Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 164

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 160

←

Archive 162

→

Wikipedia page about residencies, etc.

Hi All,

I started working on a new page to collect all the medicine-related Wikipedia residencies, university courses and edit-a-thons and any outputs or documents they produced. This information is difficult to find but it would be very useful for others to see what has been done so far. It's still in my sandbox but I would appreciate your feedback about the idea and the content.

Best wishes,

Adam Harangozó (NIHR WiR) (talk) 13:54, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Lipid pneumonia

Hi all. I think this article needs some attention given "Treatment" (now renamed to Management) subsection. I'm also about to add Tuberculosis subsection. It would be nice of someone puts it on a watchlist. Currently it appears to be outdated a bit. Best. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 10:15, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

will look--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 02:12, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

medanomoly.com

Hello medicine folk. I don't consider myself even remotely qualified to judge the quality of medical sources so am deferring to your good selves; I noticed Vipsmat adding a reference to Group A streptococcal infection and it triggered my spider-sense so I went searching and found that fourteen articles contained "medanomoly.com", and in every case it was added by User:Vipsmat. This activity seems a bit suspect to me but someone more accustomed to medical stuff might want to take a look.

All the diff links
Group A streptococcal infection Epilepsy: Difference COVID-19 pandemic in Indiana West Nile virus Horse-fly Monkeypox Poliovirus Listeria Ovarian follicle Legionella List of Ebola outbreaks Parechovirus Nanogel Urinary cell-free DNA

Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 05:18, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Sketchy as fuck, especially the deceptive ref names - the epilepsy one for example uses the anodyne title "Antiepileptic Medications", but the actual title of the (un-bylined) article is "Researchers Reveal How Epilepsy Medication Causes Birth Defects". Their about page is meaningless drivel and it looks like any other fly-by-night click-farming pseudo news source. I would remove on sight. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:26, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

You appear appropriately qualified to deal with this matter to whatever extent you deem suitable e.g. blacklisting, user warning or more etc., so I'll leave it in your capable hands. Nice to know my spidey-sense is working correctly. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 08:04, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's a common enough addition to be worth blacklisting, but I did ask the user to explain his connection to the site. Not going to remove en masse at this time just in case a real medical editor comes along and finds some utility in the links, but will likely come back and have a look tomorrow. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:18, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Sounds good :) Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 08:53, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

I looked at three, and removed three. All of them failed verification: COVID-19 was at the end of a sentence about nursing home deaths as of a particular date, but didn't mention nursing homes; West Nile was in a sentence about orcas as a host, but didn't mention them; Horse-fly was in a sentence claiming that only females bite, and it was close: it said that females bite, but it didn't say that only females bite. As this is 100% failure, I would not be surprised if the rest were inappropriate as well. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:52, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Fuck it then, let's give it the axe. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:58, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

MELISA

Another totally broken POV brand article by SPA Vitalpost. The article claims a lot, has a lot of non WP:MEDRS compatible literature (a lot of single studies or studies not proving some claims), there is not a real secondary literature about this method, and it seems like it was a 90s thing but then "disappeared" out of notability.

Also, if there is a least some better literature, i. e. meta reviews like #9 (doi:10.1016/j.tripleo.2003.12.027), it is wrongly placed. The meta-review is not applying MELISA whatsoever, but rather just referring to another reference which have used it. Also, this particular reference #9 does not cover anything about the claim ("Hypersensitivity to dental metals may be associated with local oral reactions including oral lichen planus, stomatitis and ulceration"). So you see the problem - many references pretending notability, but are of no use.

If not deleting it - a strong overhaul (i.e. deletion of many parts) is needed. --Julius Senegal (talk) 16:24, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

The more recent review says it doesn't work, as does this clinical trial. This one says it (and other/similar tests) has "unconvincing evidence for screening". This book will let you source a statement about a high number of false positives. This book describes the development history. This book says it's patented. This book has most of a chapter on it, but I haven't read it, so I can't give you any idea what to expect.

I suggest, though, that you consider re-writing the article to give an accurate view of its flaws, rather than sending it for deletion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:42, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Thx WhatamIdoing, that is what my first look also provided me with.

Better a short, well sourced article than an ad-flyer. --Julius Senegal (talk) 13:25, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

I left a note on the talk page about how this test is used in fringe medicine, as discussed here. Also, this article—though it does conclude that MELISA isn't useful—seems to be an example of anti-vaccine cargo culting. Autoimmune/inflammatory syndrome induced by adjuvants is not a real condition. ScienceFlyer (talk) 19:06, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Psychedelic therapy

Today's New York Times has a balanced article summarizing what's known, both potential benefits and risks; see [1]. Our article Psychedelic therapy doesn't include any discussion of risks or possible side effects. I put a query about this on the article's talk-page, but I don't know whether many medically oriented editors are watchlisting that page. Could WikiProject Medicine editors take a look at it? Thanks. NightHeron (talk) 02:09, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:25, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

The great imitator

I'm wondering if "the great imitator" deserves its own article, whether it should be deleted, or whether it should be renamed/refocused on non-specific symptoms, which is presently a redirect to a subsection. ScienceFlyer (talk) 18:33, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

The term is reasonably commonly used, at least some of which are by dedicated sources. I think "non-specific symptoms" is a fairly distinct concept. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:47, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

I would have instinctively said it was tuberculosis. Having read the article, I learned something. So I am in favor of keeping it as a separate article. I was against before I read it. Jaredroach (talk) 19:11, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Ha! Before I read the article I instinctively thought we'd be redirecting this to syphilis. Who knew there were so many "great imitators"? Ajpolino (talk) 16:19, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

I also associate it with syphilis, but I did a little digging, and it really is used for all sorts of conditions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:19, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

The main ones I've heard are tuberculosis, syphilis, lupus, coeliac disease, Lyme disease, excessive alcohol use, and pulmonary embolism. I'm sure there are several others that are fairly commonly associated with this term. TompaDompa (talk) 19:19, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

I think it’s a concept worth describing in the encyclopedia; however I do not think it’s appropriate for the list to include conditions the literature does not describe with this term. The following sentence in the lead concerns me: "The list of great imitators here relies on references in the medical literature applying that label, or on other references documenting a condition's especially recurrent and poignant reputation for misdiagnoses." Sounds like OR to me. Innisfree987 (talk) 21:05, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Maybe, but maybe not. If you think of the subject as being "diseases for which this exact term has been applied", then sure. But if you think the article's subject is "diseases that are notoriously hard to diagnose correctly", and the title is a recognizable shorthand instead of an exclusionary delimiter, then it's not OR. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:05, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Another thought: I wonder to what extent COVID-19 and its sequelae will be considered a "great imitator"? Yes, there's discussion on the interwebz about it. ScienceFlyer (talk) 21:49, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

This article needs attention: Mendelian traits in humans

Jonathan Soh (talk) 16:52, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

yes, thank you for posting this here--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 03:01, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

I edited the article and deleted the tag flag. It still needs more work on sourcing, but maybe not enough to merit a flag. Jaredroach (talk) 21:08, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Sleep hollow#Requested move 26 December 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Sleep hollow#Requested move 26 December 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 22:27, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Posterior ankle impingement syndrome

what is this? can we make it at least a redirect to something? RZuo (talk) 17:01, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Well, obviously, it's a syndrome that involves impinging something at the back of the ankle, right? ;-)

I find the Os Trigonum (or Os trigonum; the redirects point to different articles) is sometimes mentioned in connection with it, and Os trigonum syndrome might be another name for it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:56, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

List of requested articles in user space

Should pages like User:Skysmith/Missing topics about Medicine or User:Skysmith/Missing topics about Neurology stay in User: instead of being moved to Wikipedia: ? I can't see how these request are related to this user. Apokrif (talk) 05:40, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Those are just two of my Missing Topics pages. Over the years I have linked some of those pages to project pages and the like and sometimes they are rejected, sometimes accepted and then rejected... "This must stay in Userspace". According to whims of specific editors, I suppose. I am not against people copying the list somewhere but I would like to maintain the Missing topics pages to keep up with the progress (if any) because I update the pages (irregularly, I admit) - Skysmith (talk) 13:01, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

It's probably an outdated/divergent copy of Wikipedia:Requested articles/Medicine. Moving it to the Wikipedia: namespace would result in pointless duplication. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:24, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

I update and maintain the Missing Topics pages irregularly and those are just the general pages - others include subjects linked to anatomy and blood because original Medicine page became too long - Skysmith (talk) 13:01, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Should we change or remove the list of topics at the top of Wikipedia:Requested articles/Medicine, which sends to userspace? @Skysmith: Apokrif (talk) 06:50, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

What's wrong with encouraging people to look at something in the userspace? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:20, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Userspace is normally used for content related to a specific user (e.g., their essays or their library). Pages in userspace may be deleted or blanked if the user leaves WP or is banned. Apokrif (talk) 20:18, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Rome IV diagnostic criteria removed from articles

Hello, I used to edit wikipedia many, many years ago but lost access to my email etc. I really didn't want to get involved in the toxic aspects of this site again, but I have a question.

What is the consensus regarding Rome-IV diagnostic criteria? A user is removing such content claiming it is a breach of copyright. I am not convinced since a vast number of websites and other publications reproduce such diagnostic criteria from internationally recognized bodies freely (that is the rather the point, so the criteria will be be widely circulated and will have high uptake among clinicians and researchers in order to standardize care and research). I think the user in question has incorrect interpretation of copyright in this situation. Thoughts? Moribundum (talk) 00:20, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Example [2] Moribundum (talk) 00:31, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

@Moribundum, the shortest answer is: If @Diannaa says something violates the policy against Wikipedia:Copyright violations, you should believe her.

The longer story: If you copy all of a source, in bits and pieces, into Wikipedia, then that could be a copyright violation. It doesn't necessarily matter that you're copying this paragraph into Article 1, and the next page into Article 2.

Editors made a major effort some years back to make sure that we weren't just copying and pasting the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Editors were copying them because they were trying to be faithful to the source, but when I copy just a few sentences into this article, and you copy just a few sentences into that article, and he copies just a few sentences into another article – well, over time, it really adds up. It's accurate and verifiable, but it wouldn't necessarily be fair to the sources to have all of their content chopped up and spread across Wikipedia.

The solution is to (literally) Wikipedia:Use our own words: Find a way to re-phrase the criteria or to describe them in your own way. Ideally, we'll end up with something that is accurate and verifiable, but also encyclopedic and unique. We're not trying to remove Rome-IV's information. We're just trying not to take their wording, too. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:37, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

And yet (seemingly arbitrary) removing of info is exactly what is being done. Either this is incorrect interpretation of the policy or there is something wrong with the policy. When huge numbers of other publications and sites (including fairly major sites) reproduce such diagnostic criteria freely and manage not to get copyright claimed, but wikipedia says it is wrong... there is definitely something wrong here. Moribundum (talk) 04:51, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia take copyright seriously, more seriously than many other sites on the web. In general, there should never be any need to copy and paste snippets of material from copyrighted sources into Wikipedia articles. Bon courage (talk) 05:38, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

More accurately, some editors like to take it more seriously than other websites and publications, in order to have opportunity to exercise power and be disruptive. Moribundum (talk) 07:49, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Very wrong. You really need to read WP:C and adjust your attitude to editors following the WP:PAGs and so doing good work. More generally, Wikipedia is meant to be a summary of accepted knowledge, not a copy of it. So copying stuff from sources is nearly always not making encyclopedic content. Bon courage (talk) 08:52, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

What is wrong seems to be the guideline. When any website, including major websites, textbook and scientific publication freely presents such diagnostic criteria, and yet somehow here it is not ok. And when users remove and block this content in an arbitrary and disruptive way are praised. Whatever Moribundum (talk) 09:22, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Removing even a suspected copyright violation can't be wikt:arbitrary. Some of Wikipedia's copyright rules are more restrictive than legally necessary (e.g., our rules against fair-use photos of living people), but I'm not sure that this is one of them. Copyright work is generally boring, complex, and thankless. We don't have many volunteers who are willing to invest their lives into that, so I hope that we do praise them for it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:05, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

I am familiar with the meaning of the word, I work on wiktionary more than wikipedia. Arbitrary in that diagnostic criteria are present in some (I suspect many) articles, but deleted from others. I am currently reading yet another textbook which presents Rome criteria in full... criteria which are intended to be widely reproduced in websites, papers and textbooks, in order to standardize the topic. None of these publications are flagged as breach of copyright for reproducing diagnostic criteria. If removing such diagnostic criteria represents correct execution of wp copyright policy, again I strongly suggest there is something wrong with the policy. Moribundum (talk) 13:05, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

And no, it is not me that has to adjust any attitude. When I raised this concern, I was just mocked by the editor in question. It is the policy that must be adjusted. Wikipedia should contain diagnostic criteria which are freely reproduced in uncountable publications. And I think the vast majority of wikipedia readers would agree with me. Moribundum (talk) 13:11, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

@Moribundum Most (all?) textbooks and articles that reproduce widely-used copyrighted guidelines or similar medical content (e.g., MoCA) do so with permission (e.g., [3]https://www.mocatest.org/permission/). It can look like they are not, but (almost?) always they have permission. Do you have an example of where a copyrighted guideline was used without permission in a textbook? Jaredroach (talk) 20:28, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

I am not convinced. But let's assume this is the case that such organizations at the Rome process are perpetually being contacted for permission to reproduce diagnostic criteria. It would seem that in such a scenario they are very happy to grant permission, given the scale of the reproduction of the diagnostic criteria in articles and textbooks. Perhaps someone who is so inclined might email them in order to receive permission for wikipedia? Such criteria from international orgs often constitute the foundational definition of a clinical entity. An encyclopedia article is incomplete and inferior without them.

