Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 9

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

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

→

Featured topics project

Per suggestions at the proposal page (now removed since archiving is only for successful candidates) I have created a new department for the Featured Topics project rather than a task force. Participants are encouraged to sign up here and propose and comment on new project nominations. The main page can be found here. Thank you. —Cyclonenim^T@lk? 22:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Johnson

Samuel Johnson, most well known person with Tourette syndrome, is just about FAC-ready if anyone wants to have a look. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Yup, as Johnson said to Boswell, encouraging him to comment at FAC: "I would rather be attacked than unnoticed. For the worst thing you can do to an author is to be silent as to his works." Of course, Johnson also remarked rather famously that no man but a blockhead ever wrote except for money, which explains a lot about Wikipedia. MastCell ^Talk 05:46, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Wha ... you didn't get your check this month? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

'Course I did, but I was addressing all the blockheads out there. You don't think I run around Wikipedia censoring the Natural Cures "They" Don't Want You to Know About for free, do you? :) MastCell ^Talk 05:55, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Ouch (must you bring such things to my attention ... oh). So many articles, so little time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:02, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Heavy sleeping

Is this for real? Or something made up by a person who wanted to explain why he was sleeping so late? WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

If Hordaland (talk · contribs) hasn't heard of it, it must be a hoax. JFW | T@lk 06:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Boston College survey

Hundreds (thousands?) of contributors to Wikipedia medical articles have been solicited to participate in a survey, which they are requested to complete via e-mail. I don't know what the survey takers really want to know, but I am dismayed that someone who claims to use and research use of wikis would ask wiki users to reveal their e-mail addresses, or would believe that an e-mail from someone who claims to be a given wiki user actually comes from that wiki user. See for example this diff. --Una Smith (talk) 03:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Well.... Just trying to look at it from the surveyor's point of view: To do a survey of this type, it's true that if wikipedians read each others' answers, then that could affect the way they answer - e.g. be more honest, be less honest, be more extreme than the previous respondents, be more conservative than the previous respondents. That would bias the systematic nature of the survey. As for being sure that the respondent is really a wiki user, that could be either described as a potential systematic error to be kept in mind when interpreting the survey results, or there could be ways of testing some subset of people to check what proportion are real wiki users. In principle, it's true that this could be a way of collecting a massive number of email addresses for maybe some "moderately intelligent spam" rather than the really rubbish spam. However, at least the first 30 seconds of looking at User:Geraldckane suggest that the survey is genuine and by someone well-intentioned. Try googling a bit and you can probably learn a bit more about the survey's author and whether to take him seriously or not. He claims he's a professor and that would probably be pretty easy to debunk if it's false. Boud (talk) 21:34, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

To hide survey responses from other participants, there are abundant online survey tools that don't require the user to identify themselves. I don't care if the Wikipedia user is who he claims to be; I do care whether the survey itself is represented truthfully, and that in the claimed interest of preserving participants' privacy it actually requires them to abandon some of that privacy. --Una Smith (talk) 21:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I didn't see this earlier, as I would have liked to have responded. As I state on my userpage, I am very interested in Wikipedia and I also seek to conduct my research in a way that both fully respects and does not disrupt the effective functioning of the Wikipedia community. My current project is researching the creation of medical information, and I have posted a link to my survey on about 150 users who our research identified as being the most prolific contributors to medical articles. I am more than happy to explain my methods, reasons for making certain decisions, and I am also more than willing to modify those methods if there are superior ways of obtaining the data. (The current methods are based on a previous study of the article on the VT Massacre, which was worked out in conjunction with feedback from editors, administrators, and board members). Admittedly there are pros and cons to the current methods, but I hope that anyone who is truly worried about revealing their email address to me simply will not respond to the survey (or will respond via the email user link on Wikipedia). I will make a point on the survey page that participation in the survey is voluntary. Please do not hesitate to contact me directly if you have any concerns. I appreciate the participation of all who have responded to the survey so far. As an aside, I think the members of this portal are doing phenomenal work. geraldckane (talk) 16:01, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Ophthalmology topics

I see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ophthalmology seems quiet (or in need of merging with WP:MED]], Noticed Conjunctivitis not categorised, it seems quite a reasonable length article, but lacking sufficient good references so I rated it just a "C" - can anyone help out ?

Similar I've reworked Recurrent corneal erosion, in large part because the prevention section was a direct copyvio lift of eMedicine article (I've rephrased, summarised and totally restructured the various points, thus). It has reasonable references to most of the main points, but could do with any wiki-ophthalmologists providing expert review and addition of some good reliable secondary sources. David Ruben ^Talk 22:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I sympathize! I'm not sure whether this would count as an opthalmology topic, but I would appreciate input on Usher syndrome, a common form of deafblindness, which I started working on last November. Thanks all! :) Willow (talk) 22:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Ever since EyeMD (talk · contribs) has been less active... He has populated almost all of Wikipedia's ophthalmology content. JFW | T@lk 22:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi guys, a change in my work has been responsible, for my being less active. We do have a Wikipedia Ophthalmology project: [WP:Eye | http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Eye] - Please feel free to contribute and bring things to my attention. EyeMD ^T|C 13:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Annual medical examination

Inspired editors are welcome to help find the most suitable title for this new article, your suggestions for renaming are welcome at Talk:Annual medical examination. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 17:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Opinions on merger of Origins of vampire beliefs back into vampire requested

OK folks, the subarticle Origins of vampire beliefs was split out over size concerns when vampire was at FAC. Dreamguy has proposed remerging it back here which I have concerns about but is feasibly possible (just) under size constraints. Three of us have an opinion currently but more would be helpful.

PS: I have placed a note here as the subpage has significant (and I thought very interesting) medical and psychological issues.

PPS: I don't mind if the medical cabal disagrees with me :))) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Williams syndrome

It's a poorly-sourced page with lots of news sources, despite pubmed having a wealth. Any specialists? I'm doing some cleanup and referencing work but I'm always happy to have help. WLU (talk) 00:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

You may wish to contact Trilobitealive (talk · contribs), he/she has recently been working very hard on neurodevelopmental disorder, which seems very related to Williams syndrome. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs) 11:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Neurosurgery

Hello! I just stumbled on the article neurosurgery, and it seems to me that the article is in horrible shape (unsourced, full of very dubious claims, non-encyclopedic and so on), but I have no real knowledge of the subject of the article or even surgery in general. Would anyone with knowledge of the subject have a time to take a look and maybe chop the article down to a respectable stub? Cheers, --KFP (talk | contribs) 16:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd recommend nominating the article over at WikiProject Medicine Medical Collaboration Of The Week. It's more likely to recieve a wide audience willing to edit the article, should it become successful. I'll have a look and see if I can do anything now, though. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs) 17:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmm ok, thanks. I've now removed the dubious and entirely unsourced "History" section and the unencyclopedic "Careers" section. --KFP (talk | contribs) 20:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Zapped the "Job field" section as well. Not urgent anymore, I guess. --KFP (talk | contribs) 21:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Poliomyelitis project

Our first featured topics project is up and running. It centres around poliomyelitis and can be found here. Thanks. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs) 19:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Triplication

Nearly all of the comments here appeared three times on this page. I've cleaned it up, but if you've posted anything in the last 12-24 hours, please take a look to make sure that your comments are still here, and still in the correct place. Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Depersonalization disorder

