Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 72

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 65←Archive 70Archive 71Archive 72Archive 73Archive 74Archive 75

Dislocation of spine due to Marfan's Syndrome

I have been searching for information on Dislocating the Spinal Colomn and all I come up with is is the chiropractic version. I have, since Janruary this year dislocated my spine three times. each was extreemly painful and caused spinal cord injury. I have Marfan's Syndrome, SLE, and osteoarthritis. My vertebre actually poped out and folded my spine. I have compression and the 2nd time I dislocated, I fractured my spine. I lost the ability to walk and can not feel my right leg. I am 15 weeks post fracture and still in wheel chair. I can walk some but legs give way and I fall. Does anyone have any info on this kind of dislocation? I really bneed to get some or even web sites to some where, wher I can get info. At present I aqm in rehab and need to prove what is happenning when legs give way and why. Thank you for any help. 76.119.167.238 (talk) 19:32, 8 September 2015 (UTC)Desperate Debbie76.119.167.238 (talk) 19:32, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but Wikipedia policy prohibits us from giving medical advice related to specific cases. Our job here is to write articles that contain information that is generally valid and helpful; that's really all we can do. Looie496 (talk) 00:15, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry for not being able to help, but not only is it against policy, but there is almost nothing we can do over the internet.
On a side note the relevant articles Spondylosis & Spondylolisthesis & Spinal compression fracture are in need of work. I suggest you contact your doctor or various support groups such as marfan.org for more information. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 08:50, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
I believe that the OP is requesting a Wikipedia article on actual, severe dislocation of vertebrae, i.e., something that has nothing to do with chiropractic and one of the things that some of our anti-chiropractic editors say cannot happen (apparently on the grounds that there is a magical force that makes it impossible for this one type of joint to leave its proper location, even though dislocation obviously can happen to every single other mobile joint in the body). If anyone can find sources about vertebrae being dislocated that has nothing to do with chiropractic or its cousins, then now would be a good time to speak up. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:39, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Myoglobinuria

have not had time for this important abnormal pathologic state, any help would be very appreciated, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:57, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Orangemoody

Large case of paid editing. Some were working on medical articles from what I understand. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:48, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

"381 paid editors"[1]..OMG--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:29, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Well, 381 paid accounts. It could be a very small number of actual humans. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:02, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Some of them were a core group and others were hired as freelancer from Elance and co. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:42, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
I skimmed the list of pages they created but didn't see anything that looked medicine-related, but not being an admin I can't be sure since I can't view their contents. Everymorning (talk) 22:51, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
You can see the discussion at WP:COIN. There was lots of medicine related stuff unfortunately. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:10, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Doc James mentioned Elance above; the website is being merged with Upwork. If anyone's curious about how one searches for paid editing there, then these search results might give you an idea:

I just took a quick look, but it looks like most of the jobs are about BLPs and businesses. Also, please remember that there's no verification of whether anyone claiming to be "User:Example" actually is, so please don't believe everything you read in the profiles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:04, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes we have at least one person claiming to be an admin. But there is no indication that they are actually them. Pictures may be false. Name may be false etc. But it does not take much time to come up with jobs that are paid for and then find a new spammy article on Wikipedia that was recently created by some brand new account.
It is unclear if you are allowed to post links such as User:WhatamIdoing just did so be careful. If you find cases of undisclosed paid editing feel free to forwards them to me. I am willing to enforce our WP:TOU. Also Elance is willing to take down accounts that are infringing upon our terms of use. Unless / until we change them this means we need to have evidence that they have not disclosed their paid editing before we can shut down their account. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:13, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Elance is a little easier to find concerns on

Now we will see if someone comes to try to ban both WAID and I for WP:OUTING. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:16, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

As an example of how easy it is to do. Here someone has bought a page for Anthony LaPine [4]. In a couple of days we will see that red link turn blue. Likely their will be copy and pasting from his linked in profile [5]. They have already bought an article on HipLink and that account is already blocked as a sock [6] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:32, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
they follow the same pattern--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 07:28, 4 September 2015 (UTC)


Ischemic Cardiomyopathy as a separate article from Cardiomyopathy

Atherosclerosis

(Copied from the Articles for Creation help desk Arthur goes shopping (talk) 11:09, 9 September 2015 (UTC) )

Hi, I recently created a page for "Ischemic Cardiomyopathy" which was rejected by LaMona. The reasons was, is that it was too similar to the page, or the information could be contained within the page "Cardiomyopathy".

I was alarmed that "ischemic cardiomyopathy" was not included as one of the causes of secondary cardiomyopathy, in the page "cardiomyopathy", as it is arguably the most common cardiomyopathy by far. Therefore, the explanation for ischemic cardiomyopathy I believe needs its own page. Several of the other cardiomyopathies listed in the page for cardiomyopathy have links to their own page. Therefore, I think that it is important that ischemic cardiomyopathy have it's own page, and I think that it is even more important then the other rarer forms of cardiomyopathy. It is a very large, and important topic, for which needs its own page.

Therefore, I make a request to have a page for "ischemic cardiomyopathy", with links from "Cardiomyopathy".

Nrsmoll (talk) 00:54, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

ok....some of the references [8] need newer ones, the draft looks good --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:55, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
I've copy edited the article extensively. It still needs some work done, but I feel it's now in good shape for mainspace. I've tried to speedy the redirect at Ischemic cardiomyopathy twice yesterday and was rebuffed by 2 admins who apparently have no clue as to how AfC works. I can't accept the article if there's a redirect due to the script, and they keep asking that the article be assessed at AfC; it's madness. If there are any admins here, I appreciate your help. Otherwise, I just give up! Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 14:10, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
@FoCuSandLeArN: Done. Opabinia regalis (talk) 16:53, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Ischemic cardiomyopathy is now in mainspace, please look it over and do the necessary finishing touches. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:23, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
will look--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:53, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your help. I'll try to improve it some more, as the issues are easily fixable. Regards, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 19:11, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I think the article looks pretty decent now, in no small part due to everyone's collaboration. Well done! FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 22:08, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Discussion of primary source in FA

[9] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:21, 11 September 2015 (UTC)


give opinion(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:32, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

New Cochrane evidence on Cochrane UK project page

Hi, I have added new and updated Cochrane reviews to Wikipedia:Cochrane Collaboration/Cochrane UK/Cochrane Reviews including interventions for nausea in early pregnancy and exercise for fatigue in people with MS. If you would like to know more about the reviews we select for the project, do contact me! HMill88 (talk) 13:14, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

great information--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:34, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

More on levels of evidence at WP:MEDRS

I proposed a change to WP:MEDRS that I hope you find reasonable. It's still only an early draft and I think there may be better pyramids we could use, so feel free to give any suggestions on how I can improve it. I believe that section needs an update.

Link to discussion: Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#Add_image_to_WP:MEDASSESS

[1][2]
[3]
There are different ways to rank levels of evidence in medicine–they are similar in that they put high level reviews and practice guidelines at the top.

Best, -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 09:23, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

very clear and informative, I think MEDRS would benefit from this --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:30, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I went ahead and added it, take a look: WP:MEDASSESS. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 22:13, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