It seems to fulfil the requirements of the WP policy all that is needed is to add quotation marks or reword the criteria. I don't think that would take much time. Even less time would be to place some kind of tag or request on the article for other editors who would later carry out this task (especially since the "legal risk" in this situation is clearly zero). But instead the content is deleted and hidden so it is impossible to see exactly what content was removed. The editor in question is not carrying out "good work", and is being unhelpful.

No doubt my suggestions for sensible changes will be ignored. Whatever, I should have known better than to engage. I have nothing else to say regarding this matter, kindly stop pinging me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moribundum (talk • contribs) 08:27, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

The arrogance of ignorance. One particular issue is copy-pasted material here is not just copied, it's made available under a free license. So you'd be asking to put this content on the Commons. Good luck with that. Bon courage (talk) 08:48, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

If the organization really did want publications to use it widely, they should release the copyright. They could put it under a CC-BY license simply by posting the release content on their website along with the usual license statement (there are other license options, but that one is fairly popular). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:50, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Arrogant? Ignorant? Perhaps you should read some wp policies, hm? Moribundum (talk) 07:41, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

I can identify with the arrogance of ignorance. About 10 years ago, I was repeating something I'd been told about copyright to someone who questioned it. My argument amounted to "but that's what we've always done, and of course what we've always done is correct". He was a lawyer with particular expertise in the technical point under discussion. We were wrong, we had always been wrong, and me confidently repeating that of course it was permissible and that everyone agreed with me didn't make us right. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:06, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

You say: "Perhaps someone who is so inclined might email them in order to receive permission for wikipedia?" But we are all volunteers here: if you are unwilling to undertake it yourself, there’s no complaining if it doesn’t happen. There indeed is not much more to say. Innisfree987 (talk) 09:14, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Elexacaftor/tezacaftor/ivacaftor update for New Zealand

I recently tried to update the section about the availability of Elexacaftor/tezacaftor/ivacaftor in New Zealand, but my edit was reverted. Was reverting the proper thing to do? It is a major news for a movement that has lobbied for access for several years now. Not sure how the agreement starting in April of this year justifies removal. Thriley (talk) 07:08, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

@Thriley, the easiest thing to do is to ask Whywhenwhohow for more of an explanation. This seems to be in one of those awkward liminal spaces: It's "already done" in terms of business news (anyone investing in the company will certainly be adjusting for expected sales in the next quarter), but it's not "already done" in terms of the drug getting into the hands of the end users. In a few months, it'll be obvious that it belongs in the article. Right now, whether it's obvious depends on your POV (e.g., business vs patients). WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:39, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Salim Yusuf

I was recently reverted on this article by an experienced user. I was merely trying to add some sources that Salim Yusuf's contrarian views about saturated fat and sodium intake are against the mainstream scientific consensus. Already cited on the article before I edited it was this source [4] at MedPageToday and a bunch of sources that do not mention Yusuf.

Salim Yusuf believes that increased saturated fat and sodium intake have no negative health effects. He recommends people consume a lot more than 2 grams a day of salt. This is in opposition to the World Health Organization and the American Heart Association. He has also questioned vegetable intake. I have been reverted per WP:MEDPOP, however this is an official comment from the AMA [5]. See current discussion on the talk-page. Any help appreciated from experienced users who can find better sourcing. Psychologist Guy (talk) 02:24, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Quisqualis, I see that you two already have a discussion going on the talk page. Do you need any additional help?

On the more general question, please remember that "An individual human said something one day" isn't Wikipedia:Biomedical information, even if the person is saying something about biomedical information. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:42, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing, I initially took a look at @Psychologist Guy's edit because it reverted a large chunk of material (which turned out to be citations of 2 articles with lengthy author lists). On closer inspection, I noticed that one of the two articles DID mention Yusuf as an author, so went to work to sort out the sourcing and how it relates to the text, but that's becoming burdensome, and I hate the SF controversy, so I'm backing out now to eat some bacon. No longer watching the article.-- Quisqualis (talk) 22:03, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps the next generation will figure out the saturated fat controversy. In the meantime, there's a mainstream POV (butter is bad, even if it's not as bad as trans fats) and a significant minority POV (butter is not bad, even if monounsaturated oils might be better), and it's just a matter of figuring out how to avoid making any of the articles "sell" either position.

I think bacon's supposed to be bad according to everyone, though. May I suggest a nice bit of prosciutto-wrapped salmon instead? ;-) WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:12, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Discussion about experts

This may be interesting to some editors here: Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#Avoiding driving off experts from Wikipedia WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:48, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Labyrinthitis and vestibular neuritis

There is discussion at Talk:Labyrinthitis#Split into New Article, Vestibular neuritis about splitting the Labyrinthitis article and in doing so creating a new Vestibular neuritis article. This was suggested back in 2020, but there have only been a handful of comments since. Your input would be appreciated. TompaDompa (talk) 22:48, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:08, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

who knew

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/american-cancer-society-releases-latest-cancer-statistics-launches-initiative-to-address-prostate-cancer-resurgence-and-disparities-301719246.html SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:15, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35468227/ might be useful if anyone wants to update epidemiology. The epidemiology of prostate cancer can be a little difficult to describe accurately, because it's mostly diagnosed in older men (~age 65+), and the lifespan after diagnosis is usually long (~15 years, which means that it overlaps with the normal expected lifespan in many countries). QALYs may be more descriptive than YPLLs.

Breast cancer presents a similar challenge to editors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:00, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Turning statistics into words

I have just posted Wikipedia:Two times does not mean two times more. I hope that it will be handy whenever you run into the problem of someone saying that there were X at one time, and now there are 3X, so that means that is now 300% more than the original amount. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:45, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:2012 Middle East respiratory syndrome outbreak#Requested move 1 January 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2012 Middle East respiratory syndrome outbreak#Requested move 1 January 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. echidnaLives - talk - edits 02:34, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

give opinion(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:28, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Neuro-oncology - https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroonkologie

Is it okay from "Tumorarten" to "Hirnhautmetastasen" on the German side to show "Neuroonkologie" in "Neuro-oncology" on the English side? Wname1 (talk) 23:56, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

just use the translation tool (or google translate, I guess?)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:12, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

@Wname1, are you asking about the interlanguage links (e.g., the w:de:Neuroonkologie in German and the Neuro-oncology article in English are linked)? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:08, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

@User:Ozzie10aaaa Am now at about 97% done now with google. I suspect. The points now are the references, this is not my world until today, unfortunately.

@User:WhatamIdoing Yes, about the interlanguage links. I suspect. The points now are the references, this is not my world until today, unfortunately. Wname1 (talk) 20:41, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for doing that work. If the articles in German have the ICD codes (we mostly put that in a blue bar, at the end of the article), then matching those might work for some articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:49, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Adiadochokinesia for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Adiadochokinesia is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adiadochokinesia until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

EvilxFish (talk) 00:13, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 02:42, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

WPMED reference campaign

Hey, all,

I got curious about Wiki Edu's system for tracking student editing, and @Sage (Wiki Ed) tells me that it isn't actually restricted to formal classes. I'm trying to set up a "course" now, with the idea that we can use it to see how well we're doing with medicine-related articles. The link is here: ~~dashboard.wikiedu.org/courses/Wikipedia/WikiProject_Medicine_reference_campaign_(2023)~~ [Update: since deleted]. If you're (even a little bit) interested in improving sourcing in our articles, would you please sign up as a "student"? It looks like it will automatically count the number of references added by editors who sign up.

(If the sign-up process asks for your real name, just put in your Wikipedia username again. There is no need to give it any private information.)

My next step is to figure out how to tell it to pay attention only to edits to WPMED-tagged articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:57, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi WAID. We need a passcode to join. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:00, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Hold on, I'm getting a new URL. Sorry about the confusion... WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:51, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Okay, the new URL is https://outreachdashboard.wmflabs.org/courses/Wikipedia/WikiProject_Medicine_reference_campaign_2023?enroll=qyoufwds I'm just getting it set up, but you should be able to join. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:09, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

So far, we're off to a counterintuitive start: We have removed seven references. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:41, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Go team! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:31, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, any idea how the "words added" counter works? We're all at zero except for you, even though we've clearly added some words to some articles (though I may have net removed words from the article I assigned myself...) Ajpolino (talk) 16:15, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Ah, based on this it looks like only WP:MED tagged articles count? And the -1,096 characters I've added to Lung Cancer get rounded up to 0. I've got some catching up to do! Ajpolino (talk) 18:25, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I limited it to WPMED-tagged articles. I believe that it re-calculates periodically (once a week?) to account for addition and removal of the {{WikiProject Medicine}} tag as well as the deletion of articles.

I also believe that if someone joins "late" (even on the last day), it will retroactively count their contributions throughout the whole designated time period. I can also add people manually. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:49, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

All right, I'm going to have to add some refs. @JenOttawa has just signed up, and she's actually added some refs, instead of just removing them.

Please do sign up at https://outreachdashboard.wmflabs.org/courses/Wikipedia/WikiProject_Medicine_reference_campaign_2023?enroll=qyoufwds I think it would be really nice to look back at the end of the year and see how many refs we have all added. (If you can't figure out the interface, just post here; I can add you in manually.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:16, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Ah! Sorry friends, I'm bringing the ref count down. It's not intentional, I just happen to be rewriting sections of articles that had piled up some outdated references. Hopefully I'll return to the positive with a bit more time. Ajpolino (talk) 20:45, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

It's not a problem. Removing bad sources is important.

I'd love to have more people sign up. I've been meaning to invite some of our newer editors, but I haven't made the time to make it happen yet. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:48, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Empath

Are the sources in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the current revision of the article Empath strong enough to support these biomedical claims? It smells fishy to me, but the American Psychological Association source (currently cite #13) might meet WP:MEDRS, so I decided not to delete anything yet. Thanks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:55, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I've done a quick copyedit that I think might help overall. I did vaguely wonder whether this would be better as a disambiguation page, as it mixes someone's preferred name for psychics with research into normal human variation in perceiving other people's emotions. It could be "Empath is someone who is empathetic. See Empathy, Psychic, Science fiction trope." WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:16, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, this is currently a WP:NOTDICTIONARY violation. TompaDompa (talk) 05:28, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

It was marked as reviewed by an experienced NPPer, so likely passes notability. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:37, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

NPP's main purpose is to identify articles that meet the Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. I don't think we should push notability on to them as well.

