Ebola being a subject:
"Select bibliography" (6 pages, in Amazon "look inside" preview) in David Quammen's Ebola: The Natural and Human History (2014)
"What to read about Ebola" The Guardian
Ebola: Selected full-text books and articles. Questia
"Further reading" in Oxford Textbook of Medicine, Vol. 1 (all Ebola)
As for the notability of the chosen works, the list guideline states "the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable".
There won't be many large topics on which books have been written, diseases or otherwise, for which there is not the concept of a bibliography of literature or further reading. We wouldn't have articles on the topics if there wasn't as there would not be the sources from which to write them. Philafrenzy (talk) 06:37, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
What you quote is not guidance, but something from a WikiProject. What we need is some indication of the notability of the concept of ebola bibliography per the actual WP:PAGs for lists (e.g. "if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources"). The Guardian source comes closest, but is not great. I think we need to be strict here otherwise we are opening the door to arbitrary "Bibliogaphy of ... " medical articles with arbitrary lists of editor-selected sources. Alexbrn (talk) 07:26, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
I have just given four examples where it "has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". I would say Quammen is by far the strongest and longest. It's a survey of the literature in the area which is exactly what is called for. I don't see people writing a lot of these, not based on my experience of the reception they are likely to receive, but what would be the problem exactly if they did as long as they were all RSs? Bibliographies are finding aids and an established type of article. Is it only in medicine that you object to them or would you like to delete all the other bibliographies too? Philafrenzy (talk) 07:33, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
I could see no "discussion" of bibliography in Quammen - do I need to visit the library to see the whole book, or is the bibliography just a listing (so, without discussion?) There are obviously some topics (like the American Civil War) where the bibliographical aspect is notable in itself, with strong RS supporting that. In such cases deletion obviously is not appropriate. Alexbrn (talk) 07:48, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
All that is required is that the members of the bibliography "should be discussed as a group in reliable sources". That can take one of three different forms:
1) "A published standalone bibliography on the topic" or
2) "A bibliography in a published reliable source on the topic" or
3) "Recommendations for further reading on the topic published in a reliable source on the topic."
We have 2) and 3) here. Philafrenzy (talk) 08:08, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
That is not part of the WP:PAGs, it is from a WikiProject, as is often the case trying to do an end-run around the WP:PAGs to expand its remit. Making a list is not "discussion". So are we agreeing this topic falls afoul of the actual WP:PAGs, or is there actual discussion in RS about bibliographical aspects of Ebola? (From searching BTW it seems there are very few of these synthetic "Bibliography of ..." articles on WP, and they tend to be on mega-topics like World War 2. Most bibliography articles appear to be "Lists of works of ..." articles from writers &c.) Alexbrn (talk) 08:13, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Wikiproject guidelines often provide valuable guidance on how higher level rules are interpreted in practice. Do you argue that the medicine project has a better take on bibliographies than the bibliography project? I agree that a simple list is easy to compile, but the compilation of a bibliography in a reliable source such as David Quammen's book requires the exercise of judgement in assessing what to include and whether a source is reliable. Authors stake their reputations on that and the other content in their books. I think we should remember that what we have here is a list of books about Ebola and that WP:NOTESAL makes clear that "Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability." Is it the fact that the article uses the word "bibliography" that you object to? Would you be happier if it was "List of books about Ebola" which would be substantially the same article? Philafrenzy (talk) 09:16, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
This WikiProject's guidelines has though become part of the WP:PAGs, and has been (and is) subject to the scrutiny and consensus that implies. If the intention is to write a "List of books about Ebola" - my question would be "as decided by ...?" The implication is that this is indeed a bibliography that "requires the exercise of judgement" and upon which "authors stake their reputations". Compiling such a list, if it was just the work of Wikipedia editors, would be a form of WP:OR. I'd go back to Doc James's question – what is the goal? Alexbrn (talk) 09:37, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Decided by the judgement of those that compile bibliographic sources that we would regard as reliable, such as those above, from which the content is drawn. That's what avoids it becoming OR. The goal is to provide a jumping-off point for readers to explore a topic further. That's always the goal of a bibliography. It works differently to the sources in articles because it groups them by topic, in alpha or date order, by author, on one page instead of spread across articles, includes sources that have been identified as worthwhile by scholars but that we don't currently cite in articles, provides links out to the author or book articles, and can include reviews (see the Ebola article) and additional commentary drawn from reliable sources (see the fishing examples linked above). Philafrenzy (talk) 10:51, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
But the supposed "best" source (Quammen) is a fairly old sensationalist lay book extracted from an older book. Not WP:MEDRS. And if we find better sources, and transpose bibliographies wholesale there is a risk of WP:COPYVIO since the assemblage of that list of source is an original creation. I'm not going to say anything further on this as I have made the points I want to already - but as things currently stand I would support deletion of this article. What do others think? Alexbrn (talk) 15:23, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
"Old"? It's 2014. "Sensationalist"? The American Journal of Epidemiology described David Quammen's book as follows: "It is not for persons looking for a comprehensive and technical guide to Ebola, but rather those who are looking to quickly get up to speed on the history of the disease and the remaining questions. Written in layman's terms, the book provides a nice introduction to infectious disease transmission and disease ecology concepts that would be useful to those in public health who are not infectious disease epidemiologists but who might be interested because of the recent outbreak. This book could also serve as a useful model for public health professionals on how to relay information about an outbreak to a lay audience." May I remind you that we also write for a lay audience. You asked for an example of a bibliography of Ebola, I have given a six page example. It's not the only source we can or should draw on. What about the Oxford Textbook of Medicine linked above? Philafrenzy (talk) 16:33, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Per WP:MEDRS we prefer sources within the last 5 years for an actively-researched field like ebola. So a 2014 book (excerpted from a 2012 book) is automatically going to be too old for our purposes in general. We write for a lay audience yes, but we don't base our medical articles on lay sources when strong ones are available. My level of concern rises, as with every response the goalposts shift. Alexbrn (talk) 16:38, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
You raise a new objection with a new policy with every reply. A good bibliography would include all sorts of material, all reliable obviously, but lay accounts, medical research, historical accounts, first hand accounts from patients and doctors: they all comprise the literature on the topic. Philafrenzy (talk) 16:43, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Alex, I think you're off base. First of all, this WikiProject's advice (e.g., this, this, this, this, this,this, this, and more) is not part of the site-wide policies and guidelines. WP:MEDMOS and WP:MEDRS do not belong to this WikiProject. Yes, it's true that most of those guidelines were written by current (and especially former) participants in this group, but they're not ours, they were each adopted through a formal sitewide WP:PROPOSAL, and we don't own them or get any special say in how they develop.
Second, you may have noticed that MEDRS has some exceptions, and one of the biggest is when the source isn't supporting a claim about Wikipedia:Biomedical information. A list of sources doesn't support any claim at all, so MEDRS doesn't apply. MEDMOS explicitly names "historical" sources as good candidates for ==Further reading==, and a bibliography list on the English Wikipedia is basically the ==Further reading== section writ large. The five-year recommendation (which careful readers of that guideline will notice is written "five or so years", and that recommendation applies only to "actively researched areas with many primary sources and several reviews", not to everything) does not apply in these cases.
Finally, you're arguing about whether bibliographies should exist on the wrong page. If you think ==Further reading== shouldn't get split into a separate article, then you need to argue that case at AFD. Here's a list of 242 existing bibliographies]. WP:AFD has the directions for how to list multiple pages in the same discussion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:36, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Philafrenzy I think we should be careful about rapidly creating new pages to guide readers for a couple of reasons (and I'm not sure how these thoughts translate to other project, I can only see how it will affect WP:MED monitored pages); (1) WP:MED pages are the most frequently reference medical resource on the planet, and that has real-world consequences. We are very cautious about sources because it will influence (widely) clinical decisions. (2) We are in a constant battle with paid editors, private clinics, political factions, and people pushing poorly supported facts to keep the information accurate. Based on your editing profile, you have the capacity to rapidly create hundreds of these types of pages about various WP:MED articles that will then need to be vetted and managed. For instance, if you create a section on "Diagnosis" for each disease, I can almost guarantee that within months some start-up company with a new rapid test for disease X, will have their information in that section, and we will have to research it to see if it's accurate and meets criteria. Just this month, I had to read 2 hours of articles on the "orgasm shot" just to have an educated argument that injecting centrifuged blood into the anterior vaginal wall to improve orgasm doesn't belong in an article. Its difficult enough to manage these types of issues with existing articles (that are already well referenced and have years consensus building) let along if we double the number with new references that have not been built over the years. Imo; adding new references to existing articles is the safer way to go long-term. If you, or a group of editors, believes that a WPMED article would be better served with an additional bibliography page, it might be best to bring it to the articles talk page first for consensus on which references should be used. Ian Furst (talk) 13:43, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
That was the precisely the purpose of my original message. I acknowledge your other points and rest assured I don't intend to create numerous pages of this kind. Philafrenzy (talk) 20:57, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Expert attention

This is a notice about Category:Medicine articles needing expert attention, which might be of interest to your WikiProject. It will take a while before the category is populated. There might be as few as one page in the category, or zero if someone has removed the expert request tag from the page.

Risk factor needs attention.

Sorry I cant find instructions for this template so I'm not sure it will work.