looks great :-) ...easy to understand--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:33, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Nicely done. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:07, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Clinical practice guidelines don't quite fit the traditional hierarchy. Guidelines should be based on the best evidence, but if there's no RCTs, say, on a subject, then the guidelines will be based only on weaker evidence. At the same time, what guidelines say is probably something Wikipedia should cover, whatever they're based on. What would be best, I suggest, is to say "Guidelines say this..." and then "They are based on...".
I would also note that the whole hierarchy thing comes from evidence-based medicine and there are plenty of valid criticisms of EBM. There are health topics that are not well served by RCTs or Cochrane-style systematic reviews. Bondegezou (talk) 10:02, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Couple of critiques of EBM: Greenhalgh, 2012; Greenhalgh et al., 2014. COI declaration: I've worked with Greenhalgh, e.g. this paper takes a different approach to the traditional EBM hierarchy (and has had 157 citations, so I don't think we were completely mad to do so). Bondegezou (talk) 10:08, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
We sort of have our own hierarchy which is based on summaries of the research and can be found WP:MEDRS Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:43, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
More accurately, our hierarchy is based upon summaries of the sources, which may or may not involve research, and may or may not agree with the evidence. An encyclopedia is not a systematic review. Our purpose is to summarize what good-quality sources say, and not to include statements (judgments) about whether those sources are recommending unproven nonsense (unless, of course, you have a high-quality source that judges the others, e.g., a practice guideline that recommends no food after abdominal surgery despite evidence that this ancient practice harms patients and a review that says the practice guideline's recommendation is stupid. You can include both in that instance, but not a statement based upon your own opinion that there's no evidence for what the practice guideline recommends). WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:51, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
My concern would be that there are good-quality sources working off secondary and primary research that don't appear in those pyramids: qualitative or non-meta-analytic systematic reviews, qualitative observational studies, ethnographic studies. Bondegezou (talk) 17:52, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Anything like this also reinforces our systematic WP:DUE weight problem, in which evidence of treatment efficacy (or, in rare cases, diagnostic accuracy) is elevated above absolutely everything else.
When was it invented? Who cares! Nobody knows whether it works!
What is it? Who cares! Nobody knows whether it works!
What is the typical patient's experience? Who cares! The only thing that matters is which treatment has the best evidence!
Will the patient agree to the treatment with the best evidence? Who cares! All that matters is evidence!
But despite these frustrating problems, and the narrow, biased articles that we're creating as a result, I think it's probably desirable to have an explanation available for people who are trying to learn about this subject. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:37, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes, this is something of an issue at Electronic cigarette, where RCTs are few and small but survey evidence pretty plentiful, as befits a consumer-led innovation that US and other doctors are still discouraged from recommending as a NRT. Johnbod (talk) 15:07, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
@Bondegezou: I'm certain the pyramids don't pretend to be an exhaustive list, but are illustrative of the many areas of classification. The actual guidelines are in the adjacent text and I'm sure that the subsequent paragraph could be improved to discuss other the good quality sources you mention and their comparative merits as medical sources. Why not give it a go?
@CFCF: I hope you don't mind, but I've increased to size of the images in WP:MEDASSESS to match those you used in your proposal. Unfortunately the smaller size puts them beyond the limit of what I can read - and my vision is not untypical of that of older readers. I've also added textual indicators of the sources and removed the <small>...</small> because I couldn't make out that they were links to references on their own. It may be that someone whose vision is worse than mine still needs the images to be larger to be legible. --RexxS (talk) 18:02, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Dentalcare.com's ranking of
  2. ^ SUNY Downstate medical center ranking
  3. ^ capho.org Blog

Sex differences in intelligence‎ article

Eyes from this project are needed at the Sex differences in intelligence‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article. Suddenly, there has been a wave of edits being made there, starting with 2003:5b:4b47:d72c:f94d:cc91:b3b6:840c (talk · contribs) and followed by Esailija (talk · contribs), John Deranjo Smith (talk · contribs), and Ssjh (talk · contribs) thus far. Instead of WP:Student editing, I think it's a matter of someone at a website having spotted the article and having pointed people to it to make certain edits to it. If it were WP:Student editing, it's usually the case that I would see signs, such as sandboxes and/or the editors having listed their name at a course, by looking at the editors' contributions. It's easy to see why people would send others to edit this article. It's a very controversial topic. It relates to this project because it is mostly a biomedical topic. I might also alert WP:WikiProject Neuroscience and WP:WikiProject Evolutionary biology to this matter, but these WikiProjects aren't as active as this one. Flyer22 (talk) 06:08, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

If you look at the John Deranjo Smith account, the main account currently editing the article, it keeps adding things like "As a result, there is a prevalence of many brilliant males as well as very stupid ones while females dominated the prevalence of average intelligence." and "This means very superior intelligent males as well as stupid ones.". Flyer22 (talk) 06:14, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes I am John Deranjo Smith. I just joined wikipedia but I want to know what is the problem with my edits? Most of my edits have cited sources and even the ones that don't are based on reasonable interpretations of studies ex. Males are at low and high end of IQ curve therefore more brilliant and stupid males. Why is this deleted? Why is my posts on emotional intelligence also deleted even though I cited 5 journals? If someone has a problem please tell me. user: John Deranjo Smith — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:John Deranjo Smith (talk • contribs)
Welcome to Wikipedia. I don't know anything about your edits, but a common mistake in a subject like this is to pick a couple of sources that say what you expect (NB that "what you expect" is not the same as "what you like", but rather sources that overall agree with ideas you've heard or picked up over the years and that, as far as you can tell, other people seem to believe), and not look for anything else.
For example, it's common in the US to believe that there are more males at either end of the curve (and it may be true, here in the US), so if someone found a source that looks good and said that, then it probably wouldn't occur to the editor to see whether a high-quality academic source like this one (summary) has de-bunked this idea and proven that this pattern is only seen in some countries, and in other countries, exactly the opposite is true, and in still others, there is no difference. Similarly, it's common to see people say that there are more males in the ends of the curve and more females in the middle (at least here in the U.S.), but to leave out the fact (because they weren't told, or don't understand enough about statistics to understand what they were told) that the difference is so tiny that if you drew those two curves the size of a regular sheet of paper, using a fine-point marker, then the male and female lines would be overlapping and essentially indistinguishable.
Our wiki-jargon for this challenge is "due weight" (often linked as WP:DUE or WP:WEIGHT), and it means giving appropriate attention to what high-quality sources say, rather than what we "just know" (even if there are some sources that repeat the things that we "just know"). The solution to the problem is usually to seek out more and better sources. It's some work, but it can also be fun and interesting. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:48, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Also, using words like "stupid" in article text is usually done by vandals, hence the bot backed your edits out. Your edits weren't vandalism but "stupid" is probably not a good word to use.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:05, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

The following articles have some of the same issues, I've been trying to clean and police them for a while, but it is at times overwhelming:

For a very up-to-date review from last year see PMID 23808917. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 10:50, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Both of those articles are on my WP:Watchlist, but I haven't been paying much attention to them lately, partly because my WP:Watchlist is huge and there's a lot I deal with at this site. Regarding the Sex differences in psychology article, I see that Fteyg (talk · contribs) appeared at about the same time you were in a dispute with YechezkelZilber. That is suspicious -- a new account showing up at a relatively inactive article to help another editor. Flyer22 (talk) 12:05, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Flyer22 (talk · contribs) I didn't have anything to do with the other users. What was wrong with my edit? Esailija (talk) 20:39, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Question about a specific source

I was wondering if other editors thought that this source was primary or not. If the consensus is that it is, in fact, a secondary source, then I intend to add it (and some content sourced to it, of course) to obesity. Everymorning (talk) 15:43, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Sounds primary to me, although 120,700 is a huge sample size. They are running their own experiment, not reporting or summarizing someone else's.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:00, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes primary per above analysis. However this source has been cited by 103 other pubmed indexed articles [10], narrowed to 10 after activating the "review" filter. Therefore can still indirectly cite this study if a suitable secondary source can be found which discusses it. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 16:15, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Primary for what? In general, it's what we call a primary source - the journal classifies it as an "original article" and places it in the reseach section. Alexbrn (talk) 16:25, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
If I did add it to the obesity article, I would also add some content pertaining to the conclusions of this article that "The excess risk of death associated with a high BMI...was seen among East Asians but not among Indians and Bangladeshis." I would probably put this in the "Mortality" section of the obesity article. Everymorning (talk) 16:33, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
This may be a primary source but, as stated above, it is included in at least 10 reviews, had a cross-sectional design, was very large (1.1 million) and was in the highest impact medical journal. This is epidemiological science rather than medical advice or a few dozen rodents. I think this is exactly the kind of study that should have at least a passing, but specific, mention in WP (rather than just an arbitrary selected secondary review). Cite it along with a "review" article [PMID 24473060] or [PMID 22672913]. Jrfw51 (talk) 17:40, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Citing only "an arbitrary selected secondary review" is exactly what we normally encourage however. Johnbod (talk) 17:59, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
You can cite the original plus any random review. WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT has one example of a way to do both in the same bibliographic citation. (NB that the method shown there is strictly optional: you can use whatever you think is most sensible and appropriate.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:19, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Interesting conundrum–in general meta-analysis is regarded as more reliable than any individual literature review–we just haven't gotten to the point were we weigh different reliable sources properly in WP:MEDRS. I recently added a couple of pyramids to WP:MEDASSESS–but maybe there is reason to create a WP:SWYGT for medical articles as well–this is done extensively when writing scholarly articles, where citing reviews is frowned upon.-- CFCF 🍌 (email) 14:44, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Problem today..