That said, the only real question in my mind is whether the "person who has a lot of empathy" subject should be a separate article or merged to Empathy. Sometimes we do the one (Teaching is something done by a Teacher) and sometimes we do the other (Dancing is something done by a Dancer). WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:49, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Unreviewed Featured articles year-end summary

Restoring older Featured articles to standard:
year-end 2022 summary

Unreviewed featured articles/2020 (URFA/2020) is a systematic approach to reviewing older Featured articles (FAs) to ensure they still meet the FA standards. A January 2022 Signpost article called "Forgotten Featured" explored the effort.

Progress is recorded at the monthly stats page. Through 2022, with 4,526 very old (from the 2004–2009 period) and old (2010–2015) FAs initially needing review:

357 FAs were delisted at Featured article review (FAR).
222 FAs were kept at FAR or deemed "satisfactory" by three URFA reviewers, with hundreds more being marked as "satisfactory", but awaiting three reviews.
FAs needing review were reduced from 77% of total FAs at the end of 2020 to 64% at the end of 2022.

Of the FAs kept, deemed satisfactory by three reviewers, or delisted, about 60% had prior review between 2004 and 2007; another 20% dated to the period from 2008–2009; and another 20% to 2010–2015. Roughly two-thirds of the old FAs reviewed have retained FA status or been marked "satisfactory", while two-thirds of the very old FAs have been defeatured.

Entering its third year, URFA is working to help maintain FA standards; FAs are being restored not only via FAR, but also via improvements initiated after articles are reviewed and talk pages are noticed. Since the Featured Article Save Award (FASA) was added to the FAR process a year ago, 38 FAs were restored to FA status by editors other than the original FAC nominator. Ten FAs restored to status have been listed at WP:MILLION, recognizing articles with annual readership over a million pageviews, and many have been rerun as Today's featured article, helping increase mainpage diversity.

**Examples of 2022 "FAR saves" of very old featured articles**
Solar System 2007 FA J. K. Rowling 2007 FA June 26, 2022 TFA Antarctica 2006 FA Joan of Arc 2006 FA Speed of light 2010 FA
All received a Million Award

But there remain almost 4,000 old and very old FAs to be reviewed. Some topic areas and WikiProjects have been more proactive than others in restoring or maintaining their old FAs. As seen in the chart below, the following have very high ratios of FAs kept to those delisted (ordered from highest ratio):

Biology
Physics and astronomy
Warfare
Video gaming

and others have a good ratio of kept to delisted FAs:

Literature and theatre
Engineering and technology
Religion, mysticism and mythology
Media
Geology and geophysics

... so kudos to those editors who pitched in to help maintain older FAs !

FAs reviewed at URFA/2020 through 2022 by content area

FAs reviewed at URFA/2020 from November 21, 2020 to December 31, 2022 (VO, O)
Topic area	Delisted	Kept	Total Reviewed	Ratio Kept to Delisted (overall 0.62)	Remaining to review for 2004–7 promotions
Art, architecture and archaeology	10	6	16	0.60	19
Biology	13	41	54	3.15	67
Business, economics and finance	6	1	7	0.17	2
Chemistry and mineralogy	2	1	3	0.50	7
Computing	4	1	5	0.25	0
Culture and society	9	1	10	0.11	8
Education	22	1	23	0.05	3
Engineering and technology	3	3	6	1.00	5
Food and drink	2	0	2	0.00	3
Geography and places	40	6	46	0.15	22
Geology and geophysics	3	2	5	0.67	1
Health and medicine	8	3	11	0.38	5
Heraldry, honors, and vexillology	11	1	12	0.09	6
History	27	14	41	0.52	38
Language and linguistics	3	0	3	0.00	3
Law	11	1	12	0.09	3
Literature and theatre	13	14	27	1.08	24
Mathematics	1	2	3	2.00	3
Media	14	10	24	0.71	40
Meteorology	15	6	21	0.40	31
Music	27	8	35	0.30	55
Philosophy and psychology	0	1	1	–	2
Physics and astronomy	3	7	10	2.33	24
Politics and government	19	4	23	0.21	9
Religion, mysticism and mythology	14	14	28	1.00	8
Royalty and nobility	10	6	16	0.60	44
Sport and recreation	32	12	44	0.38	39
Transport	8	2	10	0.25	11
Video gaming	3	5	8	1.67	23
Warfare	26	49	75	1.88	31
Total	359 ^{Note A}	222 ^{Note B}	581	0.62	536

Noting some minor differences in tallies:

A URFA/2020 archives show 357, which does not include those delisted which were featured after 2015; FAR archives show 358, so tally is off by at least one, not worth looking for.
B FAR archives show 63 kept at FAR since URFA started at end of Nov 2020. URFA/2020 shows 61 Kept at FAR, meaning two kept were outside of scope of URFA/2020. Total URFA/2020 Keeps (Kept at FAR plus those with three Satisfactory marks) is 150 + 72 = 222.

But looking only at the oldest FAs (from the 2004–2007 period), there are 12 content areas with more than 20 FAs still needing review: Biology, Music, Royalty and nobility, Media, Sport and recreation, History, Warfare, Meteorology, Physics and astronomy, Literature and theatre, Video gaming, and Geography and places. In the coming weeks, URFA/2020 editors will be posting lists to individual WikiProjects with the goal of getting these oldest-of-the-old FAs reviewed during 2023.

Ideas for how you can help are listed below and at the Signpost article.

Review a 2004 to 2007 FA. With three "Satisfactory" marks, article can be moved to the FAR not needed section.
Review "your" articles: Did you nominate a featured article between 2004 and 2015 that you have continuously maintained? Check these articles, update as needed, and mark them as 'Satisfactory' at URFA/2020. A continuously maintained FA is a good predictor that standards are still met, and with two more "Satisfactory" marks, "your" articles can be listed as "FAR not needed". If they no longer meet the FA standards, please begin the FAR process by posting your concerns on the article's talk page.
Review articles that already have one "Satisfactory" mark: more FAs can be indicated as "FAR not needed" if other reviewers will have a look at those already indicated as maintained by the original nominator. If you find issues, you can enter them at the talk page.
Fix an existing featured article: Choose an article at URFA/2020 or FAR and bring it back to FA standards. Enlist the help of the original nominator, frequent FA reviewers, WikiProjects listed on the talk page, or editors that have written similar topics. When the article returns to FA standards, please mark it as 'Satisfactory' at URFA/2020 or note your progress in the article's FAR.
Review and nominate an article to FAR that has been 'noticed' of a FAR needed but issues raised on talk have not been addressed. Sometimes nominating at FAR draws additional editors to help improve the article that would otherwise not look at it.

More regular URFA and FAR reviewers will help assure that FAs continue to represent examples of Wikipedia's best work. If you have any questions or feedback, please visit Wikipedia talk:Unreviewed featured articles/2020/4Q2022.

FAs last reviewed from 2004 to 2007 of interest to this WikiProject

If you review an article on this list, please add commentary at the article talk page, with a section heading == [[URFA/2020]] review== and also add either Notes or Noticed to WP:URFA/2020A, per the instructions at WP:URFA/2020. Commentary not entered on the article talk page may be swept up in archives and lost. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:03, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Cholangiocarcinoma – see also Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cholangiocarcinoma
Coeliac disease – see also Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Coeliac disease
Influenza – see also Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Influenza
Polio – see also Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Poliomyelitis
Alaska Mental Health Enabling Act (more law than med)

Looking at the old noms, these editors were involved in the original efforts to get these listed: User:Jfdwolff, User:MastCell, User:Wouterstomp, User:Opabinia regalis, User:Samir, User:Fvasconcellos, User:TimVickers, User:DO11.10, User:Casliber, User:Graham Beards. I'd love to have folks take a look, and let us know whether these are easy saves, hopeless, or somewhere in between. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:15, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

My opinion is that Influenza and Polio should be easily brought to standard if they aren't already; Coeliac disease has dated and uncited content, is already noticed as needing a FAR, and needs work; and I can't say on cholangiocarcinoma. Thanks for following up, WAID! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:01, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Okay, so maybe prioritise one at a time? Am really busy IRL but happy to help out once one is decided to look at first Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:14, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I think 'flu first, since it's flu season. What do other people think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:38, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Popular pages#List should be an one of the metrics in setting priorities for FA re-assessment, and on that score, Coeliac is higher than influenza, but flu is likely to pick up in page views during flu season. So it's a toss up for me ... Cas and I have our hands full, with little help, just trying to keep the top FA on that list (schizophrenia) in order. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:43, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

De Simone Formulation

This is a true gem. The "De Simone Formulation", aka VSL#3, manufactured by Professor (!) De Simone. There is a vast of health claims.

After reading "The probiotic formulation is classed as a high potency probiotic medical food in the United States." I need to buy it. Problem is that the provided FDA source does not mention it.

Maybe someone can look for this (except the SPA promoting it). Cheers, --Julius Senegal (talk) 19:14, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

It looks like Timtrent handled some copyvios in a previous version. More generally, it looks like an easy target for anyone who might enjoy dropping {{third-party inline}}, {{medical citation needed}}, {{Primary source inline}}, etc. all over the article. (The MOS problems, like calling him "Professor", irritate me, too.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:12, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I did. And it was well enough referenced to be a pass at AFC, but I have strong doubts about the propriety of it today. Acceptance at AFC does not prevent deletion at AfD 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:48, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

If AFD, I will support you, no question.

I suggest that a native speaker shall open the discussion for that. Honestly, I think the article is beyond repair. Best, --Julius Senegal (talk) 18:31, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

page error, arrows in bottom-right corner?

I'm seeing pale blue down arrow and up arrow icons floating in the bottom right corner of this page. When I mouseover on them they say There was an issue displaying this preview. This isn't even a preview, so something certainly seems wrong. I generally try to track the WMF's deployments, but I have no clue what these are or why they are there. I've never seen it anywhere else. Are other people seeing them? Does anyone know why they're there? I have experience dealing with WMF tech, I can raise this with them if appropriate. I figured I check whether there was any local knowledge about it first. Alsee (talk) 09:07, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

They are created by Template:Skip to top and bottom, so not exactly a WMF thing. Maybe Vector 2022 is messing with their functionality? They are working for me when clicked, and hovering does not give me the same message as you get. I get a fairly normal navigation popup. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:54, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

If you're using WP:NAVPOPS (local gadget preferred by experienced editors), it displays as expected. If you're using the default Wikipedia:Hovercards (simplified version enabled by default for readers), then you will get an error message about it not knowing what to display. It does not matter which skin you're using; the behavior is the same even in MonoBook. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:11, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I think this is phab:T198652, looks like there's a fix just awaiting deployment. the wub "?!" 22:50, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Alaska Mental Health Enabling Act Featured article review

I have nominated Alaska Mental Health Enabling Act for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:16, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

MEDRS help needed at a featured article review

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Uranium/archive1 - the article itself includes some content subject to MEDRS related to health effects of uranium exposure. Would anyone familiar with MEDRS be willing to give the medical sourcing there a look-over? Hog Farm _Talk 14:18, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I read through the section that pertains to human health and looked at the citations. Most are from older text books and review articles. There are one or two primary research papers cited that I noticed and numerous places were we could find more recent MEDRS sources, I would imagine fairly easily. I added "updated needed tags" in those places. I hope that this is ok as a starting place. I do not have time to find the references myself, but can try to swing back later in the week. Please do feel free to remove my edit if you disagree! JenOttawa (talk) 03:32, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi again @Hog Farm: I found a few review articles with free full-texts that may be able to fill these gaps: [6][7], [8], a 2012 gov report from Canada([9], Europe [10], and from ATSDR in the States [11]. JenOttawa (talk) 11:51, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

I linked that over at the FAR (which is where comments should be placed so they don't go missing in archives). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:55, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Monkeypox => Mpox

See Talk:Monkeypox#Monkeypox or Mpox. Could do with a few more voices. -- Colin°^Talk 08:58, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

At Talk:Mpox#Related articles we are discussing not only changing the outbreak articles to "mpox" but also how we should title them to indicate the year(s) of the outbreak. It would be great to have a few more opinions. -- Colin°^Talk 09:54, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Low-level laser something

Could someone who knows what the difference is between Low-level laser therapy and all of the similar-ish things please take a look at https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q1872556&diff=0&oldid=1766751240 ? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:16, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Talk:Fluoxetine

Could someone help out re a primary source at Fluoxetine? Thx, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:19, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Done. I think, if I understood the request. Jaredroach (talk) 18:55, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Project-independent quality assessments

See Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Project-independent quality assessments. This proposes support for quality assessment at the article level, recorded in {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and inherited by the wikiproject banners. However, wikiprojects that prefer to use custom approaches to quality assessment can continue to do so. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:21, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

give opinion(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 02:34, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Leaderboard report

The current leader of the reference campaign is a relatively new editor, Medlibrarianhnl, who has made 55 edits total and already added 42 citations Second place is currently held by Lyall0 with 41 citations added.