Can an admin deal with the dynamic IP that is removing tags and persists in submitting a FAC? [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:41, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't seem highly disruptive yet, only five edits which were reverted quite easily. I'm hesitant to semi-protect on that basis. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 21:54, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

But see Ecrone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and QualityBadge (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:56, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I left a note for Lar (talk · contribs), who may have some familiarity. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:00, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Reply: User talk:Lar#Depersonalization disorder. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:16, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Casliber semi-protected the FAC page, so I'm no longer getting disruptive FAC submissions, but the tag removal from the same dynamic IP continues; Lar indicated blocking for behavior would be appropriate. [6] Need admin attn. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I am having to revert tag removal by the dynamic IP daily on this article; at what point can it be semi-protected? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protected: As Dave Chappelle said in the "Time Haters" sketch: "Hows'about now?" :) MastCell ^Talk 21:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I know little of adminship, but I think what happens next is we wait to see which socks crawl out of the newly-closed drawer? Did I pass that test? Thanks for the help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:04, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Ecrone continued where the IPs left off. Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Ecrone. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:45, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Hep C nomads

Dear All,

Please see the following ling to hep C Nomads support page * A support website

I respectfully ask fellow Wikipedians to review and assess whether this outline of the aims and work of this forum is worthy of submission to the Wikipedia.

Hepatitis C is a very serious health condition that is worryingly underestimated and apparently somewhat ignored by Government and the Health services. Most people receiving diagnosis receive very little information from their doctor because of the ignorance surrounding the condition. As a consequence the internet is usually the first port of call for the newly diagnosed.

Whilst there is some good info on the net and there is an informative section on Wikipedia there are myriad snake oil sites offering bogus cures and promulgating false, misleading and dangerous information.

Hep C Nomads is an English language forum, UK based, but with a global membership which is free and managed and controlled by Hepatitis C sufferers or post-treatment survivors. It brings together a broad spectrum of people from the newly diagnosed to the successfully treated with everything in-between, including people who have undergone liver transplants etc.

It is a vibrant, important and ever growing resource and is credited with supplying an important lifeline to persons who are often in dire isolation as a result of their condition.

I urge that this site be considered for inclusion as it serves a worthy and vital function in bonding sufferers socially and also providing accredited scientific material for individuals who might not otherwise have access.

banch1965Banch1965 (talk) 11:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)Banch1965 (talk) 11:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

proposed text for review: The Hep C Nomads Forum is a free internet resource for those infected with, or affected by, the Hepatitis C virus. Founded on the second of December 2007 by Hep C veterans John and Chrissie Semple and working in association with both the British Liver Trust and the Hep C Trust (UK), it serves to provide information, support, encouragement and hope to any person whose life has been touched by HCV or HBV. It is necessary to register on-line to join the Hep C Nomads which can be done in full anonymity depending on individual choice. Members are known by their nick names and generally upload avatar images to personalise their space in the domain.

Despite originating in the UK the Forum continues to attract members from a range of English speaking countries worldwide and its global membership continues to grow daily.

The Forum is also active in the area of campaigning on issues surrounding HCV awareness at all levels, Government, Media and the public at large.

Perhaps the most significant public event organised through the Nomads was the 'Wedding of the Year' - see link for details:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article3990791.ece

In addition during the summer of 2008 a series of 'heppers' picnics were arranged across the UK bringing those affected together and to spread awareness to the wider general public through the distribution of information, leaflets and free hugs. The Forum continues to actively organise social events serving the dual purpose of uniting those affected in a positive and caring environment whilst continuing to spread the message that HCV is a serious, treatable, condition which many people at large remain unaware of. The sobering statistics for the very low diagnosis rates (cite stats.) against the large demographic likely to be unknowingly affected illustrate the vital importance of the aim of the Forum, and its members, in combating stigma and ignorance related to HCV infection, transmission and treatments.

The Nomads have their own publicity poster which can be feely printed and used from the link below:

http://www.brodo.co.uk/NomadsPoster.jpg

Hepatis C knows no boundaries and cuts across all social, economic and racial groups yet the discovery that you may be affected can be a frightening and lonely experience. Treatment success is improving significantly but the process can be lengthy and not without a range of difficult side-effects. For anyone currently on anti-HCV medication there is a wealth of support and knowledge available from the Forum and its dedicated volunteer membership, which at the last count included three doctors (two of whom are practising HCV Consultants), one dentist and and at least two Hepatitis C nurses.

The Forum is free, unmoderated and open to all comers. In addition to discussions of conventional treatment it features a 24 hour chat room, a 'Herb Garden' for those interested in or going down alternative treatment paths, nutritional advice and a concise reference section featuring the results of the latest accredited scientific studies. There is even an Hep C Singles area for those seeking partnership or romance. In addition the Forum has occasional guest speakers - including doctors and other experts- who will answer specific questions from members.

The HepC Nomads Forum promotes individual support groups worldwide and could help anyone seeking more information on the issues surrounding the condition make contact with people near them, and welcomes submissions from all groups and organisations active in area of support and awareness.

The site is located at http://www.hepcnomads.co.uk

Seeding trial

I was flipping through Annals of Internal Medicine and about to suggest that we have an article on seeding trials. Then I saw someone already beat me to it. You guys are good. MastCell ^Talk 23:07, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Yes we are. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs) 23:14, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

By the way, this archive of drug-company documents made public through litigation is remarkable. I highly recommend perusing it. MastCell ^Talk 23:24, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Adiposopathy article

I recently completed an article entitled "Adiposopathy". If appropriate, how does it get included in the WikiProject Medicine? Adiposetech (talk) 13:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I've added the {{WPMED|class=C|importance=low}} template on the talk page. This officially includes it under WikiProject Medicine. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs) 21:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

As recommended, I have reviewed the Adiposopathy article. It has undergone substantial revisions, and is now in compliance with Wikipedia recommended structure. Where might I best obtain a reassessment of quality and importance scales? Also, how do I nominate this as a "good" or "featured" article, and how do I ensure that whoever reviews this article has expertise in this area? Thanks. Adiposetech (talk) 17:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The place to nominate the article is at WP:GAC (for Good Articles) and WP:FAC (for Featured Articles). However, I'd recommend you don't do that just yet since it's not at that level, perhaps a B class at the moment. It needs cleaning up but it's hard to say what exactly right now. The best way is to ask for reviews from other editors first and let a few people take shots at it for a while.