My daughter was out in the woods today and I went to WP to see what a tick bite looked like. We're going to the physician anyway. No info! I was redirected to tick borne diseases, not very useful for someone like me who just wants info on the bite-not the disease. Best Regards,

  Bfpage |leave a message  21:01, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
It's been decades since I've seen one, but I believe the usual way to determine that there has been a tick bite (at least back in the day...) is that the tick is still attached. I don't believe that there is a characteristic appearance, especially not within a few hours. I doubt that we're going to find a source that lets us support a statement like "If a tick bites and then detaches itself, it'll look pretty much like any other tiny bug bite" (which is what I'd assume the appearance would be). But perhaps someone else knows the literature better than I. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:24, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
True, the bull's eye that is commonly known is a symptom of Borreliosis, and does not appear instantly. The bite is no different from other insect bites, except when the tick is still lodged or the head is left in the skin. (Note: the head alone doesn't transmit any disease).
The shorter time the tick is attached the less the risk of transmission of disease is.
Good catch though, we should elaborate on how transmission occurs, how bites look and when it is recommended to visit a doctor. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 13:55, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Tick bite redirects to Tick-borne disease–which is in an aweful state. I'll see what I can do–although the tick-season in the northern hemisphere is soon over it would be good to have this at a decent level by next year. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 14:35, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

The last time I pulled ticks off of me several hours after being in the woods, I don't recall anything remarkable at the bite sites, for what it's worth. Good luck. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 03:42, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Radiation enteropathy

Hi. I've just added a lot of detail to try and bring radiation enteropathy up to an appropriate standard. Despite estimates that this may be as common as inflammatory bowel disease we had a minimal stub entry before. Please help refine this and add links from related entries. Any comments would be appreciated. Thanks. Jrfw51 (talk) 13:39, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Jrfw51 I rewrote the lead presuming that this is caused by radiation therapy, even though ambiguously the lead suggested that there could be other causes. Is it fair for me to say that the colon only gets radiation problems as a result of cancer treatment? I added links. I checked Commons for images - I found nothing. Thanks for messaging. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:45, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Bluerasberry Thanks for your help. I had tried to keep part of the original lead (even if it is very rare)! It is usually after cervical or prostate cancer but can be others. Jrfw51 (talk) 17:02, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
article (references seem ok)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:12, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Visceral osteopathy

Your comments on Draft:Visceral osteopathy are welcomed. Use Preferences → Gadgets → Yet Another AFC Helper Script, or use {{afc comment|your comment here}} directly in the draft. -- Sam Sailor Talk! 13:45, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

needs both Help:Referencing_for_beginners and Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles ...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:24, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
I think the problem is larger than that–it isn't based upon sound science. This is alternative medicine and at the very height could deserve some mention at Osteopathy. The best solution is just to delete it.CFCF 💌 (email) 14:35, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
agree--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:41, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Maks therapy

Your comments on Draft:Maks therapy are welcomed. Use Preferences → Gadgets → Yet Another AFC Helper Script, or use {{afc comment|your comment here}} directly in the draft. -- Sam Sailor Talk! 15:35, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

All sources appear to be primary studies or written by developers of this therapy. I saw no pubmed reviews on this topic. Are there any significant coverage in secondary sources? Yobol (talk) 18:07, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
nothing on Google books--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:56, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Do we have specific notability guidelines for medical treatments/interventions? If so, do these guidelines say we need recent review articles on the subject to establish that it is notable? Everymorning (talk) 02:48, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
As far as I know, WP:GNG is the guideline that applies to this topic as there is no guideline more specific than that. "Written by developers of this therapy" does mean that some of the sources in this article are not independent, and primary sources in medicine often have reliability concerns. So it's iffy in this case.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:38, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Unless independent, reliable, secondary sources are found, would decline, then. Yobol (talk) 16:54, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
It might be possible to merge it or mention the subject briefly in some related article. WP:FAILN has the usual suggestions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:36, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Opinion requested at Hyperbaric medicine

I would like a consensus medical opinion on what the scope should be for the Hyperbaric medicine article. Specifically, whether it should be about hyperbaric oxygen treatment only, or include therapeutic recompression, or whether the article should be renamed to Hyperbaric oxygen treatment and exclude therapeutic recompression , which is a large enough and notable subject for a separate article, though there is overlap. The current article is vague and possibly misleading about several details, and quite a bit of work will be necessary to fix it. Much of the vagueness is in failing to distinguish between HBOT and TR, and the chambers used for them. Please leave all comments and discussion at Talk:Hyperbaric medicine. (my background is in diving and engineering, not medicine)

RexxS, Gene Hobbs, Please comment. Thanks, • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:27, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Excuse me replying here, but this subject really warrants more eyes on it than it would get at the article talk page (probably just you, me and Gene). I'll look again at the article, but it doesn't seem to be anywhere near big enough to warrant a split, especially as much of the article ought to apply to both HBOT and TR. I do agree that it needs re-organising, but I would warn you that we have suffered in the past from fringe views taking over large parts of the HBOT sections. The problem is that some parents of autistic children believe that HBOT has improved their child's condition and feel it is important to inform the world of their discovery via Wikipedia. Such "true believers" are a well-know phenomenon in fringe topics and often make some articles uneditable with their unshakeable zeal. That is another good reason not to have an article titled Hyperbaric oxygen therapy or Hyperbaric oxygen treatment as they act as a magnet for such contributors. A trawl through the article history shows that that somebody has suggested that HBOT is effective for everything from treating cerebral palsy to accelerating the growth of piranha fish - and that I've been cleaning it up since 2008 (along with Doc James, Boghog, etc.). Anyway, Peter, sorry for the rant, I do appreciate your efforts and I will do what I can at the article as time permits. --RexxS (talk) 13:32, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
commented on talk page--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:56, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Promotion of wiki-partnerships with organizations

Hello. My colleague Hexatekin (Dorothy) wrote this. I reviewed it.

It is a cool article, consider reading it. Here are some thoughts.

  • I want more organizations to consider having their expert staff contribute time to developing Wikipedia. I want high quality long term partnerships, of course, not short term advertising.
  • The article emphasizes individuals, which is nice. I would have preferred highlighting organizations instead, but of course in many cases, organizations have delicate relationships with their Wikipedians. In many cases the Wikipedian represents an organization in a public way beyond comfort or precedent in traditional organizational hierarchies. For this reason, I suggested to Dorothy that she talk about the Wikipedians over the organizations.
  • I have doubts about highlighting individual Wikipedians. Any Wikipedian who has a Wikipedia job does a fraction of the work for which they get credit, and the Wikimedia community does 90%+ of the rest of the labor. This article presents some Wikipedians favorably, and I think that helps people on the outside understand Wikipedia better. The deeper understanding is that no individual can take majority credit for anything in-wiki, and that most thanks should go to contributors who do quieter support roles. I wish I could imagine a better way to profile contributors here who do not post their photos, reveal their identities, speak in public, and announce their organizational affiliations. If anyone feels a need for greater recognition then talk to me because I want to find ways to recognize more people more effectively.
  • Dorothy works with me, I made myself available to be profiled here, and I questioned whether it was appropriate to have this article published when it partially promotes me along with other Wikipedians who work with health organizations. I went with it because I thought some public documentation would be worthwhile.
  • I want more external journalism around what Wikipedia does in the health space.

I hope this is useful. Feedback is welcome, especially criticism for what to do differently next time. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:47, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

@AminMDMA, Fæ, and Doc James: @Netha Hussain, Daniel Mietchen, and FloNight: @CFCF, Keilana, and Mrjohncummings: Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:49, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
great article--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:55, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Fine, don't include me! Johnbod (talk) 17:51, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Hmm... what an oversight... gosh... I know you are joking a bit but sorry for not insisting that you be included. Journalism often happens quickly without enough thought, and I neglected my diligence in this case.
Johnbod, I emailed you yesterday. If you would, meet me by phone or video on the schedule that I sent you, and I will interview you for Wikinews. You made history and it is better to document this now while the work is fresh than wait any longer. You were skipped in that piece so be first for a full profile, if you would be kind enough to share and talk. I know your name was on the original list for that medium piece because it even mentions the Cancer Research UK project. To keep things better sorted in the future I updated meta:Wiki_Project_Med/partnerships#Wikipedian_in_Residence so that anyone doing journalism will have the most up-to-date list of partnerships. Sorry for not catching this embarrassing oversight in my review, and please of course do not blame the writer at all. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:15, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
I don't like such stories too much but journalists apparently do. As a reader, I found it quite digestible overall, but the title just puts too much stress on those 10, while it would be easy to expand the list. For NIH, for instance, User:Hildabast might well have been a better fit. A series of portraits — starting with those not mentioned amongst the 10 — would seem like a good follow-up if they manage to stress that there are many ways to contribute and highlight how the individuals have found their way here, what turned them into active participants, and why they are still around. -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 23:27, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Gynostemma pentaphyllum