49.198.7.235 (talk) 09:05, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

This seems to be one of the least useful categories in Wikipedia's back end. In my experience, most of those requests don't need expert attention at all, and in some cases, the alleged problems have long since been resolved. If anyone has some time, it'd be good to remove these templates from any article without an obvious need for an actual expert. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:42, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I think it needs attention because it's a core concept in medical research. would a peer-review tag or another tag be more appropriate? my thinking was that the expert attention tag would attract an expert from medicine or nursing. 49.198.7.235 (talk) 03:55, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
    • In my experience, none of the tags are as good as posting here. Let's see: User:PeaBrainC is good at both cardiology and statistics stuff, and that makes a particularly good combination for understanding risk factors. Pea Brain, do you want to look the article over? There's a specific question about the relationship between "risk factors" and "determinants". User:CFCF, are you around? Risk factors are obviously a big deal in evidence-based preventive medicine. We should have several people who could help straighten out the question. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:12, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
      • Thanks WAID for inviting me to join the discussion. I'm comfortable with the concept of risk factors in the context of cardiology but must confess that the precise semantics of epidemiological terms are not my expertise. I've given it a go and commented on the talk page - essentially the terms "Risk Factor" and "Determinant" seem to be used fairly loosely and sometimes interchangeably depending on where you're looking. On a more general note, the article could be phrased in a slightly less technical style. PeaBrainC (talk) 07:55, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Solanesol

Resolved

Request article creation for the chemical Solanesol. QuackGuru (talk) 19:47, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Be_bold--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:58, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
I can participate if someone starts it. QuackGuru (talk) 22:09, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

QuackGuru Does it have a medical application? I can only find its use as a chemical precursor for the production of CoQ10 [1] if there are no papers regarding its medical use or health effects then it might more appropriately go in Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemicals. or perhaps a line saying, "Industrially, Solanesol has been extracted from tobacco waste as a novel precursor for the production of CoQ10." to relevant articles ie. tobacco, CoQ10. 49.198.7.235 (talk) 03:42, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.sigmaaldrich.com/catalog/product/sigma/s8754?lang=en&region=AU
It is related to tobacco products. QuackGuru (talk) 11:07, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

New article expanded. QuackGuru (talk) 19:20, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

And expanded again. Wikipedia:Be bold is good. QuackGuru (talk) 21:55, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

QuackGuru It seems that most of the page is just copy and pasted from here. See, Earwig copyvio Waughd (talk) 03:13, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
The paper is licensed by CC-BY 4.0 and attributed using the {{CC-notice}} template (check the reference section), so it's not a copyvio. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 03:48, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
See WP:MEDCOPY. QuackGuru (talk) 06:26, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Sorry for the false alarm, I didn't realize is was CC 4.0 Waughd (talk) 11:20, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
No worries. QuackGuru (talk) 18:14, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Your input appreciated

Hi all,

I would appreciate your input in this strange case: Wikipedia_talk:Copyright_problems#Wikipedia_page_"later"_published_in_scientific_paper:_copyvio?.

--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 19:59, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:19, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Vitamin M

Vitamin M has been nominated at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 July 23#Vitamin M, where it is proposed to retarget it to Folate.

When researching this, I found Riboflavin was originally (proposed to be) named "Vitamin M" but there is no mention of this in our article currently - should there be? Thryduulf (talk) 09:15, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

per [5] & [6]?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:34, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Stale drafts

See Cigarette Smoking for Weight Loss draft. It has ben close to 10 years since the last edit by the draft creator. How long can someone keep a draft that was a copy of the mainspace article? QuackGuru (talk) 18:12, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

There's no specific time limit but since WP:NOTAWEBHOST applies, MfD is an option. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:15, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
I think there should be a time limit. 10 years is a long time. QuackGuru (talk) 18:24, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
You could start an RfC on it somewhere, but based on my experience at MfD, you won't get consensus to put a hard limit on userspace drafts. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:49, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
I could start with 10 years, then 20, 25, 30 or 50. 50 years is long enough. WP:FAKEARTICLE also applies. A bot could be programmed to tag stale drafts with a 'stale drafts category' for editors to review. QuackGuru (talk) 18:53, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Category:Stale userspace drafts exists. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:01, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
That does not work well because it only tags the stale ones that have a userspace draft template. There are more stale drafts I wanted deleted.[7] QuackGuru (talk) 19:06, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
I agree with you and I've sent the page to MfD: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Ledownin/Cigarette Smoking for Weight Loss. Let's see how that pans out. --RexxS (talk) 21:25, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Close to 5 years for this one. QuackGuru (talk) 21:32, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Well, let's see how first one goes. If there are no serious objections to a 9-year old draft, we can try the 4-year old one next. Eventually we'll find out where the community is prepared to draw the line. Much better than sterile debates on an abstract principle. --RexxS (talk) 21:45, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
If all were MFDed then people will realize the scope of the problems. QuackGuru (talk) 22:09, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:SPACKlick/ecigtest&action=history

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:AlbinoFerret/sandbox2&action=history

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:AlbinoFerret/sandbox/ecig&action=history

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:AlbinoFerret/sandbox/ecigarette&action=history

MFD all of them and let's move on. None of these resemble any current article. QuackGuru (talk) 22:07, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:AlbinoFerret/sandbox/percent Attack piece against numerous editors. QuackGuru (talk) 22:07, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Promotional or stale drafts

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sarah_at_PMI/sandbox/iqosrec

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SimonDes/HnB

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisateur:SimonDes/Brouillon

https://lv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalībnieks:Wiki8634/Smilšu_kaste

https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utente:Luciomanocchio/IQOS

At least two of the drafts on the English Wikipedia were created by WP:PAID editors. QuackGuru (talk) 18:24, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Indeffed editors with stale drafts

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:PrefixIndex/User:A1candidate/ An indeffed editor is not going to return any time soon to improve the drafts. QuackGuru (talk) 22:07, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

User:QuackGuru, this is not a good page for you to be pushing your agenda about the proper handling of userspace drafts. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:02, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Donepezil

There is a discussion regarding how to present the use of donepezil is ADHD and autism based on case reports and case series. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:09, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Also issues here Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:41, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

NPOV Noticeboard: Cambridge Diet

Maybe interesting for someone here, since it concerns human health. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:19, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Link corrected. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:36, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Electronic cigarette related drafts

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft%3AVaping_Daily

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft%3AVapor_Origin

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft%3AVape_Dinner_Lady

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft%3ANicotine_Salts

All of these can be reviewed. QuackGuru (talk) 00:50, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/DavidChyriwsky Then see https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/DavidChyriwsky The same editor who created the draft added nice pictures from the headquarters of the company. QuackGuru (talk) 00:57, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Brain–computer interface

Not the most pressing issue, but could an experienced editor please double-check the validity of this recent edit? The used sources are quite dated, also a "discussion paper" seems insufficient for such extraordinary claims. Also also, the paragraph contains no independent assessment of this theory or more recent research. GermanJoe (talk) 12:14, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

[8]while these references are oldWikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)#Use up-to-date evidence History sections often cite older work …..the subsection can be turned Into ==History== section...IMO(to solve some of the issues at least)…. BTW PubMed gave [9]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:42, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for the feedback. Assuming this theoretical application is noteworthy, moving these details about discontinued research into an appropriate part of "History" would certainly be an improvement. GermanJoe (talk) 10:49, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

contraception

There a number of contraception pages. I saw Combined hormonal contraception and started to expand...am I wasting my time or should this be merged with another? Whispyhistory (talk) 19:35, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't know. Questions like this make me miss User:Lyrl.
It appears that we now have a sort of hierarchy, that runs:
This seems like a pretty reasonable system of organization, but I kind of doubt that the CHC article will ever be as popular as any of the others. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:08, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks @WhatamIdoing:...will leave it simple. Whispyhistory (talk) 09:09, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Well we have birth control. And than all the subpages. CHC is a major group. We have specific articles on dozens of them aswell. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:29, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks @Doc James:...merging some might help, but I have no idea how. I just nominated Combined hormonal contraception for a dyk and tried not to make article too long. Please suggest any alterations, otherwise I will leave it be. I couldn't find a good source on the world wide availability of the combined injectable. Whispyhistory (talk) 06:55, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
I am not seeing the current organization as a particular problem. It is a massive topic of top importance. There are a lot of specific methods which each deserve their own article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:08, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
I see...Whispyhistory (talk) 07:42, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Article_alerts update

As a heads up, the alerts will now report proposals for mergers and splits, as well as AFC submissions. There's a bit of a backlog, but now you have a way to track it! Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:02, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Hope is that we will eventually get images up for deletion on Commons used within medical articles added to this list. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:51, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Request to create a new article on the Exhalation delivery system (EDS)

Dear WikiProject Medicine Community,

I am writing to ask for advice in the potential generation of a new page about Exhalation Delivery Systems (EDS), a new form of nasal drug delivery. With the recent introduction of a product called XHANCE, there are now two treatments that use exhalation delivery systems. This may be of broad interest, as the second EDS product entered the market in November of 2017, and more than 50,000 prescriptions have already been written for it as of July 2019 because it represents a different mental model then the common existing model for people accustomed to typical nasal products. I am happy to write as much or as little about the EDS as the project sees fit, as my intentions are to provide factually accurate information to the wikipedia community about the medical device itself and the mechanism of action, which is an ‘exhaler’ and is different from common ‘inhaled’ nasal sprays. For background, EDS works uniquely to traditional nasal sprays because it used exhaled breath (rather than inhaled breath) to seal off the nose from the mouth and facilitate “bi-directional” physiology that has been proven to deposit medicine in different anatomic locations then a standard nasal spray. Below are the four general steps for how EDS works:

  1. The device’s nosepiece acts to create a seal at the nostril opening, while also acting to mechanically expand the nasal valve such that airflow is facilitated. Exhalation causes the soft palate to lift, therefore closing the space between the oral and nasal pharynx. The result is a separation between the nasal passages and the mouth and lungs. The device’s seal transfers oral pressure to the nostril. The sealed nostril, in combination with the closure of the soft palate, results in a single directional airflow through one nostril.
  2. Exhaled breath is naturally warm and humid, and this airflow expands normally narrow passages and reduces flow resistance behind the nasal septum.
  3. Medication is carried with exhaled breath and travels through the nosepiece and enters the nose while the nasal passages have already been expanded. Air moves past the inferior turbinate and the middle turbinate, and medication carried by the stream of air is deposited high and deep in the nasal passages.
  4. Air eventually passes around the nasal septum and escapes out the opposite nostril, releasing the air pressure generated by the original exhalation.