As for article reassessment, try requesting it here. I can't guarantee that the person who reviews it will be an expert in this area, especially considering your article is quite specialised, but any review will be helpful and benefitial to the article. Thanks a lot for helping to expand Wikipedia. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs) 18:13, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I will do as you recommended; however, I do not know the best way to move forward. From your email, I am now assuming that you were not the one who made the assessment. If this is correct, how often does an "editor" review changes made to an article, especially after substantial changes were made in order to be in better compliance with your recommendations? You stated that this article needed more "cleaning up," but was that it was "hard to say" exactly what needed to be done. How do I find this out? Finally, you stated that I might best start by asking for reviews by other editors. But how exactly do I do this? What link or page, and where is the link or page located? If I am directed to make this request by editing a page, what is this page and do I place my request at the beginning, or end of the page? Thank you in advance for your help. Despite my best efforts to find this on my own by searching Wikipedia, I have not been successful in figuring this out. Adiposetech (talk) 13:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I answered this question, on your talk page more than six hours before your latest comment. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:56, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

(Is Cyclonemin the same person as WhatamIdoing?) Upon read of the Discussion this AM for the Adiposopathy artlice, I found that this article had been nominated for deletion. Cyclonenim also stated: "I'd support this being nominated over at AfD, would you like me to nominate it or would you like to do it yourself?" I therefore need your guidance. I concede that I could have been clearer on some sentinel points, and I am never opposed to adding more "notability" to support statements. So if adding more references and improving the clarity of the article will help, then I would be willing to do whatever is necessary to make this acceptable to the editors. But from a purely pragmatic standpoint, if further work is unlikely to make a difference, then I am hope you can understand that I would prefer not to invest any further time or effort on this. If the latter is the case, then how soon can this article be deleted? Thanks.Adiposetech (talk) 12:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

No, we're different people, as I'm sure a WP:CHECKUSER would substantiate.

If you're concerned that the article may be deleted, and you think it might be useful to you personally, then you can always copy it to your own computer. AfD's usually take about a week. You are welcome to explain at the AfD why you think it meets the notability guidelines.

A relatively simple way to demonstrate notability is to find a handful of major newspaper articles that discuss the subject. Note that they'll need to specifically discuss adiposopathy by name, not obesity or obesity-related conditions in general. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

We are indeed different people... I think.

I'm sorry that we couldn't be more helpful but it seems that the article is simply discussing things that are covered in obesity and metabolic syndrome but under a new name that has been pretty much invented by one physician. As WhatamIdoing said, if you wish, you may copy the article onto your computer. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs) 23:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Raw Foodism

OK, I'm having three major or minor points of contention with an editor, who checks the Raw Foodism page. He contends the following:- that Richard Wrangham, who is known for his various papers/articles about his claims about cooked-food-consumption in the Early Palaeolithic leading to bigger human brains, should be mentioned in the Raw Foodism wikipedia page. I pointed out that Richard Wrangham should only be mentioned in the Cooking section of wikipedia, given that his main thesis is on the effect of cooking.

The editor's view is that Wrangham's pro-cooking claims are relevant to the raw foodism wikipedia page. On the other hand, the editor insisted that the info I wrote, earlier, mentioning studies showing the harmful effects of cooked-foods, be moved entirely to the Cooking section, because he claimed these studies were irrelevant to the issue of raw-foodism(it was duly moved by him). IMO, it seems to me that, in the interests of fairness/avoiding bias), either both the Wrangham-references and any studies on the harmful effects of cooked-foods should be moved to the "Cooking" page of wikipedia, or that both should be allowed to be included in the Raw Foodism page of wikipedia.

Also, I referenced an article , near the bottom of the raw foodism page which mentioned that "most other anthropologists" opposed Wrangham's claims re cooked-foods, and used those same words on the raw-foodism page. This was changed(by the editor?) into "some archaeologists" oppose Wrangham..."etc. The latter sentence "Some archaeologists oppose" did not appear in the original text. Here is the original text with the excerpted paragraph:-

"Yet he, Michigan's Brace, and most other anthropologists contend that cooking fires began in earnest barely 250,000 years ago, when ancient hearths, earth ovens, burnt animal bones, and flint appear across Europe and the middle East. Back 2 million years ago, the only sign of fire is burnt earth with human remains, which most anthropologists consider coincidence rather than evidence of intentional fire."

Here's the referenced article:-

http://cogweb.ucla.edu/Abstracts/Pennisi_99.html

It seems to me that stating "some archaeologists" is quite inaccurate as the majority of anthropologists are cited in the above article as opposing Wrangham's claims. For now, I've changed back the text to what I want.

Should the decision go against me, I would like to make a claim for a link to the cooking section, put in the raw foodism wikipedia page under "recent research", mentioning that that's the link to use to find studies detailing the list of toxins in cooked-foods.*

Also, the editor refused to accept some studies I listed focusing on the benefits of raw dairy foods. His opinion was that any such studies, focusing on specific raw foods, as opposed to studies focusing on raw foods in general, should be included, instead, in a separate, general wikipedia page for "Raw Foods", as he viewed such specific studies as irrelevant to the subject of raw-foodism as a philosophy. I strongly disagree with this opinion for the following reasons:- 1) there is no wikipedia page for "cooked foods" in general, just for "cooking" as a process, so why should there be one for "raw foods"? - forcing the creation of such a separate "raw foods" page would therefore be unbalanced re objectivity. 2) It also would be a double-standard as there are now references to studies in the "Cooking" section which focus on the harmful effects of cooking specific individual cooked-foods such as muscle-meats or cooked sucrose, which is hardly a take on cooked-foods in general. And, besides, raw foodism is the belief that raw foods are superior, so citing studies showing benefits for individual raw foods is perfectly acceptable, since raw-foodism is split into numerous completely different camps, which promote widely different foods. To delete(or move) those studies which focus only on consumption of specific raw foods and not on (very vague) references to raw-foods in general, would automatically be a direct bias, on that raw foodism page, in favour of the subgroup of raw-foodists who are "Raw Omnivores/Raw Foodists", thus making it impossible for advocates of other raw-foodist subgroups such as Primal Dieters or Sproutarians or whatever to put their own contrasting info re current and future studies focusing specifically detailing the health benefits of individual raw foods allowed by their own particular dietary community.Loki0115 (talk) 12:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Blood cancers

Should Blood cancer redirect to Leukemia (current status) or to Hematological malignancy? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Send it to hematological malignancy, on the basis that lymphomas are blood cancers too. The heme malignancy page will in turn link to leukemia and lymphoma. MastCell ^Talk 21:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Done WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Discussion of scientific featured articles, and old FAs needing review

A Wikimania talk on the quality of Wikipedia's scientific articles by a biochemist, discussing the high quality of our scientific featured articles.

Praise for our developed content, not so for our undeveloped content. He singled out breast cancer as particularly bad, and mentions DNA repair, which is an older FA and needs review.

By the way, these are our oldest medical FAs that haven't been reviewed, it would be stupendous if they could be reviewed and restored without WP:FAR:

Date promoted	Article	Notes
2003-01-21	Menstrual cycle	Citations needed, ~~doesn't conform with WP:LEAD, many WP:MSH breaches,~~ MoS cleanup needed, writing needs serious attention, this article should not be featured
2004-05-16	Paracetamol	Somewhat undercited, needs MoS cleanup
2005-07-08	Chagas disease	Bad shape, shouldn't be featured. Sorely lacking in citations, images need attn, MoS cleanup, listiness, and an external link farm has developed.
2005-07-18	Tooth enamel	Not bad, citation check, some MoS tuneup, see also needs to be pruned per WP:LAYOUT
2005-09-03	Asthma	Undeveloped WP:LEAD, seriously undercited, linking and WP:OVERLINKing need attention, MoS cleanup needed, no History section, this article should not be featured
2005-09-03	Cerebellum	Lacking citation, MoS cleanup needed, images should be moved to a commons cat
2005-10-16	Multiple sclerosis	Lacking citation, MoS cleanup needed, should not be featured
2005-11-12	Barbara McClintock	In good shape, but undercited
2005-11-19	Pneumonia	Almost completely uncited, external jumps, MoS cleanup needed, WP:OVERLINKed, this article should not be featured
2005-12-18	Prostate cancer	External link farm, WP:LEAD needs trimming, some sections are undercited

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:25, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Sandy, I move the table out of the lead for Menstrual cycle, but I couldn't identify any MSH problems. I went through that MoS section point by point. Can you help me figure out what I missed? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

A whole lot of words repeated in the hierarchy; shouldn't repeat words used in title or previous section heading. Also, use of "The". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I worked on them, and left an inline HTML comment on one bad section heading.[7] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:52, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, so the problem is the non-existent "Omit needless words" item in MSH. I'll propose it at MoS in a minute. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

No, it's there somewhere, Tony keeps moving it around to avoid redundancy. Look higher up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Still there. It was so much clearer a year ago, but the MOS wordnerds insisted it was redundant, and have chopped it to something almost unintelligible ... I've screamed about it a half dozen times, but I'm not a wordnerd.