The article Gynostemma pentaphyllum makes some claims about the medical uses of this plant and its "therapeutic qualities". The text relies heavily on primary sources and has been tagged with {{medref}} since last year. When I looked at the article and references, though, I wasn't sure how to proceed because some of the citations are to Chinese journals for which I don't know how to make an assessment of their quality with respect to WP:MEDRS. From the article's history, it looks like there has been some back and forth (including my recent edit) in terms of content, so this could probably use some review by Wikipedians with medical expertise. Would anyone here care to take a look? Thanks. Deli nk (talk) 12:11, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

have tagged inline citation ,references #11,15,16,17,18 and 23 are dated per Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine) (#14 needs a reliable source per [11]) thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:48, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
It looks like there is quite a bit of primary research on this plant and on gypenosides (the purportedly active chemicals it contains), but virtually no MEDRS-compatible reviews. The only one I can find is a Cochrane review from 2013, PMID 23975682. But its bottom line is basically that there is not enough data to support strong conclusions. Looie496 (talk) 13:11, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
This falls under what WP:MEDDATE states then: "These instructions are appropriate for actively researched areas with many primary sources and several reviews and may need to be relaxed in areas with little progress or where few reviews are published." Flyer22 (talk) 05:41, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

1918 flu pandemic requested edit - help needed

H1N1

I came across an edit request at the semiprotected article Influenza pointing out an error in the case fatality rate given for the Spanish Flu. An IP editor requested that it be changed from 2% to 20%. This seems to be backed up by our content at 1918 flu pandemic#Around the globe, which gives "an estimated 10% to 20% of those who were infected died", but this does not seem to be supported by the cited source, which gives "Case-fatality rates were >2.5%, compared to <0.1% in other influenza pandemics". I don't have access to the source given in the influenza article for the case-fatality rate. Could someone with more experience in this area please take a look at these two articles, and make sure the data is correct? Thanks. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:05, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I would go along with [12] that responded shortly after you did and along the same line (of logic)...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:38, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Indian medical school project needs a look

There appears to be a project involving medical students from Smt. B. K. Shah Medical Institute & Research Centre writing articles/drafts related to otolaryngology. I found:

Voceditenore (talk) 12:41, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

ive tagged the second point...as for the third point it could be merged ([14] [15]....as for the first point it is already covered Rhinitis--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:12, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Ozzie10aaaa, can you please explain why you tagged Tone decay test as "needs more medical references for verification or relies too heavily on primary sources"? This short article is referenced to a medical textbook published by Elsevier and a reference handbook on medical technology published by Springer. Both are exactly the kind of sources recommended at Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine). – Voceditenore (talk) 15:27, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
the "procedure section" seems to rely too heavily on one reference it should have at least another (therefore needs more references).......IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:34, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
I've added two more sources to the "Procedure" section, both high quality, and have removed the tag. Frankly, this seems like overkill for a three-sentence section describing the procedure for an extremely simple standard test, but never mind :). Voceditenore (talk) 16:00, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:33, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
I think that was a case of tag bombing. One high-quality source is good enough (one top-quality source is good enough for an entire article, especially if it's a stub), and WP:Citation overkill should be actively discouraged. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:39, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
one top-quality source is good enough for an entire article? (Wikipedia:When_to_cite )...By citing sources for Wikipedia content, you enable users to verify that the information given is supported by reliable sources, thus improving the credibility of Wikipedia .... You also help users find additional information on the subject;[16] (BTW when you click reference #1 it says page not available?( page 26, however the article text says pg. 170?))--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:31, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
My apologies, it is page 26. I've now corrected this in the citation. But Ozzie10aaaa, this has nothing to do with the reason you originally gave: "seems to rely too heavily on one reference". Note also that linking to the book on Google Books is a courtesy and is not required. Whether a specific page is available often depends on your geographical location. The page in question is fully viewable in the UK where I am. The fact that you cannot see the page doesn't make the reference inadequate. Nor is it a reason to request yet more references. Have another look at Wikipedia:Citing sources which you have been quoting, and read through it thoroughly. Voceditenore (talk) 14:14, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
thank you for correcting, I wasn't really able to see the page before, I therefore retract my original post,..it is in this manner we all help the reader, thank you again--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:10, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
@WhatamIdoing: Thank you for confirming my original impression concerning citation overkill. In light of this, I've moved the two extra references I had added from "References" to "Further reading" as they contain extra material on both the test and its use in diagnostics in case anyone ever wishes to expand the article. I've also added a third piece of further reading, the original 1957 article by Raymond Carhart who developed the test. Voceditenore (talk) 12:47, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes, one good source can be enough. Wikipedia is not a bibliography service. It's an encyclopedia. We need an article that provides a neutral summary of a subject. One method—note that I wrote one method, not the sole possible method—of achieving the neutral-encyclopedic-summary goal is to use, and therefore to cite, multiple good sources. However, if you can achieve that goal while only citing one good source, then that's okay. It is not unusual for a stub to have a single source, and so long as that source actually supports all of the necessary material, and so long as the result is an approximately neutral encyclopedia, then that's fine.
This is an important thing to keep in mind, because reverting and tagging discourages contributors. I've talked to several people who have done research on Wikipedia editors, and one of the common stories from high-quality former contributors is that they tried to help, and the work was reverted or tagged as being inadequate. The lesson they learned—and that we taught them—is that even though they are experts in their subject matter, they aren't "good enough" to contribute to Wikipedia. If you want people to stick around, you should build on what they have done (whenever remotely possible), rather than just telling them that they did it "wrong" by your standards. For example, if you want two sources, then add a second one yourself. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:31, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Edits to light therapy

Was wondering what other editors think about these edits to light therapy. Everymorning (talk) 03:33, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Very reminiscent of what I was looking at earlier at Yoram Harth, a highly promotional piece created on 31 August by User:James Newberg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). LeadSongDog come howl! 05:23, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Note also the misleading edit summary and innocent looking edits at the top. This is a common tactic by paid editors familiar with how wp works. They must hope that a reviewer may not bother to scroll down further to see the promotional content they added. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 06:24, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Especially the last m-edit which effectively hides all the additions from the Watchlist. CFCF 💌 📧 13:49, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Haha, saw that all of them were marked m. CFCF 💌 📧 13:50, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
More they hope editors won't click into the history when reviewing the watch list. A similar tactic shows up in slow moving edit wars. It does suggest a possible better way to form watch lists: it would help to have the watch list offer a single click for the cumulative diff of the latest string of edits by the most recent editor. LeadSongDog come howl! 14:12, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
That would be useful - the current default watchlist is an archaic piece of crap - but the "Expand watchlist to show all changes" preference setting helps with this problem. Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:35, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Huh! Didn't notice it can do that now, thank you. Now if diff ever gets fixed... LeadSongDog come howl! 00:44, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
I reverted the edits and added a few new sources. There is now a discussion on the talk page. KateWishing (talk) 19:52, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

User:John K. Landre/sandbox

Dear medical experts. Here's another old draft. Is this a notable topic? If not, it can be deleted under db-g13 provided that no one edits it.—Anne Delong (talk) 03:30, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Nothing there that meets Wikipedia's notability criteria. Looie496 (talk) 04:02, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
agree--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:11, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Okay - it's gone now. Thanks for taking time to look at it.—Anne Delong (talk) 03:51, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
thank you Anne--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:49, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Pancreatic cancer types

Islet cell carcinoma was redirected a little while ago. Is this a good idea? I don't know how much this type differs in treatment about outcome from the general case. "Type 351, basically like the previous 350 types" isn't a very useful article, but "Type 4, with significant differences" should probably be kept for expansion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:06, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

it does offer some information (however the redirect article Pancreatic_neuroendocrine_tumor has no diagnosis section--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:21, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
As a gastroenterologist, I think this redirect is appropriate for present day terminology. But I agree we need to work on the diagnosis section greatly. Jrfw51 (talk) 20:31, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
As far as I remember "Islet cell carcinoma" was replaced by the new name a while back. They are the same, with many types and potential symptoms. Much of the diagnosis section at Neuroendocrine tumor will be applicable, but I don't think I should try to build it up. Johnbod (talk) 23:08, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Edit to ataxia

Was wondering if this edit is OK per MEDRS, since the cited source is a case report (which is as primary as you can get with respect to MEDRS). Everymorning (talk) 18:29, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

That's way undue and contains no qualifiers. On the basis of a case study, we can't justify a whole section.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:31, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
agree [17]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:38, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Collaboration of the Month

Spondylolisthesis

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

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

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

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

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

Category "fascia"?