Any feedback at this stage about generation of a new page would be greatly appreciated, as our goal is to provide information to the general public about EDS.

Thank you all for your time,

204.10.62.27 (talk) 13:46, 30 July 2019 (UTC)Alex Mahmoud Optinose, Inc. 7-29-2019

familiarize yourself w/ Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:30, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Exhalation delivery system sounds like a notable topic. Ideally, it would have as little information about specific brands/manufacturers as possible. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:53, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
I've no idea what the journal's impact factor is, but here's a review article from this may for EDS (specifically EDS-FLU) in treating chronic rhinosinusitis[10] Little pob (talk) 19:57, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Impact factor:2.521, ISI Journal Citation Reports © Ranking: 2018:9/42 (Otorhinolaryngology), apparently. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:23, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
So that puts it in the top quarter of all journals within that field. (Magic numbers require context to be even remotely useful.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:46, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks @Headbomb and WhatamIdoing: I've made a stub article based on the review article. I have reached my level WP:COMPETENCE with it though. Little pob (talk) 12:38, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for writing what you did @Little pob:, if it's alright I would like to also contribute additional information about the device. Would the talk page be preferred over the main article? I am doing my best to follow COI while also contributing if I can. 204.10.62.27 (talk) 14:02, 1 August 2019 (UTC)Alex Mahmoud 1 August 2019
Yes, the talk page is great. There should be a "new section" button at the top to make it a little easier to get started. And would you consider creating an account? "Alex at Optinose" would be a memorable username, if you like it. ;-) (But don't use "Optinose" by itself as your username, per WP:ISU.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:15, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Poorly written cigarette articles

Cigarette smoking among college students article

Poorly written article created almost 10 years ago by Tobaccosuperstars. QuackGuru (talk) 18:12, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

maybe trim unreferenced?[11](feel free to revert if not in agreement}--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:29, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Most cigarette related articles are outdated. QuackGuru (talk) 10:50, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
yes I was noticing that--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:03, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
Readers complain about the poor articles. The article on lung cancer is good quality. Most e-cig articles are up-to-date. QuackGuru (talk) 11:09, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Cigarette smoking for weight loss article

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cigarette_smoking_for_weight_loss This is also in poor shape. QuackGuru (talk) 10:47, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Re-RfC

See Talk:Electric smoking system#Requested move 30 July 2019. QuackGuru (talk) 22:15, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

July 30your right I chimed in just below on July 30(have answered[12])--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:09, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

White blood cell differential

Segmented Neutrophilic Granulocyte surrounded by Erythrocytes

Hi there, I created White blood cell differential recently and it's been tagged for expert review by a new page reviewer. Thought I would share it here to get some more input. Please make any changes or suggestions as you see fit. :) Thanks, SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 14:13, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

I removed the tag. Also, you have done some excellent work there. Thank you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:12, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, I was questioning the tag but I didn't want to remove it myself since I'm of course biased about my own work. :) I appreciate your comments. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 15:24, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
I'd like to drive-by echo WAID's comment. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 22:17, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
well done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:09, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
wow. very well done. consider a GA submission. Ian Furst (talk) 22:26, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

How are new medical articles (drafts) reviewed?

I contributed a new article. Now I wondered if it must be tagged somehow to get reviewed and published. Did I miss something? Thanks for help. --Saidmann (talk) 19:49, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Saidmann, why did you create the article in draftspace? It's not required. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:19, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
It is what all the instruction pages/intros/etc tell new editors to do... Johnbod (talk) 00:42, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Sure, but with 12,000 edits across several wikis, and thousands of edits to medicine-related articles, Saidmann should not be anyone's idea of a "new editor". WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:53, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
this reference...Mukhtar, Saheel; Dhliwayo, Blessing (31 January 2019). "Novel Surgical Treatments for Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia". Journal of Endoluminal Endourology. 2 (1): e17–e23. doi:10.22374/jeleu.v2i1.29. ISSN 2561-9187. Retrieved 4 August 2019....is the most often used reference for the article, yet unless Im mistaken its not PubMed indexed...--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:44, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
@Saidmann: The best quality source in the article is the NICE statement, but you've only used it as an external link. My advice is to re-read that briefing and use it as the main basis for the article, using the other sources to flesh out what you write based on NICE. You need to get rid of the jargon – there's no such thing as "radiofrequency water vapour thermal energy". You should write "steam". By all means explain how the steam is generated, but it's still steam. Put yourself in the place of a general reader who doesn't understand medical terms and try to explain for them how the technique works. At present it reads more like an attempt to encourage doctors to make use of the technique. That's not our audience. I've removed a non-working url from the draft for you – we don't use the url parameter anyway when we have a stable identifier that's as good as the url. The topic is notable, so unless there's already an article covering it, you should simply move it to article space and save the reviewers some effort. --RexxS (talk) 00:30, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks to all who replied. I have now moved it to article space.
@RexxS: Thank you for the thoughtful hints. I'll try to cut out jargon and add technical details. I had put the NICE statement into the external links, because two of the four authors of the statement had declared financial connections with the marketing company. The authors of the four reviews had not declared such connections. --Saidmann (talk) 16:32, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
@Saidmann: One of the factors we use when trying to ascertain the quality of a source is the reputation of the publisher – as well as their declared editorial and review processes if it's a journal. For an "innovation briefing" from a major health organisation such as NICE, I personally put a lot of store in their editorial oversight. I think you're mistaken in believing that the four "specialist commentators" were the authors of the paper: my reading is that they were asked by NICE to give a clinician's view of Rezum and their comments were summarised in a short sectiond by NICE, who added the background to give perspective for the reader. If you leave aside the section on Specialist commentator comments because of your concerns, I'm pretty certain you still have the best quality analysis available and there are multiple places in our article where you could use the paper as a source. That's just my take on it, of course. Hope that helps --RexxS (talk) 18:01, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Plasma half-life and plasma stability

Plasma

On the german wikipedia, there is a discussion about plasma half-life and plasma-stability. In general it helps to read the more detailed english article on wikipedia. In this case maybe not - do I see it corrently that there are no articles for this? If not, I really suggest to establish it. On german wikipedia, currently I try to make clear that there is an important difference between plasma half-life and plasma-stability, see [13]. As I understand international literature correctly, also in english it is common to distinguish both terms. Actually my intension was to mention that plasma half-life (Plasmahalbwertszeit) is a missleading term for the phenomen that is described with that. But obviously, it's the same missleading in english ^^ So it should be termed something like half-life (pharmacology), but at least in german that's not possible because "plasma half-life" is the missleading, but established term. Maybe you find a well-considered solution for an english article (or section in blood plasma). --Max schwalbe (talk) 10:06, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

There's biological half-life, if it's any help? Little pob (talk) 10:38, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Oh thanks, that's a well solution, because the term plasma half-life is avoided in this article, mostly. Great! But also there is no explaination to distinguish plasma half life from plasma stability. I`ll try to improve it, please take an eye on it because I'm not an english native speaker, thanks! --Max schwalbe (talk) 11:03, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Max schwalbe, you had only a minor grammar error, which I fixed. I also re-phrased some of the introduction. Would you please look at it, and fix any possible factual errors? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:00, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks a lot! Indeed, how to use "-ly" correctly, I still do not fully understand. I have made some additional changes ... --Max schwalbe (talk) 14:47, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
FWIW, words ending in '-ly' are adverbs, i.e. modify verbs (e.g. 'he writes smoothly'). Without the '-ly', it's an ajective, i.e. modifies a noun (e.g. 'the paper is smooth'). Kitb (talk) 14:34, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
better than my grammar, I make several mistakes(it's an 'ajective'-->adjective)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:23, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Aber wir sagen, Deutsche Sprache, schwere Sprache. 😸 (But we say that German is the difficult language.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:22, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
−→:::: German to learn might be a bit more complex than to learn english. But, I was such a bad pupil in english lessons so I'm even happy to be able to tell something in english that could be possibly understood, sorry ^^ --Max schwalbe (talk) 14:25, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Electric smoking system

A new RfC. See Talk:Electric smoking system#Brands. QuackGuru (talk) 15:53, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

commented[14]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:45, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Use of talk pages during educational initiatives to improve article content