Section names should not explicitly refer to the subject of the article, or to higher-level headings, unless doing so is shorter or clearer. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:36, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

That rule explains this change, but not this one. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

See WP:MSH where it refers you to the section above on article titles and explains those rules also apply: "A, an and the are normally avoided as the first word (Economy of the Second Empire, not The economy of the Second Empire), unless part of a proper noun (The Hague)." Again, all of this used to be stated in WP:MSH, but Tony wanted less redundancy so combined it all above, and pointed to it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I disagree about the Cerebellum images. --Arcadian (talk) 05:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I have been working in taking Alzheimer disease to FA, but now that it has been done my next effort will be the multiple sclerosis article. Any help will be welcomed.--Garrondo (talk) 07:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Great; I'll peek in as you progress. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, so at a time when Wiki's featured science articles are being recognized for quality, we have ten medical featured articles that are in, at best, embarrassing condition. I've seen mention here recently of working up a featured topic; it would be wonderful if resources could be dedicated, for a few weeks to a month, to bringing these articles to less embarrassing condition. Featured articles are put forward as samples of Wiki's best work: these aren't. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I just copyedited Barbara McClintock, and did a MOS cleanup on Paracetamol, Tooth enamel, and Cerebellum...whew. How is it that I'm more knowledgeable than when I began reading them, yet I still feel stupid? Maralia (talk) 00:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Stupid, you? Not a chance :-) Thanks, Maralia. Now if the good docs will cite them, we could be in good shape. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Alzheimer's disease for main page

The Alzheimer's disease article has recently reached the FA status. Right now it has been nominated to appear in the main page of wikipedia the 21 of september (Alzheimer's international date). Anybody which thinks it is the best date for such an article can vote here. That day many media do specials on the disease and being in the main wikipedia page can attract a lot of attention to the article and wikipedia, and also provide reliable information to all those searching for it that day. --Garrondo (talk) 14:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Uh. Garrondo, do you realize that WP:CANVASSing is likely to decrease the chances for this article? I request that you remove this section (my response included). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Raw foodism

Can you guys take a look a this discussion and provide third opinion on the issues raised here: Talk:Raw foodism#Clean up. Thank you. --Phenylalanine (talk) 12:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Is this the right venue for third opinion on this medical-related article? Would anyone care to comment? --Phenylalanine (talk) 12:49, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this is a reasonable place to ask for help. But we don't guarantee useful responses. ;-)

I'll take a look when I get to the end of my watchlist and leave a message on the talk page if I think I can be helpful. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your helpful comments on this matter, WhatamIdoing. --Phenylalanine (talk) 00:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Hoxsey Therapy

I'd like some outside input at Hoxsey Therapy. This is an alternative cancer treatment condemned as ineffective by major groups including the FDA (who outlawed its sale as a form of quackery), the National Cancer Institute, and the American Cancer Society. There has been recent discussion of using claims which a journalist made in a polemical book on the subject as a counterpoint to argue the effectiveness of the treatment. More detail is on the article talk page; input requested. Cross-posted to WP:FTN MastCell ^Talk 18:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Call for Help!

Hello to all who may read this! FoodPuma (me!) is an AP Biology student currently working on the Osteochondritis page. My goal is to bring this page up to "Good Article" status as a substitute for a end-of-term research paper. I adopted the OCD page for it's relevance to my personal life - I have had surgery on both knees for Osteochondritis Dissecans, am in schedule for another surgery on my right knee and for an MRI of my left ankle to see if I have the same condition in that joint too. As you can tell, I choose this article for it's connection to my everyday life. PLEASE!, if you have any comments, suggestions, criticism, ideas (or just want to help me in my quest) then stop by Talk: Osteochondritis and leave a note! Thank you for reading this and feel free to stop by my home page or our AP Biology Homepage for more information - Wikipedia:WikiProject AP Biology 2008.--FoodPuma (talk) 21:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

X-ray

Should Projectional radiography be listed at X-ray (disambiguation)? Or something else? Does an article about the normal kid-with-broken-arm kind of medical X-ray exist? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:10, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Anyone interested in Pyromania?

Pyromania was listed as a Good Article in 2006. I doubt that it's a really good article -- the unwritten standards have gotten quite bit higher in the last year -- but I might rate it as B class at first glance. If someone's interested, I'd rather have it improved instead of de-listed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

MEDRS - guideline proposal

If Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Reliable sources#Should we make this a guideline? is to proceed, it could benefit for a greater response from project members to give it a little greater authority for when an admin (I'm holding back for such a purpose for now) closes the straw poll and assesses the opinions. The proposal is old enough to close but rather sparse, and I note WhatamIdoing has already placed a heads-up at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources 2 days ago, so perhaps another few days to decision time. David Ruben ^Talk 21:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC) Done - promoted to guideline. David Ruben ^Talk 00:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Notability of hospitals around the world

After coming across far to many hospital articles where the only arguement to save the article is... '"it's a hospital therefore must be notable" (even applied to medical centre's) I would ask that users of this project debate about what consitutes notability for a hospital. My opinion is that hospitals must achieve notability under WP:CORP which essentially asks an article to establish notability with independent 3rd party references. There are far to many hospital articles that read like advertisements. I understand that if you live in a small town you would like the idea of your local hospital being notable, but it is not realistic. I mean I run a 2 man practice and we have published 30 articles in local media outlets...does this make us notable ...certainly not! Look forward to debate. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Notability_of_Hospitals benjicharlton (talk) 23:12, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd probably agree with you, just because hospitals save lives doesn't make them any more notable. There are probably hundreds of thousands of hospitals on the Earth, if we made an article for every one then it'd be ridiculous. Unless the hospital article abides by WP:CORP and WP:NOTABILITY etc. then it shouldn't be on Wikipedia. Also, I've made the title lower case. Upper case is essentially shouting on the internet. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs) 23:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree, and if you {{subst:prod}} one every day, then in ten or twenty years we'll probably be doing all right. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

A constructive idea to offer article makers is to merge to the local suburb or township the smaller hospital belongs to. That way folks don't feel so defensive when someone comes and tags their creation, and most Featured articles on suburbs or towns will mention them anyway. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Two related pages