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

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

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

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

well done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:21, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
ack. we already have Category:Connective tissue. Sonabi would you please speedy delete with {{Db-self}}? Thanks -- Jytdog (talk) 19:25, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Isn't fascia a specific type of connective tissue, which is a wider topic? No reason why fascia cannot be a subcategory of connective tissue... Matthew Ferguson (talk) 19:38, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
meh. microcategorization. people will do as they will but it is best to understand the tree before you start adding branches. 20:01, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

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

In my opinion it is not a waste of time to create this category. Articles describing fascias has been sorted into a number of various categories, e.g. Category:Soft tissue or Category:Muscular system; this behavior made me think that autors of these articles actually didn’t know how to categorize theirs articles, because there wasn’t any category clearly describing fascias. To sort an article about a fascia in the category muscular system (maybe because a fascia is very related with the muscle) is like to sort an article about an muscle in the category bone, because a muscle is related with a bone. But a fascia is not a muscle as a muscle is not a bone – and because of this there are these various categories. I can better understand the point that the category connective tissue already exists, but it is a wider topic what Matthew Ferguson already said (and fascia is a subcategory of connective tissue already). And CFCF what do you mean saying categories will be defunct? --Sonabi (talk) 22:23, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
I don't mean that they are pointless, just that working on them right now is. A categorization system is massively useful, but the Wikipedia one isn't–it often hides things and makes it very hard to get a good overview of various nested categories.
We recently imported the entire TA98 as well as FMA into Wikidata and linked it through {{Infobox anatomy}}, and these are far more useful.
What I meant is that it would be a better use of time to use Wikidata to automate category creation using FMA entries–or even to just wait until someone goes and does this. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 22:36, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Ah, ok. So if I understood you right, you are against that I created the category, because it would have been better to do something else, but you are for creating the category (by a bot or something like that)? --Sonabi (talk) 23:04, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

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

CFCF how would this work for pathology articles, would it follow the ICD 10 (or 11 when it comes out)? Matthew Ferguson (talk) 02:34, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
ICD doesn't categorize in that way–if anything it would use DOID. (Will elaborate later, wrote a long comment that was lost). -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 11:00, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
@Sonabi please feel free in future also to post at WikiProject Anatomy as with several editors in this project we have gradually been moving the care of anatomy articles to that wikiproject. As for a category of Fascia I am somewhat ambivalent. If it is easily done then so be it, otherwise if it requires a lot of effort, I'd advise that the effort probably won't make a material difference to users and is expended in a more reader-orientated direction. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:55, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
I will do and apologize for not having done. I think that you won’t have any further work with the new category since I finished sorting all fascia related articles in this category (I strongly think that I’m finish with that). --Sonabi (talk) 23:14, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
it is a very good addition to category thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:55, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

PBC

Primary biliary cirrhosis

There has been an initiative to change the name from Primary biliary cirrhosis to primary biliary cholangitis. Initially patient support groups advocated for this, but their views have now been accepted by professional organisations such as the AASLD.[18] Articles reviewing the name change have now just appeared together in Gut, Hepatology [19] and J Hepatol, with further reviews in J Hepatol and in Can J Gastroenterol Hepatol.

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

Those are not "articles", they are letters to the editor. This is not as straightforward an issue as you make it seem. Please get consensus on the talk page before trying to force your material into the article. Looie496 (talk) 15:15, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
while I understand your point, Looie (and JYTdog) are correct there must be consensus on the talk page.--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:23, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
I can't see this as an urgent issue. Wikipedia has wp:NODEADLINE. We can wait for quality secondary sources. LeadSongDog come howl! 17:14, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
No these are not letters -- they are Leading Articles (or similiar). They are not original research, but consensus statements of leading researchers and the journal editors that accepted simultaneous publication. No this isn't urgent but let's be bold. The original name remains for those who wish to see it. Why wait? Jrfw51 (talk) 20:16, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Why? Because this name change does not yet seem to be common. If you go to the Guidelines page of AASLD, you'll see "Primary Biliary Cirrhosis" (not cholangitis). Likewise, the Mayo Clinic, the NIH/NIDDK, the Canadian Liver Foundation, the American Liver Foundation and others only list "cirrhosis", not "cholangitis". WP is not the place to advance a cause; an encyclopedia should follow, not lead, the field. soupvector (talk) 22:56, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
exactly, [20] this mentions it but in no way is that reason to change an article title--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:16, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Can we do this at the article talk page? Johnbod (talk) 12:03, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

OK -- see also discussion on Jytdog's talk page.[21] Jrfw51 (talk) 12:27, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Work

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

FoCuSandLeArN Is the author still around? Really could do with inline citations if they still have access to these sources. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 17:14, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
@Medicalphyls: Let's see... FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 17:53, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
I note that the draft has been declined again because no inline citation. Therefore it seems a fruitless exercise to copy edit this article. Need access to the original sources or need to start over with new sources. Latter might be easier if original author not contactable. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 10:47, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
I've left a note for the latest reviewer with relevant quotations from the AFC instructions (WP:Nobody reads the directions), and a request to repeat the review. The subject is notable, and while the article needs some work, it's not delete-worthy. It should have been accepted. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:41, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

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

pdf request

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

Wikipedia:The_Wikipedia_Library might be able to help(ive found them very useful)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:52, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 09:54, 21 September 2015 (UTC), with the disclaimer that my internet connection has been dodgy lately.
Thanks Adrian - no rush! 31.49.14.137 (talk) 13:29, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

Issues with Abortion and mental health

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

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

Wiki Ed medical courses for fall 2015

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

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

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

Talk:Honey/Archive 4#Discussion of anti-disease effects

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

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

Psych editathon

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

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

Draft:Flow diverter grading system

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

I would echo the prior reviewers opinion(even though I disagree in regards to his/her view of [22] flow diverters, as there are reviews available)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:22, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
It should probably be moved to Flow diverter (is that the right name for these things?) in the hope that someone will expand the article to explain what the thing actually is. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:21, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Ozzie10aaaa and WhatamIdoing, I have move the draft to Draft:Flow diverter, added some basic information, and summarized the information about the grading scale. It awaits improvement by someone who knows what they are doing.—Anne Delong (talk) 11:01, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
thanks Anne--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:15, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Frank A. Sloan

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

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

Multiple chemical sensitivity

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

I was unable to find a source, as well (for the name change)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:48, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Isn't idiopathic a contradiction to "environmental intolerance"? Seems like a bafflegab neologism to me. LeadSongDog come howl! 16:12, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps. Maybe the intended meaning is that the exact environmental factors are unknown. Using the same logic as LeadSongDog above, electromagnetic sensitivity would appear not to be covered by this idiopathic term, despite the source presented by WAID. Here the supposed etiologic factor is identified explicitly. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 17:38, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
It's not a neologism, as it's been suggested for about two decades or so, and it's not actually a contradiction: it's "an idiopathic type of environmental intolerance", not "an idiopathic–environmental type of intolerance".
I have read rumors that the "Idiopathic environmental intolerance" name is part of a conspiracy by the "chemicals industry" to suppress the mention of "chemicals" in the One True Name™, so there may be politics in here somewhere. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:04, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
in any event, its still not clear what reference (what reason/basis )was used (and explained) for the change--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:40, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Women's Health template

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

Templates don't contain references... Matthew Ferguson (talk) 23:00, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes, my comment above wasn't clear. What I meant was that the template should only be added to articles whose referencing meets WP:MEDRS, since placing the template on an article makes a claim that that article is a medical one. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:08, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
With reference to the article; the medical use is mostly historic. Of the current use and research, the last sentence of the history of use says it has current, limited use. Yet the newest reference of was published 9 years ago. Also, the last sentence of ethnomedical use is supported by a (5 year old) primary source. I've tagged both. Little pob (talk) 09:44, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
agree per MEDRS[23]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:55, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Excellent online source

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

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

Dopamine at GAN

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

references look good(consistent with Wikipedia:Good_article_criteria--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:06, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
The article currently does a poor job of discussing the medication aspects of the topic. I am thinking a split as proposed here would be a good idea for this page to Talk:Norepinephrine/Archive 1#Split Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:33, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Healthy swimming

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

its been redirected[24]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:57, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Diving medicine

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

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

Thanks Ozzie10aaaa. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 20:13, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
The way that you promote an article to B-class, or to anything except A, FA, FL, and GA, is this: Change the |class= parameter in the banner at the top of the page, and save the page. Any WPMEDder who has a basic idea of what the standards are is welcome to do this. Any WPMED folk who want to read about the standards can visit WP:MEDA. You are encouraged to fix ratings on articles that you have improved, on the grounds that you know their strengths and weaknesses better than anyone else.
As a general rule, we tend to (accidentally) under-rate articles, so if you're waffling between Start and C, or between C and B, then consider picking the higher rating. The worst possible outcome is that I'll revert you and maybe even leave an explanation for why I did. You are even permitted to disagree with me if I do so. Seriously: WP:Be bold instead of bureaucratic with these things. If you truly can't decide, or if you don't want to bother, then you can leave a note at the bottom of WP:MEDA. Someone usually goes through that list every month or two to deal with requests. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:47, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Agree. The assessment table on our main page has a number (125,000 last I looked) that represents the number of changes that we need to incrementally make to article ratings to get all our articles to FA class. In order to avoid 125,000 discussions (or 32,000 B-class discussions) we need to be bold and make these changes, and be forgiving and assume good faith if we disagree with the assessments of others. --Tom (LT) (talk) 20:20, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
That is what I did. However, the article still lacks any content in the ethics section, and since I have no idea yet of what should go there, perhaps someone could point me to an article with a good ethics section I could use as an example. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 20:39, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Is ethics a big deal in this area? If not, then remove the section. A lot of medicolegal sections look the same: "Dear doctors: you can be held legally liable if you miss this diagnosis". If there's nothing special to say, then it's usually omitted. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:02, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Need an admin