I would like to open up a discussion to see what would be the most useful content to share on the article talk pages during student editing projects. My thought is to find a balance and not overwhelm the WP:MED volunteer editing community with course-related work in the early planning stages and leave that to the instructors, leaving the talk pages for content suggestions. As an example, the past few days I have noticed quite a few students from other classes using the talk pages for peer reviews and class discussions. Example: Talk:Osteoporosis.
How do you feel about encouraging students to share their final suggested content (citations, sentences to add, content to remove/clean or re-format) on the talk pages once students complete their assignments and are ready to add evidence and content to the Wikipedia articles? I think that having a support person or course moderator review the final talk page content is still important (rather than leaving this to the volunteers).
JenOttawa (talk) 21:39, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Osteoporosis#UCSF_Foundations_2_2019,_Group_6a_goalsa very good example...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:26, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
I love this idea, and that section is a great example. In addition, I'd really like to see students state exactly what sources they plan to use, so we can give them constructive feedback on sourcing before they start changing the article. This obviously isn't mandatory at Wikipedia, but for any new editor of medical articles I'd recommend it, because MEDRS is so challenging. If I were an instructor, I would structure the course so that students watchlist their articles over a number of weeks and seek out engagement with the community at multiple points during that time. The community can offer students a really valuable and unusual opportunity to get experience in collaborative critical thinking, iterative writing, feedback from the public, and quality over quantity. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 23:23, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Agree. Usually the first thing I do when I start working on an article is find appropriate sources for the topic in question. This is often the hardest work / most time consuming. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:51, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Notre-Dame de Paris fire#Environmental damage

A lot of languages have an article on this, and there is now a medical dimension to the story with some public health body statements about lead levels. There are also some contradictory statements on this in some media. If editors here have time to check any languages they happen to speak... the English article is still getting 1000 daily pageviews, tho others are less popular.[15] HLHJ (talk) 04:06, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

the text and references in 'Enviromental damage' section seem ok...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:25, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Case reports and WP:MEDRS

Those are now tracked at WP:CITEWATCH#Case report (Currently Rank 13). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:38, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

very useful--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:52, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Empathizing–systemizing theory

Empathizing–systemizing theory (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Empathy quotient (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (and redirects like Extreme male brain) look like fringe science to me, but I am not an expert. The phrase "Empathizing-systematizing theory has faced some criticism on ideological grounds" jumped out at me as being particularly POV pushing. Is this theory mainstream psychology, or fringe medicine?

(Also being discussed at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Empathizing–systemizing theory --Guy Macon (talk) 21:30, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

This was developed by Simon Baron-Cohen, a leading and highly respected researcher in the field. That doesn't look fringe to me. Bondegezou (talk) 08:41, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Are you sure about that? There appear to be (again, to my untrained eye -- I have zero actual expertise here) a number of highly respected researchers listed at Simon Baron-Cohen#Criticisms. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:10, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
On the talk page of that article is the claim regarding Simon Baron-Cohen#Criticisms that "the entire part on criticisms is based heavily on feminist scholarship and not on independent research". The same editor who wrote that added a "The neutrality of this article is disputed" tag to the article. Could it be that it is the criticisms that are fringe? --Guy Macon (talk) 15:18, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Someone (or something) can be controversial without being fringe. Baron-Cohen has attracted controversy and criticism. That doesn't make him or his views fringe medicine. Bondegezou (talk) 17:01, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
(Personally, I am persuaded by Cordelia Fine's critique of his work, but, again, someone can be wrong, but not fringe.) Bondegezou (talk) 17:03, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Categories with committed suicide in title

Opinions are needed on the following: Wikipedia talk:Categorization#RFC: Categories with committed suicide in title. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:15, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

For slightly more info, the RfC is on whether the specific language "committed suicide" should be changed to an alternative phrasing in category titles. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 21:53, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
I am happy with either really, Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:01, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Musicogenic seizure

Right hippocampal seizure onset

Wondering if someone can review and opine on Draft:Musicogenic seizure? Would like to review or decline it but its not in my expertise.--CNMall41 (talk) 19:49, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

User:CNMall41, a quick search on the title at PubMed gave me about 50 hits in review articles during the last five years. It is therefore a notable subject.
However, there is an article at Musicogenic epilepsy on a closely related subject, and the editors may appreciate knowing about that, as they may prefer WP:MERGEing their expanded content to the existing page and/or WP:MOVEing the existing page to a different title. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:43, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
agree--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:37, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Is The International Journal of Student Research a reliable source? The name raises a few red flags. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 21:46, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. I will approve it since the threshold at AfC is "more than likely to pass AfD." I'll then leave a note on the epilepsy page so others interested may take any steps they feel necessary for a merge. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:51, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Med spam

Apologies if this isn't the place to go. While removing some quackery and spam from another user, I came across MightyPepper, who hasn't been active in many years but has added a plethora of, well, garbage sources that I'm fairly sure are not inline with MEDRS. I've removed some of the blatantly obvious non-rs and spam but there are many "journal" additions that I can't make heads or tails of and figured you guys may want to take a look. Here's a brief list of what I've removed:

There are a ton of others they've added but many have already been removed. Praxidicae (talk) 18:53, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) There's another, I found:- medusanews.com. The standard of writing is way poor but most of the sources are good and certain stuff seem to be okay, at first galnces. I will run a manual screening .... ∯WBGconverse 19:14, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Winged Blades of Godric I'm afraid to say I've apparently uncovered a massive set of spam links that are pretty pervasive throughout the whole project and am running COIBot reports right now. Also found this, which I'd hardly call this anything "medical" but take a look... It may be better to just light that page on fire and call it a day. Praxidicae (talk) 19:25, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure that's a COI or spam problem, User:Praxidicae. The Internet Archive pages suggest that it's just a copy of lecture notes from the long-dead James Tyler Kent – not exactly a reliable source for medical content, but not exactly spam, either. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:39, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Is there any reason we can't find a reliable source? I'm opposed to allowing a spam site to be included just because "it's the only place it's printed." Praxidicae (talk) 21:40, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Praxidicae, here are the Kent citations:
The working links go to the Internet Archive. What makes you think that's a spam site? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:30, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Also someone might want to take a look at AFDing Krishna Gopal Saxena. Praxidicae (talk) 19:27, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Winged Blades of Godric If you come across any more, leave them on my tp and I'll run reports today and tomorrow. Praxidicae (talk) 19:33, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Help with a student question?

Hi! I wanted to see if I could get someone to help me with a student question on their talk page. One of the students is asking about what looks to be one of the greyer areas of MEDRS. I'm more familiar with the basics at the moment, so I would absolutely love if someone could help out with this. (So I can also learn in the process as well!) I'd rather ask here, where people are more savvy with the guidelines, than to try to answer myself and give them a wrong answer.

The student's page is User talk:Alexuang#Studies as sources. Thanks! Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:52, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

WAID took care of it[16]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:56, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Medical journals with undeclared COI

Something to pay attention to when using academic journals: https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/bmjopen/9/7/e029796.full.pdf

We have shown previously that in a random sample of 350 journals only 1% (2/350) of the journal websites had declarations on individual editors’ potential CoIs, whereas 82% (287/350) required disclosure of authors’ CoIs. The USA OPD has shed light on editors’ CoI by providing data on the payments by industry to journal editors also working as clinicians in the USA. In 2014, 51% and 20% of 713 of clinicians working as editors in 52 top medicine journals in 25 different specialties received general payments (eg, consultancy, honorariums, meals, travel) and research payments from industry

In my opinion, journals with stricter COI practices should be preferred as sources. Realistically we cannot enforce this for all edits and citations, but it may be worth keeping in mind when there is a conflict on sources. Nemo 15:02, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

I wonder how much it matters in practice. On a large editorial board, would the one person with a COI be likely to handle any given paper anyway? Do we even know which editor handled which paper?
I think disclosing COIs to the public probably signals a sense that they're serious about integrity, but I'm not sure that it makes a difference. (That is, caring about integrity matters, but the act of public disclosure may be irrelevant.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:57, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Nope. The research focused on «all usual editorial positions, such as editors in chief, executive editors, deputy editors and associate editors or their equivalent. We presumed that these job positions would be involved in the editorial decision-making process».
Nevertheless, if the editorial board's members don't disclose COI, how can the journal ensure a proper peer review and make sure submissions are reviewed by people without improper interests? There might be many members in an editorial board, but the amount has little consequence if all or many submissions on a certain topic are sent to the same people based on their specific field of work (which is also likely to be the one where they have COIs if any). Nemo 19:46, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
That assumes that "not disclosed on the website" is equivalent to "unknown to the organization itself", which is absurd. They didn't measure whether the org collected or used information about COIs; they only measured whether it was visible on the journal's public website. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:43, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
It's not an assumption and it's not absurd, it's consistent with ICMJE recommendations: «Editors should publish regular disclosure statements about potential conflicts of interests related to their own commitments and those of their journal staff». Nemo 06:26, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Agree with User:Nemo_bis COI concerns are a very significant issue within medicine and threaten the entire profession. Disclosing COI however does not solve the issue per the research. Not sure what the solution though. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:56, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Nemo, I'm talking about the illogical assumption in your question: if the editorial board's members don't disclose COI, how can the journal ensure a proper peer review and make sure submissions are reviewed by people without improper interests?
That's the same (il)logic as saying "If people don't post their birthdaies on social media, how can their families know when to bake a birthday cake?" The journal is capable of collecting and acting on this information, even if it's not published on their website. There is such a thing as internal documentation, you know.
I'd be happy to see more information about COIs published (i.e., so that watchdogs can complain if they think an article got a free pass), but I'm not sure how useful it is if we don't know which editor(s) handled each paper. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:01, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
With the small difference that I'm not aware of any official parenting guideline recommending parents to get their children's birthdays on social media in order for them to be able to bake cakes. Nemo 17:56, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
I have seen multiple papers by authors with COIs in the $US100,000s which have a blank COI statement... So even those with a COI policy may not enforce it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:50, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
True that and this phenomenon is on the rise. ∯WBGconverse 14:11, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
And in mainstream media too, just now! https://beta.washingtonpost.com/outlook/why-we-shouldnt-take-peer-review-as-the-gold-standard/2019/08/01/fd90749a-b229-11e9-8949-5f36ff92706e_story.html Nemo 20:35, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