Two pages, Vacuum assisted closure wound therapy and Negative pressure wound therapy, both created by Janneke11 (talk · contribs), are somewhat problematic and I've re-written a bit. The biggest issue I've found so far is the sources - though they are there, the ones I looked up were not on pubmed, so I don't know how reliable they are or if it's undue weight to place a lot of emphasis on them if they're extremely low-impact. Anyone have access? Anyone interested? WLU (talk) 13:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I've worked a bit on the Vacuum assisted closure wound therapy and have found a few of the cited articles on pubmed and lots available online through direct links. Nevertheless, it would be good for someone to take a look at these articles; many of the sources aren't of the highest quality and there is a promotional quality to the article that disturbs me.--Slp1 (talk) 14:11, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinking a merge of the two might be in order; the references (from a cursory review) seem more about NPWT than VAC, and VAC is proprietary. WLU (talk) 15:50, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know enough about the subject to be sure, but tend to agree with your analysis: it seems we are part of a marketing ploy here.--Slp1 (talk) 14:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Genecological query

I came across Talk:Anal_sex#Requested_edit while processing edit-requests for protected pages. In brief, the question is whether Skene's glands are different than the G-spot and which is sometimes analogized to the male prostate. A response at the linked section is probably better than responding here.--chaser - t 08:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

'Acute stress reaction' versus 'Shock (psychological)'

Hi all,

A user has recently moved the page on 'acute stress reaction' to the page 'Shock (psychological)' (and simultaneously moved the previous 'Shock (medical') to 'Shock (physiological)'.

Personally, i'm not sure this is the right thing to do, because the ICD classifications refer to Acute stress reaction - not shock.

Any comments, or anyone know if we have project guidance on this? The user is citing Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names)

Regards, OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 07:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Is the bladder strictly one-way?

Can the body reuse water from the bladder (internally, as opposed to re-drinking it)? I read bladder hoping to find out but the article didn't settle the matter for me. —Christian Campbell 06:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

No. Once it has left the collecting duct system there is no active (or passive) transport of fluid or solutes. I suspect one needs a solid source that actually says so until you can add this to bladder. JFW | T@lk 06:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

What about in horses and camels? Also, the article may need some links to explain the brown and black urine that occurs in severe dehydration. --Una Smith (talk) 07:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Vesicouretic reflux is what happens in humans when urine passes from the bladder back into the ureters or kidneys. Does that get at your question? --Una Smith (talk) 07:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

you can "ejaculate" backwards in to the bladder as well with some nerve injuries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.174.41.52 (talk) 20:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

DYK push

OK trendsetters, science article hooks are underrepresented at T:TDYK, so maybe it's time for some funny medical ones - surely there are some stubs which one could add an amusing hook for (after expanding 5 fold) - so some stubby stubs which could be improved are (insert here):

0-3 wow, I did not know that

Anyway, probably lots, wading through stubs is interesting as there is stuff which could be merged etc. Anyway, have at it...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Silent sinus syndrome might interest someone for this. It's short, so expansion is easy, and the idea of "my face suddenly and painlessly collapsed" would surely make a good hook. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The medical conditions of famous people are always of general interest, I find. MastCell ^Talk 16:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Wilderness Diarrhea Help Request

An editor recently reverted some work I'd done on this page Wilderness Diarrhea to his earlier version that included much less information as well as some original research and unsupported material.

His reasoning is unclear but it appears to focus on his notion that the names and dates of research ought not to be mentioned within the text of a Wikipedia article, but only in footnotes. I'm not really certain that's his reason. In fact I suspect it's because the research doesn't support his point of view.

It seems a shame to revert a lot of good data because of disagreement over mechanical style questions. Would anyone like to jump in on talk page there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calamitybrook (talk • contribs) 17:07, 3 September 2008

There is a discussion thread immediately prior to the one you created on the article's talk page, setting out their reasoning - suggest you respond to the points raised :-) David Ruben ^Talk 19:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

As I've mentioned, "the points raised" don't meaninfully address the issue of a destructive revert. Meaningful help would be appreciated.Calamitybrook (talk) 23:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

epilepsy / impact on brain

hi! i heard that not only alcohol can damage brain cells but also other abnormal conditions (like orgasms(sic!) and epileptic situations). i further read that psychiatric electro shock (it creates a grand mal situation artifically) not only causes no structural changes in the brain[8] but even lets new brain cells grow[9]... can somebody solve that contradiction for me? thx. bye. --Homer Landskirty (talk) 21:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

You may wish to try the Science Reference Desk since this WikiProject is more about collaborating on improving articles, rather than answering questions :) Let me know if you find out, though! —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 23:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

ok... [10] --Homer Landskirty (talk) 05:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposal (calling all osteoporosis people)

Bone density? Or Bone mineral density? Or Dual energy X-ray absorptiometry? All three have been proposed as the home, and I'm not sure where to propose a three-way merge (if, indeed, such a thing is desirable). Someone please fix, and set the importance of the resulting article to High (or Mid, if you prefer). WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Bone density should probably be merged/redirected to bone mineral density, which is a widely used term and concept. DEXA should have its own article, as a radiographic technique to assess bone mineral density, though obviously there should be significant cross-referencing. I'll try to take a look at this. MastCell ^Talk 16:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with MastCell. Axl (talk) 17:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

MCOTW

The current Medicine Collaboration of the Week is Heart failure.
Last week's collaboration was Glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase deficiency.

JFW | T@lk 19:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Interesting feature in this week's NEJM

Just because I'm a "Journal Club" kind of guy :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

It's a little too Choose Your Own Adventure for my tastes... MastCell ^Talk 04:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

They did the same with diabetes mellitus recently. Not really used to such levels of interaction from that fount of knowledge. JFW | T@lk 19:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Talking about journal clubs, I recently found this really nice (almost) weekly review of all the big medical journals. The writer mentions all the highlights and does a great job putting them in perspective. --WS (talk) 23:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip, bookmarked now! --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 13:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Scope: Involuntary celibacy

An banner-spamming anon has repeatedly placed the WPMED tag on Talk: Involuntary celibacy. Involuntary celibacy, according to the article, is not having sex for at least six months due to the lack of a suitable sexual partner.

It is the anon's apparent position that this is an issue of sexual health. What are the opinions of the members of this project? Is involuntary celibacy a disease or medical condition? Is this article within the scope of this project? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Undue Weight in schizophrenia article

the difference between these two versions is, I feel, giving undue weight to the latter version. More eyes would be nice. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Phenylpropanolamine is well known to cause psychiatric effects, as does dextromethorphan when abused—plenty of literature on both—, but guaifenesin? I don't think so. Probably a misunderstanding as many DXM preparations also contain guaifenesin. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:52, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Most strange. Guaifenesin is specifically recommended over other medications for individuals with Tourette syndrome because it allegedly causes less exacerbation of symptoms. I periodically unwatch Schizophrenia because I'm so busy elsewhere now; do I need to re-watch? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I doubt it, Sandy. Many of us already watch the article and any problems with it tend to arise here anyway :) Your choice, though. It depends if you want to be the one to change it or not! —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 21:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Then I'll remain unwatched for now, in the interest of my sanity. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Multiple sclerosis

Resolved

– Link removed from article and moved to List of multiple sclerosis organizations —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 13:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