We need an admin to clean up after a move: Talk:Minister of Health (Argentina) should be at Talk:Ministry of Health (Argentina), which is currently a redirect to an irrelevant article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:02, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Done Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:09, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Infobox type for norepinephrine

Norepinephrine structure

Comments are solicited at Talk:Norepinephrine/Archive 1#Drug box or "infobox neurotransmitter"?. Looie496 (talk) 13:35, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

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

Engaging academic experts in creation of WP content

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

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

Consider an alternative approach (leveraging that last point):

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

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

The journal (#3) has certainly been proposed. Really the problem is not the availability of sources (we have unfilled offers of access to (some) Elsevier and BMJ content for example), but a shortage of editors with the knowledge to understand the sources and (much easier to accquire) the Wikipedian experience to write them up in articles for a wide general readership. Suggestions as to sources (#1) on talk pages are helpful, but don't think that there's a pool of editors who will fall on them & write them up. There isn't. The first factors you mention are true, but can be relatively easily overcome - the different style required for a broad audience is actually probably more difficult (or so many of our articles suggest). If you already have the knowledge, improving, correcting and updating articles within your area of expertise is probably the most efficient way to help. Johnbod (talk) 00:25, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
The journal has been proposed but only would publish the 61 Project Medicine Featured Articles, according to the description. Sixty one articles does not a journal make. The guidelines for a WP article to be included in such an open access journal would have to be altered OR a massive effort to improve med articles to FA status would have to begin. It is difficult enough to get an article to GA status in Project Medicine. Soupvector I would love to see your ideas take hold and come to be. I don't think I will be able to make the conference in Washington D.C. only because it costs so much to find lodging. Let's keep this discussion going and feel free to take it to my talk page-only because this talk page is so busy this conversation will soon be archived. Best Regards,
  Bfpage |leave a message  14:51, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
This is not about re-publishing WP articles in journals. It the opposite - it is about getting review articles written that we want or need, so we have sources on which to base WP articles. Soupvector says that experts (doctors, scientists) generate reviews randomly/haphazardly and it costs them money if they publish the review in an open access journal. What soupvector is proposing is that Wikipedia somehow sponsor/drive/commission/promote the writing of reviews that it needs written to keep medical articles up to date. My take on the suggestion, is that I am uncomfortable with it. There is something cart-driving-the-horse about it. Jytdog (talk) 16:49, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
I don't generally think that we need reviews on whole subjects; outside of the (jillions of) rare diseases and experimental treatments, we can usually find something on what we need. But we fairly often need a source that explicitly states some fact that experts consider too WP:BLUE to bother writing down—especially when we're dealing with a MEDRS warrior or POV pusher who is demanding a recent review article in a decent journal for not-exactly biomedical things, like how long a surgery usually takes or how satisfied patients are with the treatment or something like that. But these are idiosyncratic things, and there's no good way to predict what we might find handy. As a systematic issue, though, reviews that "compare and contrast" actual practice in different countries is very helpful. An open-access source that says, "In Rich Country, when we suspect malaria, we run all these tests, we treat with X and Y, we test again (and ignore the patient's social situation entirely), but in Poor Country, when we suspect malaria, we just tell them to go down to the corner store and pick up some anti-malarials over the counter (and then make sure that there's an auntie nearby to take care of the house and kids this week)" is incredibly important. A lot of review articles (especially systematic reviews) talk about what ought to be done in developed countries. Finding good sources about actual reality, in all of its breadth and diversity, is harder than finding good sources about the ideal treatment. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:09, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Heck yes WAID reliable sources that discuss actual clinical practice would be amazing; the compare and contrast b/n rich/poor countries would be amazinger. In my experience, it is not easy to find good, current sources describing what practitioners and sick people actually do most commonly, for many conditions. Jytdog (talk) 16:31, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
As for option 3, a variant thereof exists as Topic Pages in PLOS Computational Biology. I have discussed with PLOS an expansion of this scheme to their other journals, and they are open to it but need someone to drive it. Perhaps soupvector could drive this for PLOS Medicine? -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 23:38, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
This seems like a fantastic idea. Let's let the discussion mature a bit, but I'm game (though I might be more inclined toward PLoSPathogens). Intriguing. soupvector (talk) 00:29, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
it does seem like an idea(but more opinions should be sought)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:56, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
PLOS Pathogens should work too. Do you have an article in mind that's missing here or just a stub? -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 10:27, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
As just mentioned in the section below, annotating Wikipedia articles by way of Hypothes.is may be worth a thought in terms of getting expert feedback. -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 23:35, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
I have been talking a bit with some people at PLOS Medicine about a wiki-collaboration. I am especially interested in PLOS's continued outstanding success of integrating with reddit to convene scientific conversations of hundreds of participants multiple times weekly, and to format, document, and archive the discussion with a doi on it. I think history is being made with this project of theirs, and I wish Wiki could be a part of it merely by being a partner to be sure to include the paper discussed in a relevant Wikipedia article. I wrote some about this at meta:Grants:IdeaLab/Reddit Science AMA + PLOS + Wikimedia. A couple of weeks ago I met in person with a PLOS staffer doing communications outreach and discussed doing more. He is open to hearing proposals and I am still thinking of what to suggest. If anyone wants to talk through something with me then consider emailing me for a video chat. Personally - considering that the Wikimedia Foundation invests money in partnerships with closed access journals, I would like to see a WMF investment in paid staff - perhaps in PLOS' own nonprofit open access office - to encourage them to develop their relationship with the Wikimedia community and make for more seamless conversation between us. In the long term Wikipedia and PLOS must have a close relationship as leading nonprofit publishers. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:28, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
I can see advantages to making a list of topics for this purpose, as long as a few safeguards are in place. So e.g. I'd say that entries should be subject to consensus, they shouldn't be too specific (like a request for reporting of a specific fact or a specific research result), there shouldn't already be reviews available, and there should be enough primary literature available to support one - otherwise, we might end up promoting biased or low-quality sources. The list could double as a collection of topics for which editors could search for MEDRS that others may have missed. I also wouldn't prioritize open-access status over journal quality, since a few editors will still be able to access the articles, and the increased weight would let us include more information. Sunrise (talk) 00:01, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
having given it further thought I would go with My take on the suggestion, is that I am uncomfortable with it. There is something cart-driving-the-horse about it [25] thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:46, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Magnetogenetics

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

reference #1 is a comment/news [26] and #3 is abstract only [27] (plus the "advantages section" has no references)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:48, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
I do have access to Sciencedirect and I can't find anything about magnetism in that third reference.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:30, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Is there consensus for specific edits now, or do editors want to wait for protection to expire? --NeilN talk to me 15:44, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
it could go either way, its odd that editors on that page are very recent accounts([28] [29])?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:59, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
No doubt there's some COI involved. Added notes to both editors' talk pages. --NeilN talk to me 16:09, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi. It's the first time I created a Wiki page. I was hoping to do some better research so I can polish the details. It appears to me Abs2017 holds some grudge against the author of the first reference? Qisq2 (talk) 16:40, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
I believe both you and your associate should answer the relevant COI questions at each talk page ([30][31] placed by NeilN talk to me thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:51, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Nice catch, shutting that down. The article should be deleted/redirected to optogenetics. it is not ripe yet. (two hits on "magenetogenetics" in pubmed, neither of them reviews). article appears to be written by someone violating WP:SELFCITE, and it appears to be edit warred over by another academic trying to claim credit for the work, who is in any case violating WP:BLPCOI which is policy. Jytdog (talk) 17:02, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Well, I have only read reference #1 (2010) and #2 (2015) on the topic so far. It doesn't seem to be a hot topic, but it's definitely not new either. Just found another reference by some different guys [32].Qisq2 (talk) 18:36, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Yeah it's fine.Qisq2 (talk) 22:49, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Done, thanks. --NeilN talk to me 03:28, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
NeilN thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:32, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Index templates