I recently chaired talks at a large meeting where the speakers had to disclose all COIs. They used it as some sort of immunization, then lost all NPOV. It was disgusting. Declaring a COI is very different than being forced to maintain a NPOV, and its what makes us strong. The real question is which journals enforce a NPOV? What guidelines enforce a NPOV?Ian Furst (talk) 22:42, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

One solution could be to redistribute research funding to those without a COI. NIH is still the biggest single research funder in the world.
Evidence for requiring disclosure of COI having a benefit is lacking and the little evidence there is says it might make the issue worse. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:56, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
agree w/ Doc James--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:07, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
These are very important issues for medical research, and indeed all research. What I don't see are implications for Wikipedia's citation practices. We have to follow what the mainstream does. If the mainstream all consider journal X to be a reliable source, then so do we. We're not in a position to police how journal X handles COI disclosures. Bondegezou (talk) 08:39, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Seeking feedback for Chronic pulmonary aspergillosis

Hello my old friends... it's been a long time since I was last here! I feel incredibly rusty on editing, but I've spent the last couple of hours going over Chronic pulmonary aspergillosis which was in a pretty dire state.

I still need to go over the Diagnosis and Treatment sections, but I welcome any feedback or input for the first half of the article. If I've done something wrong please do feel free to correct me... as I say, rusty! Thanks :) --—Cyclonenim | Chat  18:26, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Welcome back, Cyclonenim! It's good to see your name here again. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:18, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Why, thank you! Good to see you're still around too! :) --—Cyclonenim | Chat  12:38, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Woohoo, welcome Cyclonenim. If I can recommend anything, have a look at the VisualEditor and the citation tool that comes with it. Groovy stuff. JFW | T@lk 08:27, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Yep looks handy! Saves a lot of time for sure. Thanks Jfd :) --—Cyclonenim | Chat  12:38, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
It takes PMIDs, (most) DOIs, ISBNs (via WorldCat) and more. And an informal estimate indicated that about 98% of users are putting in URLs, including URLs to PubMed, URLs to doi.org, URLS to Google Books, etc. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:11, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Additional Eyes

May be useful here: [17] TylerDurden8823 (talk) 23:17, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Also relevant is this: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#CMTBard TylerDurden8823 (talk) 23:17, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Epinephrine

For the medication it is called "Epinephrine (medication)". For the hormone it is called just "Adrenaline". Why not call it "Epinephrine (hormone)" for the hormone? QuackGuru (talk) 04:04, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Because it's called "adrenaline" when it's a hormone. WP:COMMONNAME applies. If anything, you'd want to change "Epinephrine (medication)" to "Adrenaline (medication)". Bondegezou (talk) 08:42, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
The use of "adrenaline" vs "epinephrine" varies by geographical region and the form of English spoken there, not endogenous vs exogenous origin. The names should be kept identical if an "X (medication)" remains split off from the parent article. Moreover, the pagename for both pages should be kept consistent with the pagename of norepinephrine/noradrenaline. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 09:25, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Do you prefer changing it to "Epinephrine" instead of "Adrenaline"? QuackGuru (talk) 13:19, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Would strongly suggest using “Epinephrine” as the page name since it’s the more common term globally. “Adrenaline” is more widely used by laypersons (i.e., people without a medical background) in the United States (which is where I’m from), but I still think epinephrine is the better pagename for a number of reasons. That said, the more important issue to me is keeping all 4 pagenames (norepinephrine, norepinephrine (medication), epinephrine, epinephrine (medication)) consistent. They should all use either (nor-)epinephrine or (nor-)adrenaline as the pagename. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 18:07, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

I recommend a page move to "Epinephrine (hormone)" or simply "Epinephrine". A requested page move can be started. QuackGuru (talk) 13:15, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

From what I understand Epinephrine is the INN for the medication and it is the more common name in at least my part of the world. I have no possition on the hormone article naming. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:24, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
OK. I retract my earlier comments. 423000 Google Scholar hits for "adrenaline" versus 730000 for "epinephrine". Bondegezou (talk) 17:12, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

I requested a page move. QuackGuru (talk) 18:26, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

This is unresolved. One person objected to the page move at Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Technical_requests. QuackGuru (talk) 19:09, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Requested page move

See Talk:Adrenaline#Requested_move_10_August_2019. QuackGuru (talk) 21:58, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

has been closed--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:34, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Yep. QuackGuru (talk) 21:36, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Proposed merge

See Talk:Adrenaline#Merger_proposal. Someone could request a close. QuackGuru (talk) 21:36, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Why are you asking for another volunteer to spend time writing down the outcome of that discussion? Are you honestly unable to figure out what the answer is by reading it yourself? Do you have any reason to believe that any competent Wikipedian is genuinely unable to figure it out? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:01, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Curlie

I have added Curlie as a possibility to {{Medical_resources}}

Not sure if we should get a bot to try to move all instances of ELs to Curlie on pages with this template to within this template? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:18, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

seems like a good idea...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:32, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Maybe? It would result in fewer people clicking on the link. That navbox has MEGO problems. If you don't know that you should be looking for something there, you are unlikely to click on all those unexplained and esoteric codes to find out.
Separately, since the quality of DMOZ was uneven, and its successor is not that different, those links might benefit from a manual review as well, to remove the low-quality and outdated pages. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:26, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
It is volunteer generated content, so yes variable. But one can join them and make it better. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:11, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
I think it's too early to have Curlie in External links for medical content. The quality of search results is variable, and mostly poor. I haven't seen an example yet where it provides new or up-to-date results, and may mislead, such as this example for a Neurology search which produced a rash of altmed. Adding Curlie also violates WP:ELNO: 1,2,8,9,12, inter alia. --Zefr (talk) 23:56, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Not so much about "adding" but "merging" existing links into medical resource template. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:14, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
It's worth noting that there are plans to link more of {{medical resources}}'s parameters to the relevant Wikidata properties when they exist (any local knowledge will override information from WD). I mention this because Curlie has a WD property available. No objections have been raised on the template's talk page, yet. So far we've got no further than syncing the sandbox to the template, but I am hoping to see if I can help with the endeavour weekend. Little pob (talk) 08:25, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Should GoodRx links be included in Template:Infobox drug?

There's currently a discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Infobox_drug#GoodRx about adding links to GoodRx to the Infobox drug and on Wikidata about importing the relevant data. Currently, few people contributed to the discussion on the template and given the potential controversial nature of linking to a for-profit company in this way, even if it's helpful to readers, I believe that more people should voice their opinions so that we have afterwards a firm consensus about whether enwiki wants those links in the infoboxes. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 13:21, 20 August 2019 (UTC)


Community members interested in creating drawings

Please add yourself if you are interested in creating drawings. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:25, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

We also have a new Wikiproject for those interested in programming Wikipedia:WikiProject Hacker. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:29, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Why was this created? If you want to learn programming, then you should probably start at mw:How to become a MediaWiki hacker. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:31, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
We have a volunteer programmer who is wanting to create a space were volunteer programmers can discuss things. I see no issue with it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:08, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
@WhatamIdoing: The metawiki page is really aimed at PHP/jQuery programmers who wish to contribute to developing the MediaWiki software and not much else. A broader project that could foster programming skills in other areas useful to Wikimedia projects (such as bot development, using the API, Python, Lua, etc.) would be a most welcome addition as far as I'm concerned. --RexxS (talk) 22:58, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
"mw:" is www.MediaWiki.org, not Meta (which is "m:" on the interwiki map). mw:How to contribute is the central page (designers, documentation writers, QA, etc.), but I linked to the more specific one because Doc James' original note was specifically directed to "those interested in programming".
(I keep hoping that one of the mw:Hackathons will offer a training program for Lua. We have a distinct shortage of Lua folks in the movement.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:57, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
I agree completely that we really need more Lua programmers. By an odd coincidence, I've just come back from Wikimania where I ran an "introduction to Lua" session for the hackathon there. I'm also developing materials to support online learning of Lua, although they will never be a replacement for interactive training. Let me know if you have any thoughts on other avenues to pursue. --RexxS (talk) 17:10, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Hmm, I wonder whether Lua programmers would be SSethi (WMF)'s territory. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:30, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Any chance of linking some 'how to' videos? Or links to pages for self-education? Ian Furst (talk) 17:22, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
The most complete online stuff I have is the learning exercises I created for Google Code-In. The index is at User:RexxS/GCI. I'll have a look to see if I can find any how-to videos that other folks may have created. --RexxS (talk) 18:43, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

I previously requested a drawing of Hon Lik and Herbert A. Gilbert. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 67#Image request. QuackGuru (talk) 23:09, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Hepatitis E....

HEV

....has recently passed GA and I think is within striking distance of FA-hood. If any folks are keen, some pre FAC feedback would be gratefully digested.....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:06, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Psychosocial Genomics?