This edit added a link to a foundation/trust that helps the sufferers of MS. This isn't allowed per WP:ELNO, is it? —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 10:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I saw this as well but was hesitant, as you probably were as well, because it is a good cause. Still, this is purely promotional and should indeed probably be avoided. Many of our articles contain links to foundations; should we try to bring some consistency into this? I think some foundations deserve a mention in EL if they are highly prominent, whereas others probably should not be mentioned. There is often a problem that only US or US and UK foundations are mentioned, which constitutes a limited geographical scope. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 12:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Why not move the link (if it is a reputable and benefitial site) to this wiki article List of multiple sclerosis organizations and send a message to the editor of the move and why it was moved?--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 12:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Good suggestion, done. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 13:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks guys. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 13:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Dehydration needs review

Dehydration could use some overall cleanup.
In particular, it contains the line "It is often thought that the sudden influx of salt into the body from seawater will cause the cells to dehydrate and the kidneys to overload and shut down but it has been calculated that an average adult can drink up to 0.2 liters of seawater per day before the kidneys start to fail", which is tagged as needing a cite. -- 201.17.36.246 (talk) 23:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, obviously the amount of seawater you could "safely" drink in a day is highly dependent on how much fresh water you're taking in. I will try to take a look. MastCell ^Talk 00:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Influenza vaccine

Influenza vaccine is rated High importance and B quality. In fact, the quality is terrible. Please help to improve it. --Una Smith (talk) 20:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I have often wished that there were another parameter for assessments: long-but-lousy=yes I wish for it every time that I run across an article that takes three screenfuls to communicate a stub's worth of information. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 12:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm...

|class=list_of_rubbish,_possibly_copied_from_somewhere_else|importance=not_nearly_what_some_people_like_to_think

I think that's what cleanup templates are for... :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Platinum nanoparticles

Could someone with experience in this area please check out the medical claims made in the recently created article platinum nanoparticles? I get the sense that this is something that is grounded in a bit of real science but stretched and exaggerated to sell some product. Deli nk (talk) 13:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

It looks like someone has now nominated it for deletion together with Comprehensive study of aging and free radicals. Deli nk (talk) 19:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Blood glucose monitoring

I saw the comment at the top of the Blood glucose monitoring article on the idea of merging it with the Blood glucose article. The latter is a much more scientific article while the former one is an article more geared toward average users. I feel they should stand separate from each other.

One suggestion I had was to break SEPARATE from Blood glucose monitoring the entire topic on Continuous Blood Glucose Monitoring (more commonly referred to as Continuous Glucose Monitoring), since it's becoming an ever increasing technology that many diabetes patients are using BESIDES their regular meters. Thoughts? manny (talk) 01:03, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that the articles Blood glucose monitoring and glucose meter could easily be merged. However, the monitoring blood glucose deserves it's own page in my opinion. Zoork34 (talk) 04:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoork34 (talk • 19:19, 2 September 2008

F*cking Machine

Some health and medical advice would be handy when using these mechanical devices would be appreciated. Also try to add some perspective for anal uses and for both sexes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fucking_machine

Thank you.

88.105.88.96 (talk) 19:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

We don't provide medical advice here at Wikipedia, please read the medical disclaimer. If you have health concerns regarding the use of automated erotic stimulation devices, please seek the advice of your physician. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 20:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Cooking#Health_effects

Cooking#Health effects is interesting for what it doesn't mention. Can anyone else spell infectious disease? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I had noticed that section when it popped up on my mercola.com spam detector. It is a bit one-sided. I would suggest a controlled trial in which participants are randomized to raw or cooked beef, with a primary endpoint of overall survival. That should solve things. Lacking that, we could at least balance it a bit with existing data. MastCell ^Talk 05:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The devil is in the details. There is a classical French dish of raw beef. And raw beef is used in some Japanese dishes also. It is safe if the animal was healthy, the meat was handled properly, and time to plate is kept short. Unless you grow your own beef, such meat can be very expensive, though. -Una Smith (talk) 22:11, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I was just drug into some mess at raw foodism, in case anyone is inclined to peek in there. I'm uninterested. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:34, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

FAs needing review

A Wikimania talk on the quality of Wikipedia's scientific articles by a biochemist, discussing the high quality of our scientific featured articles.

Praise for our developed content, not so for our undeveloped content. He singled out breast cancer as particularly bad, and mentions DNA repair, which is an older FA and needs review.

By the way, these are our oldest medical FAs that haven't been reviewed, it would be stupendous if they could be reviewed and restored without WP:FAR:

Date promoted	Article	Notes
2003-01-21	Menstrual cycle	Citations needed, ~~doesn't conform with WP:LEAD, many WP:MSH breaches,~~ MoS cleanup needed, writing needs serious attention, this article should not be featured
2004-05-16	Paracetamol	Somewhat undercited, needs MoS cleanup. Needs restructuring and pruning of vast swathes of redundancy— Preceding unsigned comment added by Una Smith (talk • contribs)
2005-07-08	Chagas disease	~~Bad shape, shouldn't be featured. Sorely lacking in citations, images need attn, MoS cleanup, listiness, and an external link farm has developed.~~
2005-07-18	Tooth enamel	Not bad, citation check, some MoS tuneup, ~~see also needs to be pruned per WP:LAYOUT~~
2005-09-03	Asthma	Undeveloped WP:LEAD, seriously undercited, linking and WP:OVERLINKing need attention, MoS cleanup needed, no History section, this article should not be featured
2005-09-03	Cerebellum	Lacking citation, MoS cleanup needed, images should be moved to a commons cat
2005-10-16	Multiple sclerosis	Lacking citation, MoS cleanup needed, should not be featured
2005-11-12	Barbara McClintock	In good shape, but undercited
2005-11-19	Pneumonia	Almost completely uncited, external jumps, MoS cleanup needed, WP:OVERLINKed, this article should not be featured
2005-12-18	Prostate cancer	External link farm, WP:LEAD needs trimming, some sections are undercited

Now that Helicobacter pylori has been restored to status, I will probably submit Chagas disease to WP:FAR next; speak now or forever hold your peace. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

FYI: I worked quite a bit on Chagas a few weeks ago (with help from FV and Arcadian). I think it has improved a lot, you might take a second look. An FAR probably wouldn't hurt though.--DO11.10 (talk) 18:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Sandy, are you sure that Menstrual cycle actually passed FA on the date given above? Here's the article on that date. I know that our standards have gotten higher... but that much higher? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

That was an RBP. To make a long story short, it's not easy to tell when they passed and digging up the actual date in 2003 is a bear, but they generally all need work. When we built articlehistories, we put a general date on some of them to save time. (Yes, that much higher. You may be surprised even to see some of what passed in 2006; standards are much improved, and Medicine helped lead the way :-)) The reason I suggested getting Chagas out of the way first is that it's on the citations list, while menstrual cycle isn't (that just means that when the list was generated at the end of 2005 when inline citation requirements changed, Chagas had less than 10 inlines, while Menstrual cycle had more than 10). If Chagas is cleared, Medicine has nothing left on the citations list, which is winding down, and we can move on to Menstrual cycle (or whichever we think most urgent from the list above). I'll look at Chagas; do you all think we can avoid FAR or will a FAR help it? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I started in on Chagas disease, left an inline query for someone to resolve, and found a bigger problem. Is it Chagas disease or Chagas' disease? Does the article need to be renamed/moved to include the apostrophe? Isn't there a convention about no apostrophes in eponymous names, even though ICD seems to use them? Unsure what to do with this, need consensus. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Accurate and complete answer: There is no convention for eponymous names -- neither in the real world nor on Wikipedia.