 Moved to Template talk:Medicine navs for further development. All interested editors are encouraged to watchlist that page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:36, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

  • Case study 1: A person is diagnosed with heart disease and wants to know more about treatment and relevant anatomy. The subnavs provide easy links.
To see how this works, I go to Heart disease, which redirects to Cardiovascular disease. At the bottom of the page, I see four navboxes. If I expand the second ({{Heart diseases}}), I see a three-layered hierarchy of link groups. Seeing something like that, my inclination would be to abandon the navbox and try a search (see below). But suppose I carry on, wading through dozens of terms like Monckeberg's arteriosclerosis, and eventually make it down to a box titled "Index of the circulatory system" (which is {{Vascular navs}}). And there I see a link to anatomy and a group devoted to treatment. If I click on "Anatomy" I get another template, {{Arteries and veins}}, with another two-level hierarchy and {{Vascular navs}} transcluded at the bottom. At which point only the fear of death would keep me from giving up.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

so..you do seem to have a point, however something "in between" 1. deleting all the templates (in Med[34]) and 2.replace with lists might be more balanced (having said that, I believe more opinions would be best)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:47, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
If you mean, delete some and replace others by lists, that sounds reasonable (I wasn't really implying an all or nothing scenario). Some templates might convert into good categories or lists, others may not be suitable. RockMagnetist(talk) 22:26, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
exactly what I meant, this might be better,(but we need more opinions)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:31, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Rock, this may seem a little indirect, but I can offer you a complete and immediate, if superficial, solution to the problem. Just go to https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heart_disease and you will see the the navbox problem is completely removed. Also, if you are reaching the age at which presbyopia becomes an issue, then you may find that you like that display anyway. Quite a few readers using that even on desktop systems. And, on a more serious note, if anyone's hoping that readers will use navboxes to reach important, related articles, you should note that navboxes are completely invisible to 30% of our readers. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:46, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, but I wear glasses. What do you mean by invisible? RockMagnetist(talk) 22:49, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
I mean "not able to be seen". Follow the link, scroll to the bottom, and see what you see. Navboxes are not displayed on the Mobile site, and that's about 30% of our page views. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:15, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Naturally, if navboxes are useless, we could delete them all. But I believe they are useful if done right. RockMagnetist(talk) 22:55, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Tom (LT): Thanks for keeping an open mind on this - always hard when something you have worked on is challenged. I hope that anyone who has found them useful will provide some details. In the TfD, you were the only one who did. Some people will go to a deletion debate and more or less equate "navbox" with "useful navigation tool." But is it as useful as it could be? RockMagnetist(talk) 15:52, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
As for delete vs. outline, I lean towards delete; I just provided the demo as an option to consider. Also, I don't think the way to prevent users from adding navboxes is to add meta-navboxes; that just changes the baseline for template creep, and navboxes get added anyway, as the Nervous system example demonstrated. RockMagnetist(talk) 15:57, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

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

  • Case study 2: A student has an exam on the nervous system. The subnav provides links to all the relevant anatomical templates for the said area.
    The first thing that occurs to me is, if I were facing an exam, would I rely on Wikipedia instead of a textbook? But, pressing on, I go to Nervous system. I look at the table of contents and see Anatomy in vertebrates. This section has a link at the top to List of nerves of the human body, and it has a discussion in prose of how the nervous system is organized. Possibly good enough already. Now I go to the bottom of the page, and see {{Nervous system}}. This has a nice, compact list of articles on the main parts of the nervous system. Below it are {{Central nervous system navs}} and {{Peripheral nervous system navs}}, with links to templates on many of the same subjects. However, if I want to know more about the meninges, I have already clicked on the article link. I know that meninges is different from meninges; but that would never occur to a first-time user. RockMagnetist(talk) 16:18, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Case study 3: A lay reader wants to know about what bones we have in our body, but don't know their names. The templates provide easy links to said bones by body part.
    I start at bone. A quick scan gives me the impression that this article is mainly about the structure, development and so on of individual bones. I try human anatomy, which redirects me to human body. Browsing this, I see a link to human skeleton (now why didn't I think of that immediately?). This has the section Divisions, with a few lines each for Axial skeleton and Appendicular skeleton. Now, I must admit, this is a bit slow, so I try going to the bottom. I find a box, "Bones of the human skeleton", with 7 templates inside of it, all but one of them massive and multi-leveled, and all of them transcluding {{Bone and cartilage navs}}, which in turn links to all of them. Just think of the reduction in complexity if {{Bone and cartilage navs}} were here instead of all those templates! But {{Bones of skeleton}} without any subnav might be even better.
At this point it occurs to me that I went to the navboxes earlier than usual because I am discussing them. Normally, I would look at See also first. So I go there, and what do I find? List of bones of the human skeleton. RockMagnetist(talk) 16:45, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
I must be crazy, because I don't find this system terribly difficult to navigate, and these little user vignettes read to me like scripts for the wiki-equivalent of those late-night infomercials involving someone who sets their kitchen on fire trying to boil water. I don't object to simplifying it - it's certainly unusual to have meta-templates that navigate between other templates - but converting to outlines doesn't really appeal to me; those things are un-watched and un-edited backwaters, and the vertical-ness makes them harder to read than the condensed navbox format. Opabinia regalis (talk) 17:10, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
No doubt the more you use this system, the better you get at using them - and the less you need them. Each of the indexes has a doc page that says "These are geared towards lay readers". I am an appropriate person to test them on - lots of experience with Wikipedia, but not a lot of medical knowledge. And the thing to note about my case studies is that I can get the information I'm looking for very quickly if I ignore the navboxes. Hardly setting the kitchen on fire. RockMagnetist(talk) 17:24, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Well, I don't really use this system often - I work on molecular biology articles; anything as big as a bone is beyond me ;) - though I did look into it when one of these was TfD'd awhile ago. No doubt the navbox pileup at the bottom of an article like human skeleton is a problem, but I'm not sure what the best solution is. Separate "outline"-type articles with navbox-y formatting maybe. Opabinia regalis (talk) 17:43, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
The truth is, the above scenarios are how I would search for information if I started within Wikipedia (because otherwise navboxes couldn't possibly help me). But that's not how I really look for information. I would go to Google and do the following (by case number):
  1. Search heart disease treatment. No Wikipedia pages in sight, so maybe I would go to the Mayo Clinic page.
  2. Search anatomy of nervous system. No Wikipedia pages in sight, so just for the heck of it I restrict it to en.wikipedia.org. The first hit is for Nervous system, and I follow "Jump to anatomy in vertebrates", which lands me at the section by that name, where the link to List of nerves of the human body is at the top.
  3. Search bones in the human body. The top link is to List of bones of the human skeleton.
That was 30 seconds or less for each search. I think the moral of this story is, structure the articles well and you won't need navboxes at all. RockMagnetist(talk) 17:44, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
On the question of usefulness: They are doubtless "useful" for de-WP:ORPHANing articles. They may be used significantly by a small number of editors. Whether anyone else uses them is unclear. It seems unlikely that typical readers use them very much. As I said above, they're systematically stripped out of the mobile version. You can't see them, and therefore you can't use them (even if you go to the navbox's page in the template namespace) there. Therefore we can guarantee that 30% of readers aren't using them, and despite these being invisible on the mobile site for a very long time, I have never heard a complaint about their absence. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:39, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
So what is your recommendation? Get rid of all the templates? Leave them as they are because it doesn't matter? Or something else? RockMagnetist(talk) 21:49, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

Conflating these issues is hard to avoid in a case study. I think the naming is not a big problem because the redirects work well. Article content may be more of an issue (more below). Absolutely you use too many navboxes and the navboxes have too many links. I'm not sure what you mean by moving the internal navboxes to template space, since they are already there; but moving them to documentation pages is a good idea. RockMagnetist(talk) 23:55, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
And now I would like to say something positive about the internal navboxes. They are well organized; I like the division into description, disease and treatment. Some of the articles like Cardiovascular disease would benefit from closer alignment with their content. And, converted into regular templates linking to articles, they would be an improvement over some of the existing regular templates. RockMagnetist(talk) 23:55, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
While a navbox may appear redundant to a category or list, it is not the same as a single category, a group of categories under one parent category, or a list. Each section of a navbox may seem to be a carbon copy of a category or list, but that is not always the case, and in many cases, the navbox "categories" do not reflect Wikipedia's custom for creating and organizing categories or for lists.,,,The success of navboxes can be seen in this (uncontrolled) study of this navbox, which has shown that in the month following its creation, readership of the articles contained within increased by 8.5% (an average of 406 views per article) and editing of these pages increased by 37% from the month prior to its creation [35]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:44, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
We already agree that some form of navbox is useful. RockMagnetist(talk) 02:40, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