I stumbled upon Psychosocial Genomics today. The article itself is a mess, but what I'm really struggling with is trying to figure out if the topic itself is real, or if it's just some weird WP:FRINGE thing. I found a few papers (this and this, for example), but I'm not familiar with those journals so I'm finding it hard to evaluate. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:44, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

PubMed indexed review[18](which you indicated above) does not seem fringe...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:37, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Reference to treating ear pain via acupuncture

Ear_pain#Society_and_culture says

Acupuncture of the ear is used to fix an unbalance in the body.

Should this be rephrased?

- 2804:14D:5C59:8300:0:0:0:1000 (talk) 06:15, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

I've reworded it. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:54, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Autistic catatonia

The article on Autistic catatonia appears under-sourced and under-linked. Anyone here a SME on this please? Guy (Help!) 20:20, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

did a few edits[19](not a lot of sources available on this topic[20] that fit MEDRS)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:54, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Contraceptive vaginal ring

There are 2 types of Contraceptive vaginal ring.The article infobox relates to the combined hormonal ring. The other type is progesterone only replaced 3 monthly. Any help here or suggestions please. Whispyhistory (talk) 09:39, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

The NHS has a nice, clear, RS page here on the Nuva-ring. Bondegezou (talk) 10:28, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
Good start ...thanks. What should go in infobox? Whispyhistory (talk) 16:06, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
What you've done looks functional. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:57, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks....I see where improvement is needed but it is difficult to know when to stop when so much else to do. Its easier when someone just tells me. May expand at later date...didn't realise there were so many articles on contraception. Please feel free to look at this too. Is it okay to leave it like it is? It is confusing as to whether it should be recommended or not. Whispyhistory (talk) 16:05, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes thanks agree. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:04, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Mutation bias

This is well above my pay grade, but is a new article on a pretty advanced subject from a fairly new user. So I'm guessing it could use a looking over by someone who is technically competent in the subject area. GMGtalk 15:52, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Google Scholar has a few hits, some of which seem to correspond to claims in the article. One thing I am wondering, would such a topic be held to WP:MEDRS standards or just these aspects which make medical claims? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:04, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

SELF Magazine and the AAP Promote Vaccine Awareness Through CC-Licensed Images

I added them to Commons here https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:SELF_x_American_Academy_of_Pediatrics_Vaccine_Photo_Project

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 21:41, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

thank you very much--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:00, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Images are essential to health communication. Social trends change over time, but since the advent of online publishing there came to be a genre of consumer health publishing which requires stock medical imagery to be effective. The desirable image pool is the all variations of a diverse group of people as patients and doctors engaging in the activities of health care. These photos are great for that.

I would support the inclusion of any of these photos into any general interest Wikipedia article featuring information about the doctor–patient relationship. Lots of medical articles are challenging to illustrate and having a single photo of this sort is a benefit in a Wikipedia article which is relevant and otherwise does not have a picture.

I posted this collection as a case study at Commons:Commons:Model_license/Case_studies#Stock_photos_of_patients_receiving_healthcare. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:10, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Bravo to all involved! :0)   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 05:12, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Transplantation articles retraction

I was just at a talk by Wendy Rogers presenting a systematic review published in BMJ Open analysing publications that contain data from organ transplants harvested under coercion from executed prisoners.[1]

This has lead to 15 retractions so far.[2][3]

However, supplementary file 4 of the review contains a list of articles published from such data, the majority of which have not issued retractions. Would anyone be able to assist in checking if any are cited in Wikipedia? Additionally I'm getting a group together to contact the remaining journals that have not retracted and ensure that they are aware of the publication at issue as well as the BMJ Open review. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 02:11, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Singh, Maria Fiatarone; Clay-Williams, Robyn; Catsanos, Ruby; Blakely, Brette; Ballantyne, Angela; Robertson, Matthew P.; Rogers, Wendy (2019-02-01). "Compliance with ethical standards in the reporting of donor sources and ethics review in peer-reviewed publications involving organ transplantation in China: a scoping review". BMJ Open. 9 (2): e024473. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2018-024473. ISSN 2044-6055. PMID 30723071.
  2. ^ Oransky, Author Ivan (2019-08-14). "Journals retract more than a dozen studies from China that may have used executed prisoners' organs". Retraction Watch. Retrieved 2019-08-24. {{cite web}}: |first= has generic name (help)
  3. ^ Wilson, Clare. "15 studies retracted due to fears they used Chinese prisoners' organs". New Scientist. Retrieved 2019-08-24.
I think we need a list of these retracted papers first. This one does not seem to be used anywhere. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:28, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
Wendy had a slide listing them at the talk so I've emailed her to ask if she'll send it through (since I can't seem to find a list via retractionwatch). T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 11:25, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
  • The RetractionWatch article about this gives explicit instructions for finding the retractions in their database (probably done this way since the list will change): 'For a complete list of retractions for this reason — including another from Liver Transplantation from 2017 — search our database for “+Informed/Patient Consent – None/Withdrawn” as “Reason(s) for Retraction” and “(HSC) Medicine – Transplantation” as “Subject(s).”' - currently resulting in these 16:
  1. paper PMID 24260427 / retraction PMID 31369646 / Wang 2013
  2. paper PMID 24788560 / retraction PMID 31365576 / Yu 2014
  3. paper PMID 21206745 / retraction PMID 31365574 / Wu 2010
  4. paper PMID 24798310 / retraction PMID 31348446 / Zhang 2014
  5. paper PMID 20010326 / retraction PMID 31348445 / Xue 2010
  6. paper PMID 18360269 / retraction PMID 31348444 / Liang 2008
  7. paper PMID 18580463 / retraction PMID 31348443 / Zhang 2008
  8. paper PMID 19461488 / retraction PMID 31348442 / Xu 2009
  9. paper PMID 20703179 / retraction PMID 31348441 / Xie 2010
  10. paper PMID 20179665 / retraction PMID 31348440 / Pan 2010
  11. paper PMID 22291934 / retraction PMID 31344146 / Ling 2012
  12. paper PMID 21966488 / retraction PMID 31335902 / Wang 2011
  13. paper PMID 24475047 / retraction PMID 31335908 / Yu 2014
  14. paper PMID 22848619 / retraction PMID 31335876 / Wu 2012
  15. paper PMID 24475255 / retraction PMID 31335877 / Hu 2014
  16. paper PMID 27589369 / retraction PMID 28453919 / Yu 2016
...but that list will grow... — soupvector (talk) 21:21, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
This sounds like a mess. You could keep a whole group of PhD students busy with questions like "If I've validly consented to being an organ donor my whole life, then why should my consent be revoked just because of the manner of my involuntary death?" or "If we can safely assume that anyone dying in Country #1 has consented to being an organ donor unless proven otherwise, then why would we have to assume that every single Chinese prisoner is unable to provide valid consent?" or "Why does anyone think that a dead person has any vested interest in the disposition of their body, anyway?" And if the brief description of the publication ban is correct, then they've just banned the publication of research about whether those consent-impaired organs perform worse, which is something that any transplant recipient might justly want to know more about. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:41, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
My sense is (for the WPMED context we address here) that we would not consider eligible for MEDRS any article that's been retracted. I would agree that somewhere the ethics of all this should be debated - but here? — soupvector (talk) 03:46, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the list above! I just got a copy of the slide and the only additional ones not on that list are:
  1. PMID 23166917 Jiang 2012
  2. PMID 26345804 Li 2015
  3. PMID 19545692 Yuang 2009 (though the amost identical 19752617 has not been retracted)
T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 10:48, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
User:Headbomb, I think we're ready for you, but it sounds like there will be updates, possibly for months to come. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:48, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
@WhatamIdoing: I think you're thinking of @Samwalton9: and @RetractionBot:. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:17, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
I'll spend some time on RetractionBot this weekend and get it operational again - it had issues so I disabled it and didn't find the time to fix it yet. Once that's done I'll check if these retractions are in its database. If you want to check in the meantime, they'll be flagged by the bot if Crossref have reported them as retracted. Sam Walton (talk) 12:22, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

List of countries by prevalence of genital cutting

I just accepted this draft. I'm a little concerned that the introductory material might not be completely neutral in tone and would appreciate if somebody could give it a look. For example, it says, removal of the clitoris (a small, sensitive and erectile part of the female genitals). My initial impression of the parenthetical text is that the author is trying to make a point, and that could just as well be left out and simply link to clitoris. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:17, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Roy, I've edited the lead a little to remove some of the problems, which were mostly to do with implying an equivalence between male circumcision and FGM. The phrase you highlight is a quote from the WHO. In fact, the whole typology was lifted from the WHO without quotation marks. I've slightly changed one section and added quotation marks otherwise. SarahSV (talk) 02:26, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
OK, thanks for looking at it. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:48, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Really cool how the maps were made. I did not realize that we had this ability.
Map does need a legend though. Everything in blue is "no data". Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:45, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

@RoySmith: Please be careful with links in headings, and especially don't put a heading that contains only a link. Especially in the mobile view, it's all too easy to miss the v that expands the section text and tap the link instead. Thanks. --Thnidu (talk) 15:21, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

OK, I didn't realize that was a problem. I don't do that on articles, but I always thought that was just style, so didn't worry about it on talk pages. I'll avoid it in the future. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:43, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Autonoetic consciousness

This article is flagged as a close paraphrase of a paper in PNAS. Can someone have a look over it and see if it's salvageable please? Guy (Help!) 06:58, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

too close [21] removed text in question--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:07, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Noticeboard discussion on reliability of SAGE Open Medicine