Any registered editor can sign up, and your contributions are counted retroactively to the beginning of the year, so there's no penalty for signing up late. The sign-up link is https://outreachdashboard.wmflabs.org/courses/Wikipedia/WikiProject_Medicine_reference_campaign_2023?enroll=qyoufwds WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:29, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

this recent script might be useful User:Phlsph7/HighlightUnreferencedPassages it comes from this conversation--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:06, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Cancer Diagnostic Probe

This oddity was taken to DYK by the article's creator. It describes a device invented in Iran and used in breast cancer surgeries. I flagged this as having odd sourcing, and Spicy also expressed concerns with MEDRS. It's been trimmed a bit, and some of the medical claims present in prior revisions have been removed. I just would like the opinion of MED editors as to whether the content of the article in its current condition is appropriate for Main Page linking, as this is not my topic, before I potentially approve the nomination. Pinging the nominator Mhhossein to make them aware of this discussion. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:49, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Sammi Brie would you mind adding here a link to the DYK page so others can find their way through the impenetrable DYK process ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:12, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Found: Template:Did you know nominations/Cancer Diagnostic Probe. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:17, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Separately, I can't find an article defining a cancer margin. Surely we have one ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:57, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Maybe margin (oncology) ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:58, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Resection margin (one of my additions at CRUK). Feel free to add redirects and update or improve. I see it has been somewhat expanded since my last version in 2014 (oh, plus to this in 2018), with some loss of comprehensibility. Johnbod (talk) 17:04, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Cataract surgery

I am trying to fix a bunch of uncited claims and clarify the text of Cataract surgery. Anyone with the time and inclination, particularly if they have topic expertise (which I do not), is invited to chip in to the extent they can afford. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 11:29, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Mast cell activation syndrome

I could use some assistance on Mast cell activation syndrome, a fairly new and rare syndrome with very specific diagnostic criteria. In recent years, MCAS has become somewhat of a fad diagnosis, whereby it is promoted as the cause of many disparate health problems. As discussed here, misinformation and confusion about MCAS are driving anxiety and needless medical evaluations.

An AAAAI consensus document describes the problem of flawed and overly-broad diagnostic criteria that is promoted in the media and in certain publications. The publications suggested as unreliable have Lawrence Afrin, MD as an author. Afrin operates an "integrative medicine" clinic with Tania Dempsey, MD. Previously, he was a professor at University of Minnesota.

First, although the MCAS article has been cleaned up, it still needs fact checking and removal of citations to Afrin.

Second, there is some conflict over recent edits based on Afrin's publications, which I reverted. A new article on Long COVID by Long COVID patients and Eric Topol, MD references Afrin. The editor @Innisfree987 suggests that this secondary source is a reliable source for the statement "MCAS symptoms are associated with Long COVID." Of course, definitions for Long COVID include many non-specific symptoms, similar to Afrin's discredited standards for MCAS.

Overall, the linking of MCAS to Long COVID and including references to Afrin and colleagues is WP:PROFRINGE and not compliant with WP:MEDRS. ScienceFlyer (talk) 05:38, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, have to say I consider this account pretty one-sided and am disappointed @ScienceFlyer would not leave a neutral request for a third opinion. I am happy to add more if that would now be helpful but in the interests of neutrality, I’ll just say please see the talk page section Talk:Mast cell activation syndrome#Review articles removed as well as the edit summaries for more information. I do think more opinions would be helpful as clearly the discussion was not progressing. Innisfree987 (talk) 06:04, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

I took a pass through this article, editing the whole article. See my comments on the article talk page. Jaredroach (talk) 15:27, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Antibody

Antibody has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 21:10, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

thank you for posting this--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:32, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Electroconvulsive therapy - urgent

Please help and stop this IP-vandalism. Greetings. --Saidmann (talk) 20:21, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

I listed it at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Electroconvulsive therapy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:08, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Strangely, the request was declined. What shall we do? Would it help if someone added a comment on the talk page of the article? I also suspect that the disruption is done by a blocked user. --Saidmann (talk) 16:10, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

I guess we do some combination of:

Reverting more
Posting things on the users talk page and the page to make clear that they are being unreasonable (quote rules at them)
Wait for people to insult us

Until a block occurs

I'm glad I'm not an admin. Talpedia (talk) 17:28, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

I probably should have labeled it as "edit warring" instead of the (default) vandalism. Saidmann, I think it would be safer if you didn't revert anything yourself. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:43, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

duplicates in WHO Model List of Essential Medicines

Hi guys, I hope you've all started the year well. Looking at this article, there are several drugs that are listed twice, even within the same subsection. So, for example, if you look at the muscle relaxants, vecuronium is listed twice. One of the 2 instances has an α next to it, to show that it's on the complementary as well as the core list.

I feel like that's really confusing, to have drugs' names written twice like that. I looked at the talk page, and this concern has been raised before, albeit with unnecessarily aggressive language.

I also note that there is a lot of aggression that has gone on in that talk page, so I hope that by bringing this up I'm not opening Pandora's box.

I think the simplest approach with this list would be use the α to signify that the drug is also on the complementary list, in addition to being on the core list. If there is consensus to do this, I volunteer to make the changes. Dr. Vogel (talk) 11:00, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

That would imply the drug is also on the core list. There are entries that are on just one list or the other. --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 18:55, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, and for that, we could have a different symbol. That would leave us with no duplicates, and the vast majority of drugs would have no symbols at all. Or we could colour-code it. There are a number of ways this can be made to look neat.

I'm just worried that duplicating the names is really confusing. And if you look at the history, there have been lots of editors trying to remove the duplicates, thinking it was unintentional. Dr. Vogel (talk) 21:00, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree that additional notes would be the optimal solution, not listing the same drug twice. RickyCourtney (talk) 23:17, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

The note(s) may apply to just the entry on the core list or just the entry on the complementary list. Combining the entries with both the symbol and the note(s) makes it less clear. Some medications are in more than one class or have more than one indication and are listed more than once on the list in separate sections. What is confusing about listing the same medication twice? --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 01:18, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

For example, if you look under "muscle relaxants", it says that the drugs are vecuronium and vecuronium. If you look under diuretics, it says the drugs are "mannitol and spironolactone", and "mannitol and spironolactone". You don't think that's confusing? Dr. Vogel (talk) 01:25, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Notes can be as long as needed to describe these nuances. RickyCourtney (talk) 04:16, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

What do you think about spelling it out in a table? For the ==Muscle relaxants (peripherally-acting) and cholinesterase inhibitors== section, if could look like this:

Muscle relaxants (peripherally-acting) and cholinesterase inhibitors
Drug name	Core list	Complementary list
Atracurium	Core	–
Neostigmine	Core	–
Suxamethonium	Core	–
Pyridostigmine	Core	Complementary
Vecuronium	Core	Complementary

I think it might be clearer if we don't rely on people to click through to the explanatory footnote. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:51, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, that would work too, it's also clearer than what we have now. Personally I probably prefer lists and I don't mind footnotes, but I do accept that your solution looks very neat. Perhaps a tick in each cell instead of spelling out the whole word every time. Dr. Vogel (talk) 22:43, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

It could be spelled out in list format, as well:

Suxamethonium – core
Pyridostigmine – core and complementary lists

The formatting is simpler. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:13, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

@Whywhenwhohow what do you think of these options? I don't really want to change this article without your blessing because you've been looking after it far more than any of us. Dr. Vogel (talk) 22:11, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Spelling it out in list format seems like a good approach to try. I'm concerned that updating either of these formats may be harder when the next revision comes out. --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 02:17, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

I add some complementary labels. --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 07:07, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

I think these changes you've made make it a bit better because at least the drug names are not mentioned multiple times in tandem. So it's a lot less confusing now. I feel that this is still more confusing than it needs to be, because we're just saying complementary list, without saying core list as well. Obviously you and I know how the lists work, but from the point of view of someone who's not into this, it's unnecessarily hard to make sense of it. What do you think of @WhatamIdoing's idea? And what makes you worry that this would make it harder to update in the future? Dr. Vogel (talk) 22:05, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Announcing script RefRenamer: replaces VE numeric refs with reasonable ref names

This is an announcement about a new script which is not specifically aimed at project MED editors or articles, but which is so useful, that I think many of you will be very happy to hear about it. Experienced editors here are used to seeing newer MEDRS editors, especially, who use the Visual Editor; perhaps you use VE yourself, for its ease of editing without having to learn wiki markup. There is one serious downside to VE however, and it pertains to the difficulty of reusing those opaque, numerically named references (tracked in T92432), and which heretofore has had no simple solution. VE's handling of reusable references is poor, with the resulting opaque numeric ref name cruft we are all used to seeing, such as in citations like <ref name=":0"/>, ":1", and so on, and the concomitant difficulty in assuring that you are citing the correct source elsewhere in the article when you attempt to reuse one of these numeric-named refs. There is now a script available to mitigate this problem after the fact.

Script RefRenamer converts all VE numeric names on a page to useful named references (default: Lastname-YYYY). There are many addditional options to customize how you want it done. This has worked flawlessly on pages containing more than a hundred numeric references; here's an example where it made about 136 changes at Generation Z (diff). This script by User:Nardog is powerful, effective, flexible, and accurate.

The script doesn't prevent the VE problem from occurring, but it is a complete solution for converting all numeric ref names on one page to reasonable ref names. I don't expect newer MED editors to use this—they have enough learning about proper MEDRS sourcing on their plate already—but the regulars here may wish to know about this, so you can wade in after an article stabilizes, and then rationalize all the ref names in one fell swoop. Details at User:Nardog/RefRenamer. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 22:55, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Sure will ... that crappy ref name = 0 stuff has long prevented me from any attempting to fix medical content. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:15, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi, Sandy, glad to hear this. It's so easy to use, that if you'd like to list a dozen articles below where ":0 stuff" is standing in your way, I'll go fix them all, and be back five or ten minutes later. There's a brief learning curve as you look at an unfamiliar interface, try stuff out, and learn the ropes, but it quickly becomes second nature, and is fast, and powerful. The Gen Z thing took me less than a minute, and it only took that long, because I'm a perfectionist and altered a dozen or more ref names to something more to my liking; if I'd accepted all the defaults, it would've been done in five seconds. Once you get going, you can churn them out several articles per minute. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 23:22, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

I'll remember to ping you in next time I come across one ... too busy today! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:32, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Mathglot here's one: Cancer Diagnostic Probe. Lord that ref naming convention is awful. When in edit mode, if one can see a name-date, it is so much easier to examine text. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:19, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Sandy, I started to run the script, but looking at the first one, it seems to be a product sales catalog page, and so I immediately stopped; doesn't seem worth fixing a ref to a bad source. Maybe the other two were okay, but I didn't check. Can you find me another example? Mathglot (talk) 21:24, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Mathglot I see that multiple sclerosis has taken on a bit of the dreadful VE refnaming ... not much, though, because I used to try to keep it clean. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:53, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Done. You should try it out

. Mathglot (talk) 04:09, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Here's a better one: FA Major depressive disorder. Needs a FAR, but checking text for dated sourcing becomes difficult because one cannot see what the named ref is while working in edit mode because they have those stupid names with no indicated of year. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:57, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Sandy:

Done. Can you check it out? (edit conflict) Mathglot (talk) 04:04, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Mathglot it looks like Zhou-2020 and Zhou-2020-1 are the same source, and the same problem with Hetrick.[12] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:11, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