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

  • Case study 1: A person is diagnosed with heart disease and wants to know more about treatment and relevant anatomy. The subnavs provide easy links.
To see how this works, I go to Heart disease, which redirects to Cardiovascular disease. At the bottom of the page, I see four navboxes. If I expand the second ({{Heart diseases}}), I see a three-layered hierarchy of link groups. Seeing something like that, my inclination would be to abandon the navbox and try a search (see below). But suppose I carry on, wading through dozens of terms like Monckeberg's arteriosclerosis, and eventually make it down to a box titled "Index of the circulatory system" (which is {{Vascular navs}}). And there I see a link to anatomy and a group devoted to treatment. If I click on "Anatomy" I get another template, {{Arteries and veins}}, with another two-level hierarchy and {{Vascular navs}} transcluded at the bottom. At which point only the fear of death would keep me from giving up.
  • Case study 2: A student has an exam on the nervous system. The subnav provides links to all the relevant anatomical templates for the said area.
    The first thing that occurs to me is, if I were facing an exam, would I rely on Wikipedia instead of a textbook? But, pressing on, I go to Nervous system. I look at the table of contents and see Anatomy in vertebrates. This section has a link at the top to List of nerves of the human body, and it has a discussion in prose of how the nervous system is organized. Possibly good enough already. Now I go to the bottom of the page, and see {{Nervous system}}. This has a nice, compact list of articles on the main parts of the nervous system. Below it are {{Central nervous system navs}} and {{Peripheral nervous system navs}}, with links to templates on many of the same subjects. However, if I want to know more about the meninges, I have already clicked on the article link. I know that meninges is different from meninges; but that would never occur to a first-time user. RockMagnetist(talk) 16:18, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Case study 3: A lay reader wants to know about what bones we have in our body, but don't know their names. The templates provide easy links to said bones by body part.
    I start at bone. A quick scan gives me the impression that this article is mainly about the structure, development and so on of individual bones. I try human anatomy, which redirects me to human body. Browsing this, I see a link to human skeleton (now why didn't I think of that immediately?). This has the section Divisions, with a few lines each for Axial skeleton and Appendicular skeleton. Now, I must admit, this is a bit slow, so I try going to the bottom. I find a box, "Bones of the human skeleton", with 7 templates inside of it, all but one of them massive and multi-leveled, and all of them transcluding {{Bone and cartilage navs}}, which in turn links to all of them. Just think of the reduction in complexity if {{Bone and cartilage navs}} were here instead of all those templates! But {{Bones of skeleton}} without any subnav might be even better.
So basically you're saying, skip the article and the regular navboxes and go straight to the index boxes? All the rest is "extraneous"? I think you're having a hard time visualizing how a first-time user might approach this page because you have been developing these indices for so long. One view of how regular users behave is to look at page views, because if you use a link in an index box, you actually visit a navbox. In the last 30 days, 29,049 readers visited Cardiovascular disease, 492 visited {{Arteries and veins}}. And the latter is linked to over 50 other navboxes through {{Vascular navs}}. One of the links in {{Arteries and veins}} is to Venous plexus. This is a stub with no references, yet it got 781 hits in the last 30 days. Unfortunately, I know of no way to determine how often a regular navbox is used because readers can click one of its links without visiting it. But clearly it's the index boxes that are extraneous. RockMagnetist(talk) 16:19, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
On second thought, I can get some idea of how often the regular navboxes are used because a lot of them duplicate lists. For example, {{Heart diseases}} duplicates a lot of List of ICD-9 codes 390–459: diseases of the circulatory system, which got 4430 hits in the last 30 days, and List of ICD-9 codes 760–779: certain conditions originating in the perinatal period, which got 2606 hits. And they got all of these hits even though most of the links to them are through navboxes. RockMagnetist(talk) 16:51, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Actually I'm equally confused about what you're saying, RockMagnetist. You identify that index boxes are confusing. Yet you also lump together a whole lot of other concerns about they way our articles are linked. My point is that removing index boxes won't fix any of those other concerns. So by fixing index boxes (or removing them) we get rid of any of the problems in clear text. However the preceding problems (which I have struck through) remain. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:43, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
These things you refer to as "conflating" and "lumping together" are what I call "context". The purpose of all those numbers is to compare the use of an index box with the use of links from the article itself and in regular navboxes. The answer is not definitive, but it does seem to suggest that index boxes are used very little compared to the alternatives. However, I think it is worth exploring the usefulness of certain groups of regular navboxes as well. RockMagnetist(talk) 01:09, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Here is another statistic that might be easier to understand: {{Vascular navs}} links to 32 navboxes. Collectively, in the past 30 days, they were visited 13,856 times.[1] The index box appears in about 1600 articles. Thus, it was used an average of 9 times per article over 30 days.[2] At the other end, I would estimate the navboxes have a total of about 1000 links, so on average each target article was accessed about 13 times. Is it really necessary to gather more information? RockMagnetist(talk) 02:12, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ for an average of 433 per navbox (the min was 142 and the max was 676 - a remarkably tight grouping).
  2. ^ What we don't know is how many of the people who arrived at the navboxes actually made use of them

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

Decision point

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

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

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

I like that. It would be interesting to gather some information. I can't guarantee that I could be involved the whole way - next month, real life will be pretty demanding for me. I think the experiment should be carefully designed, with links to closely related and more remote articles. Here is one possible set:
One article that is mentioned frequently in Cardiovascular disease: e.g., Vascular disease
One that is not mentioned as such but is in at least one regular navbox: e.g., Mitral stenosis
One that is not linked in the article or any regular navbox: e.g., Superficial vein
For a bonus, we might want to look at connections between these lower-level articles.
A possible control experiment: replace any templates that duplicate lists by links to the lists in ‘’See also’’:
RockMagnetist(talk) 05:22, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
There's no rush. If somebody else volunteers to help out (always good to have more than one editor involved, because real life happens) and nobody objects, then we could start by picking a couple of navboxes and targets, which will save us some time when we actually want to do it. We could make a list of things to test and how to do it at a page like WP:WikiProject Medicine/Navboxes.
I kind of like the idea of using an actual random number generator to pick which links we'll test in the navbox. We can change some links and not others. Does that sound good to you? WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:25, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes, a separate page sounds like a good idea. I think random choices are good in principle, but some thought still needs to go in the implementation. I think it's best to have controls in the experiment, which is why I suggested comparing different ways of getting between the same pair of articles. Also, since the purpose of index boxes (as I see it) is to provide links that are not in the article or regular navboxes, we should compare links from each of the three groups I described above. Another control experiment is my idea of replacing navboxes by lists and monitoring them for the same length of time as the navboxes. RockMagnetist(talk) 14:57, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
I'd be very interested in a data-driven approach that may have implications for our navboxes in general. Template_talk:Medicine_navs is a place we've been centralising discussion about this and may be a suitable hub while we investigate what impact (if any) these index boxes have. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:43, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
It's not very active. I tried to ask a question about eponymous categories and got zero response. RockMagnetist(talk) 01:02, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
[36] yes its a little slow--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:15, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
It might be slow, but it'll be higher traffic than a brand-new page. Why don't we copy this whole thing over there, and make some plans? We can always post reminders here about it if we need extra input. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:23, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Good point. I think it should be prefaced by a set of proposals, so we know what we're trying to find out. I will do that in a new subsection. RockMagnetist(talk) 15:53, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Proposals

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

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

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

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

Driver's foot

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

No evidence of such on PubMed and nothing on Google Scholar either. Not a recognized medical condition based on this I'd say. More like a colloquial term for a discomfort, I guess.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:11, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
I've got it in both right feet. The turmeric cure works, I've seen it myself, but I'm not sure about the roasted ayurvedic herbs. -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 13:35, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
You have two right feet? I thought that people only had two left feet.
At least three of us have right feet fore and aft: Jyt, Roxy, and I. LeadSongDog come howl! 13:56, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Is this really a "thing", or is it basically a case of foot pain caused by over-use? And how do you differentiate it from things like poor posture or plantar fasciitis? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:13, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Deleted as untouched for more than 6 months. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:47, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
I see that it's been deleted now. Thanks for helping decide its fate.—Anne Delong (talk) 20:58, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Comment on Draft:Ileal interposition

Your comments on Draft:Ileal interposition are welcomed. Please use Preferences → Gadgets → Yet Another AFC Helper Script, or use {{afc comment|your comment here}} directly in the draft. -- Sam Sailor Talk! 14:44, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the reviewer Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#HOWTO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:31, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Congestive hepatopathy

have not had time for this very important article, any help is appreciated--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:36, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Archive_72&oldid=1090642249"