There is a noticeboard discussion on the reliability of SAGE Open Medicine for medicine. If you're interested, please participate at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § Query: Is "SAGE Open Medicine" MEDRS?. — Newslinger talk 02:14, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

give opinion(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:13, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

A lot of student editing coming our way

Just noting that, as seen by Rxbpherrera's contributions, there is a lot of student editing coming our way. This is significant because, as addressed at WP:Student assignments, student editing does not always go smoothly. In fact, it often does not. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:56, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

For reference: Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/UCSF/Foundations II (Summer). Nemo 21:17, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes, just looking at all of the articles popping up on my watchlist for student assignments, I can see that I am going to be busy with students. I don't remember seeing this many assignments on my watchlist before. I know that Shalor (Wiki Ed) will help if needed, but these students usually are not familiar with WP:MEDRS or policies such as WP:Due weight. And some will edit war just to get a grade. It's only occasionally that I've encountered well-directed student assignments. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:46, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Definitely let me know if you come across anything problematic - I've tried to give the students a head's up when it comes to articles that are very controversial or held under sanctions, so hopefully that will help with this process. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 01:57, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I continue to have significant concerns about the scalability of educational efforts. Student take a lot of work for the community to support and very rarely turn into long term editors, who than guide the next generation of students. We need funding for more people like User:JenOttawa. User:Shalor (Wiki Ed) one of the students is mentioning someone called "Johny" giving them advice on references. Is this someone with Wiki Ed? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:54, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
    • I'm also happy to help with medical students if you need more assistance. Just let me know! TylerDurden8823 (talk) 07:11, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
    • I wonder why we persist in thinking that good-faith, short-term new editors with no professional conflict of interest are "a lot of work" instead of "a golden opportunity". WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:07, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
      • Probably because "editing skills" is also a thing? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:32, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
      • Because several years of experience shows their work is almost certain to need a lot of checking/adjusting/reverting. Sad but true. Johnbod (talk) 16:44, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Exactly, Jo-Jo Eumerus and Johnbod. It's because a lot of us have experience trying to guide the students, only to see our efforts be for naught. Getting a good grasp on our policies and guidelines takes time. And these students seem to not be given sufficient time to understand important rules. Not always, but often. It's often been the case that I have tried to explain matters to students editors, only for them to not understand or fully understand, and to re-add the disputed material or let some fellow student re-add it. And I don't think I'm guiding in the wrong way or explaining things wrong. If there is edit warring and the editors don't seem to be listening, yes, I'm going to be stern on the matter. But I try for a soft approach first. Shalor (Wiki Ed) has seen me trying to guide editors, including in this recent case regarding the Gender expression article; Shalor (Wiki Ed) assisted and tried to guide as well. Our words didn't seem to help much. Often, with student editing, the students are mainly concerned with a good grade rather than improving the article. I'm not saying that all student editors are like this, but a significant number of them are; they appear to be in a hurry and don't communicate well with those of us watching the article. They just say what they are going to do, communicate a little, and hardly reply after that. And then they are gone, never or unlikely to return. Often, cleanup is needed afterward. That is my usual experience with student editors. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:55, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
  • No, they're not with Wiki Ed. I don't see their name on the course page, so I'm not sure who they are. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 13:04, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
No one could be more thrilled than I to see "golden opportunities" out there. I'd love to help guide our students and point them to some of our experts in one field or another when I didn't have answers. But speaking as a professional who was once a student herself, I know full well that most students want no more than a grade that shows they have so and so many credits to go toward their graduation. In all my years here I've seen only two really good students and one of them was, IMO, derided and had half of her article removed for doing her best (which was pretty good, IMO) on a new article. I commented to her instructor that she should object, but nothing ever came of it. Perhaps the instructors are as poorly prepared for editing as their students... Gandydancer (talk) 17:33, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Perfect User:Gandydancer. Here is a class working in good faith but still requiring some help along the way.[22]
I am still very much supportive of student editing, just we may need teaching assistants to help us manage the volumes if it continues to grow. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:52, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
So we don't want:
  • new editors with a COI, and
  • new editors without a COI.
Given that this group, above all others, should realize that "live forever" isn't viable, where do we expect our replacements to come from?
I think we need to think about, and talk about, supporting new editors as a highly desirable thing, rather than an imposition on us. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:45, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Concerns about scalability of student editing does not equal "we don't want new editors without a COI".
What we need is technical tools or teaching assistants to help us support students. Proposed such a tool during the last tech wishlist but it did not get enough support.[23] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:45, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
I've put a lot of thought into where our new editors are going to come from, and I'm more than happy to talk about it. The key issue, as far as I'm concerned, is that we should put our limited time and effort into supporting, encouraging and developing new editors whose principal interest in editing is to improve the encyclopedia. And that's where student editors all too often fall short. Unfortunately, the impression I receive is that far too many student editors undertake assignments using Wikipedia with their goal being solely to hits the targets set by their lecturer. The fault is not with the students, because that is merely human nature, but I find those setting assignments all too often fail to properly map the outcomes of the assignment onto the educational outcomes that their course calls for. Editing Wikipedia develops numerous transferable skills, notably research, evaluation, precis and online collaboration, and editing can work well when those are well-aligned with the requirements of the course, but it is a poor fit with testing of students' knowledge. Fix those problems first, and you'll find many of us far less cynical about the return on our efforts than we are at present. --RexxS (talk) 01:06, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes, one problem is that for new student editors on assignments, editing WP becomes mentally classified as "work", whereas for most long term editors it is classified as diversion/hobby/fun. Being work, the vast majority do no more of it than is required of them. After several years of organized student courses, do we have any examples of long-term editors that started with a student assignment? Johnbod (talk) 02:56, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
I've seen a few that keep editing for a short while after the class is over, but not for long (in the accounts used for their classes, at this wiki).
I think there's educational value in students learning that "anyone can edit" really does mean that anyone at all can edit an article. I'm sure that anyone who's thought about it wishes that every patient and every healthcare provider really understood the implications of that. Even if none of them ever edit again, I feel like we've achieved something educational just by teaching them that. But I hear that sticking around doesn't happen often, just like it doesn't happen often that a random hobbyist who creates an account will stick around for long. 95% of registered accounts never make 10 edits. Only 1 in 300 registered editors has made any edit at all during the last month. Only 1 in 800 registered accounts has achieved extended confirmed status, i.e., has ever made a total of 500 edits. The regulars on this page are the Wikipedia equivalents of the economic top 0.1% – like people with US$ 20 million in the bank saying "How can we find more people like us, because people who "only" make more edits than 90 or 95 percent of all the registered users just aren't worth the effort?"
(I hope that no students read this discussion. Do you think that, if you were a student and read this, would you want to get involved with this group?) WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:06, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
I hope that students and their instructors do read the above concerns, which are valid. If they can't take the above valid criticism and think everything is just fine as it is, then that is part of the problem. Our group isn't the problem. If students don't want to work with our group because of the above criticism, I don't see that they should be editing Wikipedia. If I was a student editor, I would want to work with the above group...because I would be looking to take their concerns into consideration and alter my approach. My editing would improve because of them. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:45, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
Have to agree with Flyer here. Also, I'm extended confirmed. I'm very interested in how to convert that into US$ 20 million in the bank, so looking forward to any tips. Mathglot (talk) 06:28, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I've been in touch with the instructor - Health policy to

discuss your concerns. Students in the course will not be editing articles with discretionary tags, those that are in the process of being brought to Good or Featured Article status, or otherwise overly controversial. We usually support medical courses with no more than 35-40 students, but made an exception to this course due to our longstanding relationship with UCSF and its medical student Wikipedia editing initiatives. The course will overall be working on fewer articles as well, and of course we'll be helping them with their contributions. Thank you. Helaine (Wiki Ed) (talk) 21:21, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for that, Helaine (Wiki Ed). Per what WP:STEWARDSHIP states, if students do take on a WP:GA or WP:FA article, rather than one in the process of being taken to that level, special care should be taken. But it seems that the students won't be editing articles that are already GA or FA either? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:31, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
@WhatamIdoing: said,

I wonder why we persist in thinking that good-faith, short-term new editors with no professional conflict of interest are "a lot of work" instead of "a golden opportunity"