Possibly less unhelpful response: Some people use the possessive for diseases named after a patient and omit the possessive for diseases named after a researcher. In that system, it's Down syndrome, but Lou Gehrig's disease.

In the specific case, the CDC, WHO, and eMedicine pages all use the non-possessive name, so I would not add the apostrophe. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

But the ICD does use the apostrophe, and someone added it throughout, so we either need to remove it, or we need to rename the article. Right now, the article usage disagrees with the article name. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

A recent comment on the Talk:Down syndrome gave quite a good rationale for why the apostrophe appears sometimes and not others: pronunciation. Much nonsense has been written wrt whether the possessive form is appropriate for physician-eponymous diseases -- in fact there are so few patient-eponymous diseases that you can count them on one hand, so that can't explain the variation. I reckon the apostrophe gets dropped on Chagas disease because you don't hear it and because many folk won't even know it is eponymous. I say we drop it on that article, consistently. BTW: it was TimVickers (talk · contribs) who added the ' throughout. Colin°^Talk 10:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The literature almost uniformly uses the non-possessive form, most notably the WHO and English-language literature from Portuguese- and Spanish-speaking sources. I say we follow the convention. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 12:56, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I checked and I used Chagas' in my PhD thesis, probably following the lead of my supervisor (eg PMID 10668262). However, looking at the literature we are in a minority, so it should probably be switched back to the non-apostrophe form. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Tim; unless someone else gets to it sooner, I'll work on it later tonight. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I have been working in Multiple sclerosis, and solved the problems in half of the sections (probably the easiest ones). It will take me two months more or less to fix the remaining sections (Causes, pathophisiology and prognosis) and any help would be welcomed, but I think I can take it to actual FA standards.--Garrondo (talk) 08:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Mediterranean diet

Sofi F, Cesari F, Abbate R, Gensini F, Casini A. Adherence to Mediterranean diet and health status: meta-analysis. BMJ 2008 Sep 11; 337:a1334. doi:10.1136/bmj.a1344

This study hit the newspapers this morning. It would be great if WP:MED could use it to improve the article. Colin°^Talk 08:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Sanity check

Could someone that knows something about Latent inhibition have a look at the article? I don't know enough about it to distinguish the mainstream from the fringe. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Most of it looks mainstream to me. The article lacks a lot of content, though, particularly content about how it relates to training animals. --Una Smith (talk) 21:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Cabal, er... watchlist request

Can I ask some more folks to watchlist Paul Offit? He's one of the more prominent vaccine researchers and advocates, and as such his biography attracts everything from POV-pushing to straight-up libel to simple vandalism. Just a few mores eyes reverting vandalism would be handy. MastCell ^Talk 22:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Rotavirus? Where's GrahamColm? Vaccines? Eubulides. I'll ping. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I added it to my watchlist. Eubulides (talk) 23:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to Sandy, I'm watching—and I will contribute some encyclopaedic content later. I have photocopies of most of Paul's publications. Graham Colm ^Talk 23:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes or no?

While performing extreme makeover on ovarian cancer, I was wondering if we should have an article on diagnostic delay? --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 21:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure. JFW | T@lk 23:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I cannot think of any particularly useful sources. Late diagnosis is a significant problem in so many diseases, but the reasons why diagnosis is late are so diverse. And early diagnosis is not without problems of its own. Then there is overdiagnosis. Perhaps all of them should be considered together, under Diagnostic dilemma or a similar title. --Una Smith (talk) 21:40, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

You may be right, but in that case I'd support a merge of all related concepts into the article diagnosis, which is where this content would be most into context. JFW | T@lk 20:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Expanding Diagnosis works for me. --Una Smith (talk) 19:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Housekeeping

Would anyone mind if I MfD an unused redirect, Template:WikiProject Medicine? It's long-standing, but the only link is to an archive of this talk page.

Normally I wouldn't bother, but it's existence has once or twice resulted in having our banner appear twice on an article's talk page, as the connection between the two wasn't apparently obvious enough (and people, including myself, don't use the preview button often enough). WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:17, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

A lot of projects format their assessment template in this way, which makes it a logical redirect and would be an argument in favour of not deleting. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 21:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:VITAL

If you're looking for something to do, Wikipedia:VITAL#Health_and_medicine_.2848_articles.29 lists some interesting options. A handful are only rated start-class or C-class at the moment and would doubtless be easy to improve:

Note that I haven't actually reviewed whether or not the article assessments for the 48 medicine- and health-related articles are correct; this is just a report on what they claim. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:00, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Some are such exceptionally broad topics that it is actually pretty hard to find authoritative sources that are strong enough to support them. I'll try to expand respiratory failure and coma because they are of current relevance to my job. I'm sure Delldot will swallow the bait and deal with physical trauma. For dysentery there are some useful WHO sources that may well serve to improve the article. JFW | T@lk 06:33, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll try my hand at frostbite if I get the chance. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 08:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

2008 Chatsworth Metrolink collision

This article has been tagged for this project under the "Emergency medicine and EMS task force". Is this an appropriate tag? --NE2 03:29, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this is silly. Does that mean every single incident where EMS are called now needs to be tagged under this Wikiproject? I can't possibly see the point in that. I would limit tagging to topics that have greatly influenced the development of emergency/prehospital medicine as a field. JFW | T@lk 06:29, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Does the incident have any "lessons learned" for medicine? Is it a notable example of the use of any new medical technology, method, concept, etc? If not, then it appears to be not within the scope of this project. --Una Smith (talk) 19:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Given that it happened not quite two days ago, "lessons learned" is clearly premature. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, but unless a disaster is unusual in some way (e.g. scale, errors made, agents), there are not going to be many lessons to be learnt. At the moment, it is a disaster pretty much like many other similar disasters. If there's such a thing. JFW | T@lk 06:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Posthumous diagnosis

Over in the land of literature we've been dealing with the posthumous diagnosis of Tourette's Syndrome for Dr Johnson. For those of us who know FA about such things a Posthumous diagnosis article would be helpful. It would probably be best written by people who don't usually spend their time grappling with reclusive poets' second-rate love-lives. Like you guys, for example almost-instinct 22:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, maybe an article. Rather some guideline, I'd say. One does get tired of the lists of Famous People with XXX-diagnosis, when said famous people died centuries before the diagnosis ever was defined. These "diagnoses" are often based on speculation in some article or other, solely speculation. I haven't yet seen a death from AIDS claimed for the 1700s, but it wouldn't surprise me. --Hordaland (talk) 03:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll create something at retrospective diagnosis and add in some redirects. Colin°^Talk 11:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. The term "retrospective diagnosis" seems to be used by more scholarly historical books and papers than "posthumous diagnosis", though the latter is also common. Colin°^Talk 13:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Colin, do you think we should make that adjustment at Samuel Johnson, or do the redirects suffice? What a lovely article ... thanks, Colin! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