That's because someone wrote the citations in there twice, fully spelled out, so :1 (Zhou-2020) they included |display-authors=6 but in :5 (Zhou-2020-1) they did not; the script sees them as different, and does not combine them. You can consider it a GIGO problem, perhaps. Same thing with Hetrick, :2 and :6 differed by the same parameter, and the script renamed them to "Hetrick-2021" and "Hetrick-2021-1", for the same reason. At least when the script renames them to names like, "Zhou-2020" and "Zhou-2020-1", it's easy to fix the problem; when they were ":1" and ":5", it's not so easy to see. Mathglot (talk) 04:35, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

True 'dat! Next time I come across one of these, I'll find the time to use the script. Thanks for doing that. I HATE Those Stupid Ref Names. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:42, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Lol; don't we all! That's why I'm so enamored of this script. Also, if it makes you feel any better, voting is going on at m:Community Wishlist Survey 2023/Editing/VisualEditor should use proper names for references, and you can make your voice heard there. (Discussion on top; voting below.) Mathglot (talk) 20:00, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Mathglot you mean like the way we voted on Vector 22? I don't allow WMF to misspend my time, even by going to fictitious vote pages. Thanks for the help with the script! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:44, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

RFCs with editors probably aren't sensible ways to decide what works for most readers. We're each experts in what works for ourselves as individuals, but I'd no more want a group of random people on the internet deciding what the default appearance of Wikipedia should be than I'd want a group of random people on the internet deciding whether cancer should be treated with an herbal concoction. I'd much rather that we followed experts for both of those, and I imagine that's true for most of us. If we did a quick show of hands, I bet we'd all vote for people with professional training and experience instead of an assortment of untrained and inexperienced people including a teenager who just got his first job at a fast food restaurant, a retired teacher, a student procrastinating on homework, an adult with nothing better to do after work, and a young man obsessed with trains/sports/Star Wars.

We know what the sources say about website UI changes: Everybody hates it when their favorite website changes, and some power users find it actually insulting that some business, just because they technically own the website or something unimportant like that, dares to make changes to my home on the internet. See, e.g., Facebook's introduction of their feed in 2008 and Flickr's decision to limit free storage in 2018, both of which nearly melted the internet ...if you were into those websites. This isn't unique to websites. The American Red Cross spent decades dealing with complaints from WWII veterans who were mad about their decision to start charging soldiers for doughnuts, which had initially been free. Loss aversion is a serious thing in the human brain. If you think you're on to a good thing, you don't want to risk any changes.

We also know, with website design changes, that when you talk to users a year later, most of them can't describe the old version with any accuracy or detail. Those of you who are old enough might remember New Coke, and how embarrassing it was when a television news program did a live blind tasting with the founder of one of the anti-New Coke organizations, and he couldn't tell the difference. Almost nobody remembers eBay having a yellow background. And even among those of us who switched from Classic to MonoBook in 2004, and from MonoBook to Vector in 2010, few of us can describe the differences between the skins without looking them up. I can recognize MonoBook, but I can't tell you much about it except that they moved the search bar from mid-left to upper-right and that a script I used regularly didn't work in Vector 2010. Oh, and the pale "waves" at the top is a blurry photo of an open book. (That turns up in Wikipedia trivia quizzes.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:57, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Here's another fine mess: Applied behavior analysis. Someone just asked on my talk that I look at it, but I go in to edit mode to start tagging non-RS, and I have to look at a bunch of gibberish ref names that give me no idea which source each it. Who Ever Invented That Mess. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:03, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Done. Please verify. Mathglot (talk) 04:07, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Mathglot all good now (you left one error inadvertently at major depressive disorder that I fixed). The instructions at User:Nardog/RefRenamer give me no idea where I will find the Options or how I will set them, and I don't want to install unless I know I can make it work. That is, I would not want ref name= "Smith-2015"; I would use ref name= Smith2015. The instructions seem to suggest that I will be able to remove the hyphen and the quote marks, but if I can't, I will never use the script. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:04, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Please keep the quotation marks; the devs say that it's the correct thing to do. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:34, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Sandy, the hyphen is the default "delimiter", and you can remove it by simply deleting it from the "delimiter" field when the dialog box comes up. (You can also change it to something other than hyphen, by typing whatever you want into the field labeled "Delimiter preceding year". The point of the script is to do the hard work, and then put you in edit mode, with a "diff" preview at the top. At that point, it's up to you what you want to do; make adjustments, Publish the page, or just cancel out of it. The script does not save any page changes on your behalf; you have to perform the save, and only if you approve of the changes it proposes to you. So there is no danger in installing the script, everything goes through you. Mathglot (talk) 19:57, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

That’s awesome, thanks for the head’s up @Mathglot! Innisfree987 (talk) 23:24, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Looks like a useful tool. On perhaps you use VE yourself, for its ease of editing without having to learn wiki markup Just a anecdotal datapoint, but my motivation or using VE is far more to do with "proof reading as you write" than not learning markup. A mental model that goes "graduate from VE to markup" doesn't quite apply... though perhaps if I could do some "tag folding" in markup it might be a different story, or hack something up so I get a preview with a big red cursor where I am editing in another window... Is there a way I can set the name property on a reference from within the VE (I had a quite look at the properties of a citation), and if not should I run tool after every edit / dig through the markdown to fine the reference? Talpedia (talk) 09:57, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

No "graduation" implied. I switch to VE when I want to insert table columns, because VE is better at it; otoh, wiki markup is better at reuse of ref names. About your question: I'm not sure, but I don't think so. I checked mw:Help:VisualEditor/User guide#Re-using an existing reference and mw:Help:VisualEditor/User guide#Editing an existing reference and there's nothing there about it, but that doesn't mean it's not possible. You could try the links at WP:VisualEditor/Named references#See also, or ask at mw:VisualEditor/Feedback.

Personally, I would not run the tool after every VE edit. Any tool should somehow improve your productivity, and running it that way would just slow you down, I would think, and wouldn't help you at all with your next edit at that article. If you use VE exclusively, you needn't run it at all; someone who uses the standard editor can convert it, if and when they need to. If you wanted to be especially accommodating, I suppose you could run it once, at the end of a series of edits at one article, when you're done with that article and ready to move on to some other one, but even then, it's not necessary, as it doesn't help you, and the next editor might be using VE as well, so it wouldn't help them, either. Mathglot (talk) 10:29, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

This is fantastic. Thanks to @Nardog for this annoyance-solver. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:52, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Voting underway at meta

Apparently, they are voting at Meta on changing VE reference naming style, which is directly related to this topic. You can register your opinion in the #Voting section (down the page; the "#Discussion" section is above it, for some reason) at: m:Community Wishlist Survey 2023/Editing/VisualEditor should use proper names for references. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 00:17, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Can you help evaluate these?

Here are ten articles updated via RefRenamer; can you help evaluate them for accuracy, and note any problems you see? I tried to find ones that are part of the MED project, but not all of these are; covid articles flood the search results, so I tried to winnow it down and get more of a balance, so they wouldn't all be Covid articles. Here's the list:

COVID-19 pandemic in India – (diff)
COVID-19 pandemic in Sarawak – (diff)
Eukaryote hybrid genome – (diff)
Face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States – (diff)
Murine respirovirus – (diff)
Polycystic ovary syndrome – (diff)
RBM10 – (diff)
Thraustochytrids – (diff)
Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in Saskatchewan – (diff)
Viral quasispecies – (diff)

I noticed that in a few articles (e.g., Face masks, and the Saskatchewan article) the original citations created by VE users contain no author name at all; the tool cannot create a refname like "Lastname-YYYY" if there is no last name in the citation. In this case, it falls back to other data in the citation, so you'll see names of websites or publishers instead of the last name in some of them. (Not sure what MEDRS guidelines are about citations, but I would have thought that author name is part of the minimal set.) In any case, any help you can give evaluating these by clicking the "diff's" and offering your opinion below, is appreciated! (Positive or neutral feedback is also valuable; if you try some of these and see no problems, please comment as well.) Mathglot (talk) 02:24, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

In the masks diff, a couple refs without a date used the first four digits of the ISSN in lieu of the four-digit year, which IMO has the potential to introduce confusion. The PCOS diff looks good to me tho! Innisfree987 (talk) 04:07, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

@Innisfree987:, Thanks. That's by design, or at least, configurably so. The dialog asks you what you want to do, if there is no YYYY date, and gives one possibility as "choose any four-digit number instead", and I picked that, resulting in the piece of ISSN being used, as you saw. Perhaps a bad choice on my part; I'll go back to the article and manually adjust that, but had I been as eagle-eyed as you were, I might've spotted that, or configured it not to substitute some other four-digit number. What do you think it should do, if no year is available? What do you do, in that case? Mathglot (talk) 04:14, 11 February 2023 (UTC) P.S. "Masks" fixed (diff). Thanks for the heads-up on that one. Mathglot (talk) 04:24, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

For books, the last four digits of the ISBN would be a better choice than the first four. Pretty much all books published in the US have the same first four digits in the ISBN (9780). I'm not sure how ISSNs work, but if they are similar in design, then the last four might work better than the first four in that case, too. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:23, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

I hadn’t encountered this before now; but I am wondering if the first word of the article or publication title might be useful just to avoid a situation where four digits looks like a year but isn’t? Innisfree987 (talk) 05:20, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Imho, it doesn't make sense to try to deal with this programmatically. The script already gives you the option to override what "year" digits it chooses, so you can just type in the value you prefer if it picks the wrong value. It hasn't been a problem in any of the articles I've used it on so far. But a better venue for questions about operation of the script is the script Talk page. Mathglot (talk) 07:00, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

General questions

Do you have a method for preventing collisions? What if there are two different "Lee-2020" sources cited in the same article? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:17, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Handled automatically by the script. This is covered in the documentation at: "'Increment starts at' – Number to be appended in case a name is already used". Iirc, the default behavior is to add a hyphen and a digit after the year, so: "Smith-1996-1", "Smith-1996-2" and so on, but you can configure it in the dialog box that appears to do it differently, and you can override all of those and choose your own method, by specifying them in the reference table. I happen to prefer "Smith-1996a", "Smith-1996b", etc. and for the moment at least, that involves a manual override, which is not a big deal–I just type them in (there are not usually very many such). If that were a very popular method among script users, I imagine that we could prevail upon the script author to add it as a new method.