The two are not mutually exclusive: they could be both. However, in my experience with new student editors, it isn't both, it's far more work than opportunity for editor retention. And not the same pattern as with newbie, non-student editors; it's more work than the latter.
I've actually given considerable thought to this, backed up with a certain amount of experience dealing with students. Not as much as User:Shalor (Wiki Ed) or the other Wiki Ed folks, but in my experience, retention is extremely low. And for good reason: they are college students, with other things on their plate, and likely will for 4 (6, or 8?) more years.
In addition, there is a fundamental WP:NOTHERE problem that all students fit, to a greater or lesser extent, and not in a malicious, or an intentionally disruptive way, but just as a matter of fact: they are simply not here primarily to improve the encyclopedia, they are here to get a good grade in their course. This shouldn't shock anybody, and it doesn't mean their edits are any worse (or better) than any other brand new editor, but it is just a fact of life to take into consideration. And if a dozen new editors are unleashed on a med-related article, they will be looking to get a grade. There's nothing wrong with that, but even newbie non-student editors (and even experienced editors) have a rough time with WP:MEDRS.
The flip side of that, is that experienced editors need not hold back on a revert, if that is justified by policy, and if you would have reverted a more experienced editor. Treat them no differently than anybody else. Be kind to them, write longer, more detailed edit summary than you normally would, add "good-faith edit" in your summary, comment on their User talk page if more explanation is needed, but treat their edits as you would treat any edits; neither more harshly, nor more solicitously, as far as your reaction to the content changes. Mathglot (talk) 06:22, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
It's basically a WP:COI (the need to get the grade that is). Student editing is just one of the ways that editors of good will are exploited by those in the community who have other objectives than creating great content. So far as I am concerned such student editors are not welcome and the practice should be stopped. Perhaps we could get community consensus to prohibit it (at least for medical articles - for example it could be made clear that the COI of grade-focussed student prohibits them from editing articles directly, and that they must consensus via Talk pages)? Who decided student editing was a good idea in the first place? Was it a community initiative? Alexbrn (talk) 06:28, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
Picking up on the retention point above, there's some daylight between "where are new editors going to come from?" and "where is new content going to come from?", and if student editors contributed one solid article, or paragraph in an existing one, or even just a few sources, and then went back to their regular lives, that would be great. A common challenge with student editing is that, well... they're students. They're beginners. Not just at editing - everybody started there once - but they're also usually beginners in the subjects they're writing about, and they're trying to learn both of those things at the same time on a short deadline. There is absolutely nothing wrong with being a student and making mistakes while learning the material, but these programs tend to result in new-student mistakes ending up in articles, often on topics that are relatively technical or obscure and where the mistake might not be caught quickly. I'm thinking of the time I found a student article on a bacterial species that misidentified it as a yeast, for example - putting all single-celled organisms into one mental bin is a really common student error, and no biggie if someone gets it wrong on a quiz, but it's bad to spread that error to every passing Googler.
I do wish people would fuss less at students - and at any new editors - about formatting and other picky details. I used to see people reacting to student editing by giving them warnings about reference formatting - and reference formatting is just about the least transferable skill you can learn on Wikipedia. But I think the reality is that student editing requires more maintenance and more volunteer time investment than "regular" newbies do, because students tend to come in groups, are working under time pressure, are often getting their assignments from someone who is also not experienced on Wikipedia, and tend to choose topics that they are less comfortable writing about. (Isn't it a truism that most non-student newbies write about what they know - to the point where that too is a problem, because they write about things they have a COI about? Students are pretty explicitly writing about what they don't know, and therefore need to take a class to learn.) Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:14, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
I agree that we need to spend less time fussing about formatting. I suspect that being overly focused on trivial stylistic points is what doomed Doc James' wishlist proposal. Putting the ref tags before terminal punctuation is something that AWB users can (and do) fix in seconds, and we need people to spend more time thinking about the content.
Mathglot, in terms of turning your status into millions, I think we can conclusively rule out undisclosed paid editing. I hear that the going rate is about $20–$30 per poorly written stub.
I think, however, that we shouldn't be so quick to assume that students have no time or inherent interest in Wikipedia. For one thing, this WikiProject was founded by students, so obviously it's possible. College students are a core demographic in editor surveys. There have been Wikipedia clubs at several universities over the years (e.g., [24][25][26]). As for whether WPMED specifically will find a "keeper" in these classes, it's my impression that we haven't actually had enough students to have a fair chance at it yet. Only one in 800 accounts reaches 500 edits in the first place. I don't think we've yet had 800 students attempting to edit medicine-related articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:00, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
But there's a world of difference between students who decide to edit and students who are required to edit for grades. According to Motivation crowding theory, giving someone an extrinsic reward (grades) for an otherwise altruistic activity (editing) tends to "crowd out" the intrinsic rewards of altruism. When the extrinsic reward is withdrawn, the altruistic activity tends to stop. This predicts that students who are required to edit for grades will rarely edit after they are graded, consistent with what we see.
The only caveat I can see is that maybe implanting the idea that a person can edit Wikipedia could lead to them taking up editing in the future, when grades are no longer relevant and they can internalise editing as a form of volunteering. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 12:02, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
A useful variant of what I said above, with altruism replacing fun - but yes. I don't fuss at all, on non-medical student articles, about formatting. But I do fuss about a complete lack of links, very poor grammar and incoherent prose, clearly misunderstanding the sources, and generally writing a pile of crap. By no means all are like this, but far too many are. This was yesterday's little pile of poop on my watchlist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnbod (talk • contribs) 00:53, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Some background on motivations for editing medical articles is in a journal paper by Hydra Rain and myself here. Many active editors of medical articles are students and are motivated by an overlap with their education (although that's not about specific student projects). A question I would ask is whether class projects help convert people into regular Wikipedia editors. Bondegezou (talk) 10:39, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
class projects should have some effect on potential editors...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:55, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Editing by a student who has taken the trouble to learn something about the topic must be preferable to random vandalism by bored college boys. However, I wonder whether being assigned to write about something should in itself be a declarable conflict of interest. This seems to a peculiarly American problem, since their students seem to get credit for "participation" or time "on air" in the class and lazy instructors have moved this into the online world, where they can grade their students at leisure. NRPanikker (talk) 13:51, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

This is an interesting discussion. Is there a place where the community can list articles that we would like student editors to work on? For instance, the Breastfeeding article seems to be a perennial student assignment topic and it's uh, questionable whether it's improved as a result, but I'd be more keen on having a student take a crack at creating Nipple pain in breastfeeding or Breastfeeding and mental health. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 21:05, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

That's an excellent idea. In the meantime, the lower an article is graded in the assessment scale, the easier it should be for students to improve. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 00:04, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
I too like your idea @Clayoquot:. I find that start or stub-class articles are more difficult for students to improve (starting from scratch versus improving and critiquing), although it gives them a chance to learn WP:MEDMOS right away. WP:MED keeps track of the educational initiatives (when we notice them) on this project page. It looks like the cleanup list is no longer active. Would the cleanup list help for choosing articles? JenOttawa (talk) 00:41, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Updating statistics would be really useful. If a student can find "According to the WHO, there were so-and-so many people living with Whatever in 2004" and replace that with more recent (but equally high-quality) stats, that would be a real service. Part of Leukemia#Epidemiology gives numbers from a paper that's now 18 years old.
Most rare diseases (and many common ones) need someone to write a ==Prognosis== section. Actually, most disease-related articles need this. That section exists only in about a third of relevant articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:02, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes, more specific tasks could be useful. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:25, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Indeed, such small contributions guided by some tool are an excellent entry point for classes where students have had less than 4 hours or so of training, in my experience. Citation Hunt has a topic search so it might be suitable. Nemo 08:41, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

A new master page showing which articles students will be editing would be helpful. A bot could be programmed to update a list. QuackGuru (talk) 11:05, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

agree w/ QuackGuru--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:36, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
@Ian (Wiki Ed): is collaborating by adding the Wiki Edu medical editing initiatives to this page. If anyone else notices a project we can add the dashboard and any course pages to these lists. I like User:QuackGuru's idea of pulling all the WP articles from dashboards (or the active talk page templates) with a bot and make a project page with WP articles in progress that WPMED volunteers can work from. User:Doc James do you have any ideas here? I think it would also be helpful to keep the edu talk pages templates up to date. Many have inactive educational initiatives listed on them that are not helpful/confusing for editors. I feel that these should be archived once the project is complete, like any other talk page information. See example at the top of Talk:Posttraumatic stress disorder. JenOttawa (talk) 12:49, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
User:JenOttawa I do archive these tags. Would be good to have a bot that does it. 3 months after all courses have ended IMO. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:56, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
@Ian (Wiki Ed): do you mind providing input here as per User:Doc James and his comment above? I too agree that it would be helpful to clean up the talk pages once the course is over by archiving the template indicating that the class is editing.JenOttawa (talk) 14:30, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
@Ian (Wiki Ed): can you give feedback to the above request? JenOttawa (talk) 00:28, 2 September 2019 (UTC) JenOttawa, a ping only works with a new signature with a new date. QuackGuru (talk) 16:38, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks @QuackGuru:, I will flag him here on his talk page.JenOttawa (talk) 00:28, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Let me talk to Sage about the technical difficulty of archiving those tags automatically. (To avoid confusion, I try to double-sign pages where I've also contributed with my personal account, but I haven't done a great job here) Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk)/Guettarda 21:04, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
@Ian (Wiki Ed): is there a way to create a new master page showing which articles students will be editing, with a bot updating the entries? QuackGuru (talk) 22:06, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
@QuackGuru: - I'm sure it wouldn't be difficult for a bot to pull assigned articles from the paged linked on this list, but as someone who knows nothing about coding, I'm just guessing. As far as having our Dashboard populate such a list - I'm guessing it's possible, but I have no idea how big an undertaking it would be, or where it would fit into their timeline of work. But I'll certainly bring it to my colleagues attention. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:56, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

User: Doc James is there a way to not archive this discussion yet? There are a few open items that would be good to keep a discussion going on. Thanks!JenOttawa (talk) 00:28, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

I think as long as it is being actively discussed it will not archive. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:32, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Article is 99% useless

(And now for what I really came here to say.)

Inherited patterned lentiginosis describes the condition's inheritance pattern and nothing else. See its talk page. Please {{Ping}} me to discuss. --Thnidu (talk) 15:15, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

There is a bunch of similar stubby skin condition articles that are in similar poor state, by the way. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:50, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Most of those stubs were created by a single student, with the goal of having something for every skin condition, even if it's just a single sentence. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:12, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Seems like we've had a few editors like that. I've added some info and it could be expanded further, but I can also imagine merging it into a more unified article on Lentigo covering this and the less benign varieties. — soupvector (talk) 04:44, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Archive_125"