If you click the 'diff' link on the Sarawak article above, you'll see that Sharon Ling was prolific that year and had at least twenty publications. The numeric references were converted by the script into disambiguated "Lastname-year" refnames with appended uniqueness digits as follows:

"Ling-2020-2" (was ":9")
"Ling-2020-3" (was: ":13")
"Ling-2020-4" (was: ":14")
"Ling-2020-5" (was: ":16")
"Ling-2020-6" (was: ":19")

...and so on and so on, until:

"Ling-2020-20" (was: ":139")

No, wait: I changed my default: the original default, is that the first one is "Smith-1996" and then the second one is "Smith-1996-2"; but you can configure all that, and I did and it remembered my change, so I'm starting to not be 100% sure of the original default when you first load the program. But general questions would probably be more appropriate at the script Talk page than here, where only a limited audience will see it. Also, I shouldn't really be answering questions, I'm a newbie, too, as far as the script is concerned. (Everyone is; it's only hours old.) Mathglot (talk) 03:43, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Use of subsartorial artery/vein

Hello all,
I'd like have some more views on this topic related to Femoral_artery#Segments, Femoral_vein#Course, and two related diagrams ([13], [14]). Please look at the previous conversation below (copied from my talk page). Mikael Häggström (talk) 19:39, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello Mikael - would you reconsider your changes from superficial femoral vein to 'subsartorial' this term is not at all generally recognised. The general usage has been recommended to just use femoral vein as per the long standing misunderstandings generated by the use of superficial to a deep vein. Its use on many files as with 'subsartorial artery' is confusing and unhelpful as a search for these terms is fruitless. Kind regards --Iztwoz (talk) 11:31, 10 February 2023 (UTC) Hello Iztwoz. Thank you for the review, and those are valid points, but overall I think this usage is justified. It is true that I have cited a work where I am the author (Subsartorial Vessels as Replacement Names for Superficial Femoral Vessels - I can email it to you if the online pdf is temporarily unavailable), but as it is in a peer reviewed journal, is is acceptable use as per Wikipedia:Identifying and using self-published works. Pragmatically, I do think the subsartorial name should be mentioned first, as the superficial one is discouraged. Simply calling the entire segment femoral is practically not enough, since clinicians often need to specify the location, such as in thrombosis where there is a lower risk in the subsartorial vein compared to the common femoral vein (more of this in my article). Adding it myself in Wikipedia may be viewed as a promotion of medical practice (conflict of interest), but the usage is reflected in multiple peer reviewed articles: Phi Thi Nguyen N, Luong Cong T, Tran TTH, Nhu Do B, Tien Nguyen S, Thanh Vu B; et al. (2022). "Lower Plasma Albumin, Higher White Blood Cell Count and High-Sensitivity C-Reactive Protein are Associated with Femoral Artery Intima-Media Thickness Among Newly Diagnosed Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus". Int J Gen Med. 15: 2715–2725. doi:10.2147/IJGM.S351342. PMC 8922038. PMID 35300147.`{{cite journal}}`: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) Cheung LH, Martin JS, Barger N, Phillips C, Fernandez V, Diogo R (2022). "The arteries of the musculoskeletal system of siamangs, and a comparison with other hylobatids, greater apes, and humans". J Morphol. 283 (7): 932–944. doi:10.1002/jmor.21480. PMID 35510698.`{{cite journal}}`: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) Ramdass MJ, Spence R, Harnarayan P (2020). "Outcomes Associated with Femoral Vein Segmental Oversew/Ligation in Penetrating Trauma". J Emerg Trauma Shock. 13 (3): 231. doi:10.4103/JETS.JETS_50_20. PMC 7717467. PMID 33304076.`{{cite journal}}`: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) Gitto L, Bonaccorso L, Serinelli S (2019). "Death due to severe blood loss following an accidental lesion to the femoral vessels". Med Leg J. 87 (4): 196–201. doi:10.1177/0025817219875425. PMID 31686595. S2CID 207899227.`{{cite journal}}`: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) As per WP:COIM, this potential conflict of interest "does not mean that material from a conflicted source or editor should necessarily be dismissed" and I think readers of those listed articles should be able to find the item in Wikipedia. I might have created some undue weight in the relatively long description of this segment compared to the common femoral one, but I have now amended this by expanding the common femoral segments in the Femoral vein and Femoral artery articles. Mikael Häggström (talk) 19:02, 10 February 2023 (UTC) Mikael - since the renaming was your suggestion the other uses cited (all post 2019) may have taken their lead from the page. If it was an already established use it wouldn't have needed suggesting renaming? The use is stated to be only sometimes referred to - so why change to a widely unaccepted term? The part on diagrams widely altered refers to the femoral vein which is the current terminology. Usage is of the femoral continuing as the common femoral - superficial femoral is not used in major textbooks post 2005 if not before (it does still appear in various papers) and is actively discouraged. The 'newer' terminology is that of the consensus papers presented in 2001 and 2004. Since the use of superficial is redundant and to be discouraged where is the need for this newer renaming? Iztwoz (talk) 13:02, 11 February 2023 (UTC) Iztwoz, we can not assume that other publications have taken after the Wikipedia pages. I have supported this naming to fellow physicians and scholars, and I have made presentations at conferences, in a manner that you would expect any scholar to present their work even before Wikipedia existed. The need for an alternative name for the femoral artery/vein segment is justified by the same reasons as for the common femoral artery/vein - mainly that it is clinically important to be able to specify the segment, particularly in angiology and vascular surgery, even if it is not currently listed in Terminologia Anatomica. The discouragement of using superficial is not because of any redundancy, but to avoid patients being erroneously denied anticoagulant therapy for thrombosis in this segment (because the treating physicians may believe it is a superficial vein thrombosis when it is actually a deep vein thrombosis). Despite repeated recommendations against usage of the term superficial femoral vein, it does still appear in modern textbooks: Schrope B. Surgical and interventional ultrasound. New York: McGraw-Hill Education Medical; 2014. Page 186. Tibbs DJ. Varicose Veins and Related Disorders. Burlington: Elsevier Science; 2013. Page 466. Lefebvre C. Atlas of cardiovascular emergencies. New York: McGraw-Hill; 2015. Page 51 and 68. Moore EE, Feliciano DV, Mattox KL, Demetriades D, Inaba K. Trauma. New York: McGraw Hill Education; 2017. Page 852. Furthermore, they still often use it without caution in regard to its potential consequences of patients being denied anticoagulant therapy, particularly in books related to vascular surgery and sonography. It reflects the continuing need to specify the more distal segment of the fermoral artery/vein, and it is not realistic to expect busy clinicians to use more lengthy descriptions such as "the segment of the femoral vein distal to the branching point of the deep femoral vein". Wikipedia is in the real world - what we write here has real consequences - and if we do not present the alternative to superficial femoral artery/vein, then there will be an increased risk of people dying from untreated deep vein thrombosis. Yet, I have now clarified in the femoral artery and femoral vein that these terms are not listed in Terminologia Anatomica, and the diagrams still mention the femoral artery and the femoral vein as specified in that reference work. Mikael Häggström (talk) 19:22, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Generally speaking, articles/content about anatomy should use the Terminologia Anatomica name; unfortunately, TA doesn't mention these sub-segments. In such cases, I prefer to follow textbooks. It is possible to find a peer-reviewed journal article claiming just about anything.

I am always suspicious of claims that we need to write something to prevent ill-informed physicians from making mistakes (or, on the flip side of that coin, to prevent patients from making the "wrong" choice). WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:24, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

My experience is that when:

there is a thrombus located solely in v. femoralis superficialis,
the radiology report describes the location as such, and
the radiology report does not use the term DVT

then the probability that this will be interpreted by the clinician as a superficial vein thrombosis and treated accordingly is pretty high. That being said, this is not a particularly common occurrence since step 1 is fairly uncommon and many radiologists are aware of this issue and therefore avoid steps 2 and 3 (at least in conjunction). Whether Wikipedia should strive to use terminology that circumvents this issue is a question that can be discussed. One could certainly make the case that the argument that we should is in essence an instance of WP:Righting great wrongs. TompaDompa (talk) 06:56, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Re Righting great wrongs - the terms have been changed since consensus papers of 2001 and 2004 to dropping the use of 'superficial femoral' to just femoral. Common femoral vein is recognised as is deep femoral vein - what is the point of further segmentation? "Clinically, one of the most significant changes in the terminology for the deep system was to change the name of the superficial femoral vein to simply the femoral vein."[15] Further, is the introduction of 'suggested terms' to diagrams and text over accepted recognised terms (the edited diagrams had not mentioned superficial femoral just femoral) simply OR?--Iztwoz (talk) 09:25, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

The common femoral vein is still in the same situation of not being included in Terminologia Anatomica, yet supported in other academic papers. The main point of further segmentation is the continued usage of superficial femoral vein when there is no other term that is specific enough for that segment in clinical practice. Even in Terminologia Anatomica, "femoral vein" refers to both the common femoral vein and the distal segment. Mikael Häggström (talk) 18:40, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

The common femoral vein has a long established usage included in major sources including textbooks; it is hoped by the Unions of Phlebology and Angiology that the common femoral vein be included in the next TA edition. This use, together with femoral vein and deep femoral vein makes the whole vein easily comprehensible. The use of superficial femoral vein still persists but is seemingly a diminishing use; the introduction of another obscure little-referenced term using 'subsartorial' is hardly likely to influence the sources that still refer to the femoral vein as the superficial femoral vein. And the very many sources that have accepted the use of femoral vein are hardly likely to want to change the name. Radiopedia quotes "The term "superficial femoral vein" or its abbreviation, "SFV" should not be used as it is a misnomer (i.e. it is not a superficial vein), and can be especially confusing in the setting of deep vein thrombosis. This is formally stated in the Terminologia Anatomica." also "Common femoral vein" is not listed in Terminologia Anatomica, however, it is in common use and is an internationally accepted term"[16] [17] In the Journal of Vascular Surgery the common femoral vein is referred to in over 4500 articles.[18] There are many papers that refer to the superficial femoral vein but they seem to be mostly older papers before the newer terminology was presented or looked to. I would just say If something ain't broke why fix it ?--Iztwoz (talk) 13:27, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

IMO...Mikael Häggström argument above, and original post[19] is more convincing (with all due respect)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:45, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

I have the greatest respect for Mikael Häggstrom but am convinced that the argument is outdated and that new terminology is widely accepted. The introduction of the new term on diagrams on various pages excludes the current use of 'femoral vein' - it should follow that the page name femoral vein would have to be changed to that of subsartorial vein and cannot see that being acceptable. The use of femoral vein over superficial femoral vein has been arrived at by consensus and used since 2001. It's like any other term that has been changed, some use of an outdated term will naturally persist. But I do not think that a suggested name change be instigated on Wikipedia with no reference to deciding bodies such as the Union of Phlebology and the Union of Angiology. The use of 'subsartorial vein' refers to the now accepted name of Femoral vein so how is this to be 'squared'?--Iztwoz (talk) 15:17, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

,

Feedback on Persistent stapedial artery

Hello you lovely people, I've just finished writing this article, and I would like some inputs/feedback. I do accept that since this is not my area of expertise, there may be errors. I am willing to learn, however, so if some of you could take a look that'd be great. Thank you. X750. Spin a yarn? _{Articles I've screwed over?} 02:33, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

did some minor edits [20]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:20, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Added {{medical resources}} and codes from ICD-10 and 11 for persistent arteria stapedia. Although showing as a synonym on multiple sources, can this please be verified. Little pob (talk) 14:35, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for that Little pob. Would ICD-11 10.64 be more appropriate seeing as how it is a middle ear disorder? Thanks for your efforts too, Ozzie10aaaa. I will be adding another section on variants later today, do you think after that the article is ready for a good article nomination? Cheers. X750. Spin a yarn? _{Articles I've screwed over?} 19:35, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

I can't find the code you are referencing; but the notes at the start of ICD-11 Chapter 10 state "structural developmental anomalies of the ear" are coded elsewhere. Parsing to non-coding terms; WHO have classified persistent arteria stapedia to LA22.3 because it's a congenital condition, rather than an acquired one, and–even if persistent stapedial artery is not a synonym–it should be classified to a Chapter 20 code within the LA20-LA2Z range. Little pob (talk) 09:32, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Ah I see where I went wrong, I meant Q16.4 for the ICD 10,not 11 code. The ICD-

code looks good to me Little pob. X750. Spin a yarn? _{Articles I've screwed over?} 17:29, 3 February 2023 (UTC)1

Q16.4 might be appropriate in cases where the stapes is structurally unaffected (i.e. within normal variance) despite the artery persisting. Given the condition trails to Q16.3, however, I feel unqualified to give a different answer than the Q16.3 code. That said; it is worth noting that many articles list multiple ICD codes where more than one could apply (example epilepsy). Little pob (talk) 10:14, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Applied behavior analysis - assistance requested

I was randomly summoned to an RFC at Talk:Applied_behavior_analysis#Request_for_Comment:_dealing_with_controversies. I have little experience with med articles and I attempted to offer some generalist comments. I and at least one other person suggested get input from this Wikiproject. The original involved parties haven't taken action on that, so I am doing so on their behalf.

The RFC isn't very clear and it can be a bit hard to figure out what's going on. I'll attempt to summarize what I've managed to sort out. Applied behavior analysis (ABA) appears to be "overwhelmingly" focused on treatment of autism. Some of the methods and approaches used in this field are controversial, up to the United Nations using the word "torture". There appears to be very significant opposition among the autism community, an unclear level of controversy among relevant professional community, and unclear level of controversy in generalist Reliable Sources. There appears to be a lot of reliance on primary research papers, which appears to be raising significant problems. The main article-dispute is how to address the controversy in the lead, but I'm not sure whether the underlying cause may extend beyond the lead. Alsee (talk) 08:37, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I (and another other WPMED) editors have edited this in the past. I gave up. It is indeed a controversial topic not least because of some historical/dodgy aversion therapy incidents (using cattle products to shock people into normality? see Judge Rotenberg Educational Center) and for this reason there was a POV war about how this was all abhorrent and Wikipedia should reveal that Truth™. As always, stronger and more modern sources would be the best way to update the article and resolve the conflicts. The article now is in a dreadful state. One such source is

Spreat S (2012). "Chapter 10: Behavioral treatments for children with ASDs". In Reber M (ed.). The Autism Spectrum: Scientific Foundations and Treatment. Cambridge University Press. pp. 239–257. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511978616.011. ISBN 9780511978616.

I'm not sure I want to go back there. Bon courage (talk) 08:55, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

For what it's worth I think I had some success getting across the "not truth" message here. I have the impression that my explanation was even positively received. I seem to have a knack for getting that kind of thing under control. However I have almost no familiarity with the special considerations in the Med area, so I'm very reluctant to push my standard non-med answers here.

I tried to check the ref you suggested, but I don't have access. To be honest I was hoping to get back to other work, but I could stick around if an experienced voice for policy-and-consensus is needed to quell the tempest. Alsee (talk) 10:10, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

That source is available via WP:TWL. Bon courage (talk) 10:14, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

After getting access to WP:TWL, you can use this link. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:38, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

If anyone can't access this through TWL, they can also email me for a pdf copy. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:54, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

As a general rule, I find that textbooks are better sources for this sort of dispute than journal articles. In controversial areas, the papers tend to be trying to convince people of something. The textbooks that aren't focused on ABA as the main subject usually present the middle-of-the-road perspective. Some of these might be useful to varying degrees: [21][22][23] You might be able to get books such as ISBN 978-3319912790 through your library.

It might be worth looking for sources about related/offshoot approaches, such as Millieu training and the Early Start Denver Model. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:27, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for this! As @Alsee said, it might be helpful if you'd consider wading in over there, but I understand the general reluctance - this kind of controversy is exhausting, and the discussions on the ABA Talk Page have become downright gruelling.

The trouble with textbooks as resources for this kind of thing is that most people won't be able to access them, which makes fact-checking an awful lot harder; in areas this contentious, that becomes especially important (different people's interpretations of the same text can be... remarkably divergent).

That said, while most of the textbooks don't directly address the quality of the evidence or the amount of controversy, I thought this passage from the 2022 edition of The Wiley-Blackwell Handbook of Childhood Social Development was very helpful:

"In terms of the effectiveness of ABA approaches, research suggests that intervention effects do not generalise beyond the intervention environment, and behaviours learnt during interventions are rarely reproduced in novel settings (Kovshoff et al., 2011). A meta-analysis of autism interventions highlights that many studies fail to implement rigorous methodological designs such as randomised control trials (RCTs). Out of the studies that have implemented RCTs to date, there is inadequate collective evidence for change on any selected outcome (Sandbank et al., 2020). ABA approaches have also faced intense scrutiny in the last two decades, with significant concerns around both the ethics and outcomes of ABA interventions. Many of the criticisms have been raised by autistic adults who have participated in ABA therapies themselves (McGill & Robinson, 2020)." Oolong (talk) 14:54, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

IMO encyclopedia articles should spend more time talking about what it is than whether it's proven. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:04, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Which, of course, we generally do, and certainly far more of the ABA entry is given over to describing it rather than evaluating the evidence. It is not the descriptions of what it is that are proving particularly controversial.

But we do also make a habit of making some statement about the evidence base for purported treatments, and we don't shy away from describing ABA's first cousin, conversion therapy as pseudoscientific. That is, I think, entirely correct. Oolong (talk) 08:05, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

To be clear, I'm not saying the ABA entry should start by describing it as pseudoscientific - that would be, at best, premature.

Just trying to make a general point that when something purports to be an evidence-based treatment, but the evidence is weak that it treats what it claims to, and it's controversial for other reasons, part of an encyclopaedia's job is to communicate that. Oolong (talk) 08:27, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

These comments may be more useful over there than over here. Alsee (talk) 02:48, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Blow it up: what a shameful mess it is. Nuking the majority and starting over is the way to go; that can be facilitated by first going through and tagging every non-MEDRS source, and then removing the content unless it is one where a primary source or opinion piece is justified. Then rebuild from a decent starting place. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:31, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello, so I have a question. One user is wanting to remove this list of ABA applications because they are claiming it is a list of biomedical claims, and therefore necessitates a higher standard of citation then the source that is cited. I believe that a list of applications is merely a statement of fact and not making statements on the efficacy of ABA in such applications nor making any medical evaluations, so I feel the source is adequate. Can anyone interject or provide advisement of this? I must also note that this same user is now making the claim that the source does not back up the list, after it was on the page for nearly a month. I cannot check their claim because the article is behind a costly paywall. This user has also taken upon themselves this discovery as a reason to remove mentions of ABA applications in other areas of the article. Here is the link to the list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1140579127 Barbarbarty (talk) 14:13, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

From a quick look, the "ABA has also been utilized in a range of other areas ..." stuff is badly written and seems to give the impression it's useful in these areas. Bon courage (talk) 19:19, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

I can see a version of this article that contains a description of places where ABA is practiced outside of autism, but perhaps if a better source is found where such information is stated then a cleaner version can be implemented, although access to such material is outside of my capabilities. I imagine a textbook-type source would contain such information. Also, I see no reason why ABA wouldn’t be useful in other applications from a laymen’s perspective, but again this brings us back to the quality of a source. I ended up removing this list as other users made the claim that the full article cited does not contain this information, though I am still unable to access it myself. I also want to ask if such a list of applications is a biomedical claim? Barbarbarty (talk) 14:46, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

If you mean PMID:10885534 is just old case reports. It's available from WP:WL. Bon courage (talk) 20:33, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Not that one, I believe the source in dispute is the Dillenburger article. Barbarbarty (talk) 15:52, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Dillenburger (PMID 19404840) is from 2009 (=14 years ago), so it would be ideal if a newer source could replace it. @Barbarbarty, as you passed your 500th edit earlier this month, you should have access through the Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library. If you need to find someone with access, you could also try Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request. It is a short article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:16, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

MEDMOS note

Something in that discussion might be worth addressing at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles#Careful language. Both on and off wiki, I've seen people claiming things like "autistic people overwhelmingly think _____", when what they really mean is "a survey of teenagers and adults who can read and who voluntarily participate in a particular organization think _____". It's like surveying the cancer survivors who run in fundraising races for breast cancer, and then calculating that, based on your survey, not only does cancer never kill anyone, but it also makes them all healthy and fit enough to join footraces.

40% of people with autism are nonverbal. Only 45% have normal (or higher) IQ. Please don't misrepresent the subset of people with autism who are able to respond to a survey as being everyone with autism. If you think it would be helpful to write that down in MEDMOS, we can do that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:56, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

I've also noticed this wrt autism. I wonder if there is a general pattern or if it is mostly an autism thing because the particular bias is enabled very strongly by the internet. The closest similar issue I can think of is the battle between including disabled children in mainstream schools, with additional help, or having specialist schools for their needs. And the related issue of whether disabled adults live in specialist care, or get looked after by their relatives in the community. There are advocates that think that because their individual circumstance worked out for them, that it is desirable for everyone. Some opinion polls are really dreadfully done albeit with the best intentions by the naive organisations involved. Getting a cross section of "people group x" is really hard work, as is designing questions in a way that are neutral.

Referring to a group of people as though they were as one was a feature of a recent controversy, like whether we should say "the French". The point is lazy generalisations. That Guardian article made a comment "very few Americans of Latin American descent describe themselves as Latinx" and they gave their source here which gives details of the survey here. If you are curious, the "very few" is 4%. -- Colin°^Talk 14:55, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

This might happen most with autistic people; I've read multiple sources about that. I think it also happens in surveys about dementia. In that case, the temptation is to say "people with dementia" without clarifying that it's "people in early-stage dementia". WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:46, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Cycle Helmet Article

Hi all,

I wanted to raise a question.

I encountered a Wikipedia article on Cycle Helmets (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_helmet). To my mind the article is not written from a neutral perspective and contains multiple inadequately substantiated assertions / implications. Fundamentally, I think it presents the protection offered by cycle helmets as far more in dispute than it actually is and has serious potential to mislead.

The page is noted as being within the scope of 'WikiProject Cycling'. Given the content, should it not also be within the scope of WikiProject Medicine (or at least reviewed by an experienced editor from the project)

Would be really interested in hearing any thoughts on this. 2A01:4B00:9E35:DE00:18BD:F367:E4E9:AF5E (talk) 12:33, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure the wikiproject makes that much difference. I imagine you are free to talk about an article here and I don't think the article is "monitored" in any sense by the wikiproject - just by the editors would watch the article or choose to read it and post about it. You are of course free to improve the article and if other editors agree with you (which is likely if your edits are well-sourced) they will stand... and also post here (like you have!) to see if other editors are interested in improving the article Talpedia (talk) 12:41, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

urea-to-creatinine ratio

Hi guys, just letting you know about this RM. If you're American, you're not allowed to vote :) Dr. Vogel (talk) 17:01, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

What if I promise to vote in your favor? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:39, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

then please make an extremely compelling argument :) Dr. Vogel (talk) 18:55, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Functional MRI Methods and Findings in Schizophrenia

Topic specialist help needed to review this new draft. Besides the easily fixed headings an other simple MOS errors this draft needs a knowledgeable editor to evaluate the claims and sources. Please help. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:36, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

several of the references (journals[24]) listed aren't MEDRS compliant (they're either dated or primary)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:27, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

@Dodger67, I wonder whether this could be merged to Functional magnetic resonance imaging, and tagged for improvement there. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:34, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing with some content to schizophrenia too? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 05:46, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

@Dodger67, maybe? It mostly feels like fMRI content to me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:06, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Just a heads up that this topic walks into the middle of a controversy surrounding "bio" and "psychosocial" (and so between medicine and psychology).

There are also questions surrounding the iatrogenic properties of antipsychotics - both demonstrated, in terms of loss of brain tissue, and putative in terms of induced dopamine sensitive and MRI studies have historically been questionable. There are also competiting approaches using radioactively marked neurotransmitters - and it's worth noting that some of the models of sz (and treatments) operate more at the neuronal level than the gross level. (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00088517).

So yeah, some care with sourcing and avoiding implicit POV forks from "spliting" versus "lumping" is something that we might like to pay attention to. I'd almost argue for a "neurological research into sz" page. Talpedia (talk) 11:24, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at WP:MCQ § Proactive request for input

You are invited to join the discussion at WP:MCQ § Proactive request for input. -- Marchjuly (talk) 19:38, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

thank you for post--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:08, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Cataract surgery

Any ophthalmologists in the house? Failing that, any reasonably sensible project editor who could take a look at Cataract surgery and let me know what I have missed. I am waiting on a copy edit, then will be taking it to GAN. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 19:26, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Duplicate articles?

Hi, yesterday I noticed that there is Complications of pregnancy and List of complications of pregnancy. Do we really need two articles for the same topic? There is a lot of overlap between the two but maybe there's something I'm missing that would explain why it makes sense. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 18:07, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

yes it does have overlap (Complications of pregnancy

Done) --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:28, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Joseph DeRisi Career draft request

Hey there! I'm trying to improve the biochemist Joseph DeRisi's Wikipedia page, and thought this WP would be a good place to reach out to. A colleague of mine has composed a new Career draft for the page that revises parts of the current Career section for readability, adds new information about Dr. DeRisi's professional life, and removes a few less-than-encyclopedic details. There's currently an open edit request on the DeRisi Talk page, which asks editors to review that section draft. I'll put a link to the full draft here, as well.

I'm a COI editor working on behalf of Chan Zuckerberg Biohub. My full COI disclosure is on my user page. Any help I can get with this section review process would be deeply appreciated. Thank you! K at CZ Biohub (talk) 03:32, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

another editor seems to have done the edit--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:34, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Mpox vs monkeypox

No you haven't got deja vu. We did have a discussion earlier this year at Talk:Mpox#Monkeypox or Mpox? about changing monkeypox to mpox. This resulted in a consensus for change which was actioned by an admin. A new discussion has been created now advocating that it be changed back. Please comment at Talk:Mpox#Requested move 28 February 2023 but please read the earlier discussion first. -- Colin°^Talk 08:50, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

@Talpedia, Mikael Häggström, Iztwoz, SandyGeorgia, Jaredroach, Ozzie10aaaa, JenOttawa, Johnbod, Casliber, Psychologist Guy, Shibbolethink, ScienceFlyer, Pbsouthwood, and Sectionworker: Just pinging folk who have posted here recently. We really could do with some more opinions at Talk:Mpox#Requested move 28 February 2023. At the moment there are very few responses and mostly from editors who's interests lie elsewhere. -- Colin°^Talk 09:59, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

My thinking is that it is OK for now for Wikipedia to choose either direction. My crystal ball tells me that Mpox is the name increasingly used in medicine and science (e.g., CDC), Mpox will be preferred in the future, but that Monkeypox may still be currently found more often in colloquial writing. I don't feel urgency to resolve the Mpox naming issue. Jaredroach (talk) 15:26, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

I took a look and felt like I was in a Monty Python sketch. Dead parrot mostly. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 19:19, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

The mpox article has remained at mpox. There now continues a discussion at Talk:2022–2023 monkeypox outbreak#Requested move 28 February 2023 discussing the various linked articles. -- Colin°^Talk 10:42, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Requesting feedback for how to make the health section of Doodh soda compliant with WP:MEDRS

Basically, an article I made, Doodh soda, has a section about the health benefits and drawbacks of the drink. I was hoping for some help phrasing the section in such a way that it complies to WP:MEDRS or doesn't make unbacked claims. I currently have it so that it says "according to [the doctor mentioned]," so I thought that might make it clear that the article isn't making any claims on its own, but I'm not sure. Any help is appreciated, thank you. Di (they-them) (talk) 03:53, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Well... @Di (they-them), electrolytes aren't a source of Food energy at all, so if the doctor claimed that they are, then I think you can write him off as being a completely unreliable source for anything about nutrition.

Do you need to make health claims in that article? Perhaps you'd be better off adding Template:Infobox nutritional value and ignoring actual health claims. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:30, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll do that. Di (they-them) (talk) 04:42, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing, it's a homemade mixed drink, I'm not sure that template is going to be very useful. The actual nutritional info would depend enormously on the ratio of milk to soda, and what type of milk is being used. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:11, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

The template has a |note= field that can be used to provide the ratio and specify the type of milk.

@Di (they-them), you need to make sure that you are writing everything in your own words. You don't want the page to get deleted as {{db-copyvio}} before you even finish. Check that paragraph about ==Preparation== for Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. What you write should be noticeably different from the sources.

This book describes a similar (same?) food from Indonesia called susu soda. https://www.thejuggernaut.com/doodh-soda-origins-pepsi-lindsay-lohan-ad is another possible source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:08, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

RfC

please participate Talk:COVID-19 pandemic#RFC on investigations, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:12, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 13#Humanities and Social Sciences

While this redirect isn't med-related, the discussion will affect a class of redirects on which WP:CITEWATCH relies to function, and would affect how we can detect predatory journals on a go-foward basis. Many of you care about WP:MEDRS etc... and so you might want to opine on this discussion. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:09, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Signups open for The Core Contest

The Core Contest—Wikipedia's most exciting contest—will take place this year from April 15 to May 31. The goal: to improve vital or other core articles, with a focus on those in the worst state of disrepair. Editing can be done individually, but in the past groups have also successfully competed. There is £300 of prize money divided among editors who provide the "best additive encyclopedic value". Signups are open now. Cheers from the judges, Femke, Casliber, Aza24.

If you wish to start or stop receiving news about The Core Contest, please add or remove yourself from the delivery list.

If you are interested in joining this, here's a list of 1,264 qualifying vital articles tagged by this WikiProject.

There is a shorter list (but not filtered for WPMED) at Wikipedia:The Core Contest/Articles.

The process is that you nominate a specific article that you will improve during the contest dates. (Don't start too early.) They look at the diffs of your work you give them for the judging. Even if you don't win the top prize, we'll all win with better articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:12, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Pelvic abscesses

Lawson Tait and Michael Edward Ward each have a red ink to pelvic abscess. Should there be an article, or a redirect? To where? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:09, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Some sources describe pelvic abscess, so it might be notable: [25], [26]. D6194c-1cc (talk) 22:07, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks @Pigsonthewing: Interesting read on Tait's work. Thanks for sources @D6194c-1cc:. I think it would be good to have an article on pelvic abscess. Shall I create one? Whispyhistory (talk) 08:31, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't mind. I have no interest in creating this article myself. D6194c-1cc (talk) 08:42, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Post-exposure prophylaxis against HIV

Regarding AZT as post-exposure prophylaxis for HIV, there are some IP edits that soften some of the language and reference a conspiracy theorist's Substack post. I decided to revert due to the sourcing, but I don't know off the top of my head if any changes might be desired. The first citation is a primary source, not a secondary source as suggested by WP:MEDRS. But there are additional citations later in the article. ScienceFlyer (talk) 03:01, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

thanks for posting--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:38, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Moving Le Fort III osteotomy to Le Fort osteotomy?

I would like to propose moving the Le Fort III osteotomy and creating a new article of Le Fort osteotomy, and then creating an entry for each of the three versions of the Le Fort osteotomy in the article (similar to how it is on French Wikipedia [27]). There are currently no entries for any of the other Le Fort osteotomies (neither I nor II). Putting all of the Le Fort osteotomies together would also allow for better labeling in an infobox, as most procedure codes, like MeshID (D019340), do not break down individual variations of Le Fort osteotomies and instead use one code. I'm happy to do this, but due to the importance of the article, I wanted to discuss it here first. Wikipedialuva (talk) 22:48, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

@Wikipedialuva, I think that's a good idea, but let me suggest that, for Wikidata's sake, you first create Le Fort I osteotomy and Le Fort II osteotomy as (temporary but briefly real) articles, set up the Wikidata items, then create the new article at Le Fort osteotomy (=the fourth Wikidata item, to which the other three can be connected later), into which you merge all three articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:43, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing Thanks for the reply! It sounds like a good plan, but I just wanted to clarify the logistics. So should I just create Le Fort I osteotomy and Le Fort II osteotomy as redirects to the not-yet-existent article Le Fort osteotomy or actually make short articles for each one? My concern is that if I make very brief articles, even if I'm going to eventually redirect them, I assume they're going to get deleted by the WP:New pages patrol because I'm not yet autopatrolled. Thanks! Wikipedialuva (talk) 02:03, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Did you do any research about amount of information about those topics and their relationship? As I see in Pubmed by a brief search, usually those topics are discussed separately from each other. For example: [28] is about LeFort I osteotomy. In case of enough literature for the topics, a review article named Le Fort osteotomies might be worthy with three main articles for subsections of the review article. But a review article would probably need appropriate sources that will discuss those topics in comparison with each other.
Also, the Le Fort osteotomy title might be misleading, because this name is probably used for I osteotomy, as I see by the used context: [29]. D6194c-1cc (talk) 13:17, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

@Wikipedialuva, the process would be:

Create Le Fort osteotomy.
Connect that to Q689210 on Wikidata (to match the French article – if, in Step 1, you use the Wikipedia:Content translation tool to translate the French article, then this step will happen automagically).
Create Le Fort I osteotomy (e.g., with one sentence).
Use that non-redirect "real" (temporary) article to create the Wikidata item.
Then (only after step 4) redirect Le Fort I osteotomy to Le Fort osteotomy.
Repeat for II and III.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:10, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing Thanks so much for the clear and detailed outlines of my next steps! However, I think the Wikidata article Q689210 is likely inappropriate for either the current French or proposed English articles because this is a reference to a Le Fort fracture of the skull, which is typically traumatic and already has an article linked to on English Wikipedia about it (see: Le Fort fracture of skull). The French article and the article that I want to create involve the Le Fort osteotomy, which is a controlled cutting by a surgeon. I think the Wikidata item "Le Fort osteotomy" (Q72259620) should be used instead.

@D6194c-1cc I did some research, which led me to believe that there is a need for an overview article, but I will be the first to admit that oral surgery related topics are not my specialty. I also found that there is substantial literature regarding each of three Le Fort osteotomies, such as a 208-page dissertation on the topic of just the Le Fort III osteotomy procedure alone [30]. I also agree that there should be three different articles about each of the three different forms. The concerns regarding the possible confusion between the Le Fort osteotomy as a class of procedures versus the Le Fort I osteotomy would likely become clear to a reader as the article would explain that there are 3 different forms. This could also be noted more explicitly in the article as well. A hatnote could be appropriate as well to clarify this; however, this would likely run afoul of WP:RELATED.

As of right now, I think the best course of action is to dissociate the French Wikipedia article "Ostéotomie de Le Fort" from the Wikidata item Q689210. Link the French "Le Fort osteotomy" to Wikidata item Q72259620. After it is linked, use the WP:Content translation tool to create an English article "Le Fort osteotomy", which will then be associated with Q72259620 from the French article. Add a "main article" template to the new article, linking to Le Fort III osteotomy under the appropriate heading in the new "Le Fort osteotomy" article. Leave the current "Le Fort III osteotomy" article as is. For Le Fort osteotomy I and II, editors could create those at their leisure, perhaps adding them to WP:Requested articles/Medicine/Dentistry. Thanks! Wikipedialuva (talk) 13:17, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

That all sounds sensible. The French article may have been created by someone who assumed, like I did, that the similar-sounding word meant the same subject.

For the "controlled cutting" subject, I think we ultimately want four Wikidata items: "a group of...", plus I, II, and III. The only reason this is complicated is that Wikidata won't associate a redirect. We eventually want one article with three redirects, and to get those three redirects plugged into Wikidata, we have to make them be articles (but only for long enough to make Wikidata accept them). WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:08, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing I went ahead and changed the Wikidata item on the French article to the correct one (Q72259620). I then used the translation tool to create the English article Le Fort osteotomy based on the French article and published it with some minor changes, updated references, and added an infobox. I also added a main article template under the Le Fort III osteotomy entry to the new article. When someone decides to make individual articles Le Fort I osteotomy and Le Fort II osteotomy, they can then do a main article template on the page I just created. Anything else that needs to be done in the meantime? Thanks again for all your help! Wikipedialuva (talk) 02:52, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Blanchard's transsexualism typology

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Blanchard's transsexualism typology#Splitting off "Autogynephilia" into its own page, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. An editor has proposed recreating the autogynephilia article, by splitting the relevant content from Blanchard's typology. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:36, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:41, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

GPT

I came across this edit summary for creation of the Leniolisib article

 Newly FDA approved drug (leniolisib) - created using assistance from Bing LLM (joint Microsoft/OpenAI product) with editing and sourcing

--Whywhenwhohow (talk) 04:45, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Large language models and the long list of previous discussions on its talk page. My favorite comment recently was from DFlhb: "ChatGPT's been out of months, and the LLMpocalypse hasn't happened" (yet). WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:44, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Knock on wood! DFlhb (talk) 10:33, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Medical Subject Headings

Not really sure how important Medical Subject Headings and the pages linked from List of MeSH codes are but the {{MeSH number}} appears to be broken. I made this change at List of MeSH codes (M01) to get the external link to work. It seems to work with the "D" code or changing the link in the template to read https://meshb.nlm.nih.gov/record/ui?name=inuit Perhaps a bot could be found to fix them. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 03:46, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

thank you for posting--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:35, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

@CambridgeBayWeather, if we need a bot, we probably need to go to Wikipedia:Bot requests. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:45, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Language at {{infobox medical conditions}}

There's been some feedback over on the talk page for the "causes" parameter in the project's infobox: Template_talk:Infobox_medical_condition#Causes_field_ambiguity. I have suggested an alternative, but acknowledge I'm a lay person who happens to have some medical terminology. Little pob (talk) 12:53, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:27, 28 March 2023 (UTC)