My concern with "posthumous diagnosis" was that it might be confused with a diagnosis made immediately post-mortem. In this case, since we are not speculating about what he died of, there is less chance of confusion. Both terms are used in the literature. Colin°^Talk 16:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

You have inspired me to add the speculation in the New England Journal of Medicine that Alexander the Great died of typhoid fever complicated by ascending paralysis to his Wikipedia article. This is fun. MastCell ^Talk 16:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure beats Lyme disease :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure I can find a ~~reliable~~ source claiming that Alexander the Great died of undertreated Lyme disease, though, now that you mention it. MastCell ^Talk 18:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

No, no, Nero didn't have lead poisoning, he had porphyria. Porphyria, especially diagnosed retrospectively, is extremely common amongst celebrities. JFW | T@lk 20:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I was going to mention that, of course, some joker wrote into the NEJM to say that Alexander the Great clearly died of acute intermittent porphyria. MastCell ^Talk 21:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Now we just need an article for the diagnosis of fictional characters (PMID 1340779). --Arcadian (talk) 01:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

And PMID 8541765 (Squirrel Nutkin has Tourette syndrome), which Eubulides reminded us of recently. Colin°^Talk 07:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Can I ask folk to see if they can improve (expand) the body text with sourced content, rather than turn the article into a list (and believe me, a list of retrospective diagnoses would be very, very long indeed). Colin°^Talk 07:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Can anyone decipher any legitimately sourced and non-OR concerns behind Una Smith's removal of a nice DYK? See Talk:Retrospective diagnosis#Removed from T:TDYK. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:27, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I did not remove it. I agree it could have made a nice DYK, but all 3 (4?) hooks that were proposed had defects, resolution didn't look likely, and the clock has just about run out. --Una Smith (talk) 17:57, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Which doesn't answer the question of OR in the objection to the hooks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:59, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, I would ignore Colin's accusations of OR. However, if you wish to pursue them, I recommend you examine the edit history of Retrospective diagnosis then take it up on Talk:Retrospective diagnosis. --Una Smith (talk) 19:15, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice; I'll factor it in with my general impression of Colin's editing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:27, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I've watched all this from the sidelines because I don't know anything about DYK. Una, please forgive my being blunt, but I think you have not helped the project on this occasion. Graham Colm ^Talk 20:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Graham. I think on this occasion I have helped Wikipedia, and perhaps also this project, which (excuse me folks) sometimes puts solidarity ahead of quality. DYK "hooks" appear on the main page and are intended to excite interest and attract attention, and for that reason they must be neutral and factual. The hook to which I objected was neither. If we really need to discuss why, let's do it on the article talk page. --Una Smith (talk) 02:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I came to the party late on this - pulling a whole DYK nomination when you disagree with a hook is at best an overreaction and at worst pointy - plenty of hooks need tweaking and there are plenty opportunities for alternatives, especially with this article. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Four hooks were proposed, and four different editors took issue with each one. --Una Smith (talk) 02:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Let me make it clear that as a DYK hook reviewer of longstanding it was my decision and my decision alone to pull the hook in response to Una's suggestion and the striking through of the originally-submitted hook (the latter due to a misunderstanding of how that was meant by Colin vs. its usual interpretation at T:TDYK. But it had also been up there for several days, with none of several editors from this project agreeing on the soundness of the fact used and the discussions really becoming more appropriate to the article's talk page, and it was due to expire soon. Thus I made my decision, one that I think the other reviewers would probably have done as well. Daniel Case (talk) 03:41, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Monoclonal antibodies assessed as Low-importance

Seriously? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 21:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Reassessed as mid-importance. I'm not convinced I'd get away with pushing it to high-importance. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 21:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

For WP:PHARM it is definitely top-importance. For medicine, I think Mid-importance is reasonable. Not all diseases have a Herceptin around the corner. JFW | T@lk 22:53, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Hyperandrogenism

I'm posting this here to attract attention to an ignored topic (symptom? syndrome?), one which currently does not have its own article. I hope that some knowledgeable people will add to the stub article I've created, hopefully providing citations as they go. (I unfortunately don't have a textbook on hand to cite the information presented.)

Hyperandrogenism used to redirect to polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS). It finally has its own article, but it's a stub. Hyperandrogenism (elevated levels of androgens) is a symptom, not a syndrome or a disease in and of itself, and it certainly isn't a synonym for PCOS. If it were, what then would hyperandrogenism (i.e. "PCOS") be called in males? Anabolic steroid use, perhaps?

The androgen article has information about androgen insensitivity, but no information about hyperandrogenism. I've concluded that information on hyperandrogenism is currently lacking on Wikipedia. Please add to the hyperandrogenism article, especially if you consider yourself knowledgeable about the topic. Thanks.

Cheers, Fuzzform (talk) 01:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Help!

Just wanted to let everyone in the Wiki-Medicine group know that I am working on making Osteochondritis dissecans a Featured Article (or at the very least, a Good Article). If you are interested in helping, please stop by Talk:Osteochondritis dissecans or my own talk page to let me know! Cheers! FoodPuma (talk) 00:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I was looking at all your articles that your group has accomplished. It's amazing, I just wanted to ask for some help on a stub that your group had started. It is Lymphangioma, I am trying to make it at least a Good Article but I would love for some of you help. I am doing this for a project in AP Biology. If you can help me with this article I would greatly appreciate it! Thanks alot, oh and you can check out my user page and leave me a message letting me know if you are at all interested. Thanks for your time, --Amitampocco (talk) 20:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Medicine

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 22:54, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Can we agree to recommend they drop asthma, menstrual cycle and pneumonia from the list of FAs needing review above? Others on that list ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I think pneumonia is still in decent enough shape to make it into the release version; it may not meet FA criteria anymore (or even GA criteria for that matter), but should it be withheld? Antibiotic, for instance, is an equally vital article in far worse shape—thankfully, it wasn't included in the WP:PHARM selection list. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 02:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

As an aside, does anyone know why pneumonia got so many hits on August 9? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 02:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Bernie Mac? Maralia (talk) 02:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

How'd you do that? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Nice catch. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 16:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to say I used some really clever technical method, but honestly, I just googled pneumonia +"August 9". Maralia (talk) 17:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Aarrgh. I still have ~430 to rate for importance. I assume that those just got skipped.

I've adjusted a few on the list, BTW, and I encourage everyone else to fix obvious errors. In particular, most "B-class" rated articles were rated under the prior (significantly lower) standards, and a number of B-class (and Start-class) articles are really C-class. If you want a re-assessment by someone else, then just list it at WP:WikiProject Medicine/Assessment#Requesting_an_assessment_or_re-assessment .

Sandy, does your question involve demoting those articles from FA class to B class, or leaving them out altogether? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:51, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I was asking if we should leave them out altogether (we can't demote them without a WP:FAR), but Fvasconcellos seems to have answered that, suggesting they're still good enough for the release. I added the version on Tourette syndrome; we need to start adding versions, but on that list of troubled FAs, perhaps we can hold off on the version until we've improved them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

They're no worse than some other things that will go into the release, and excluding Asthma and Pneumonia from the encyclopedia would be remarkably noticeable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:14, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, agreed; I see that now in relation to some of the other articles being released (yikes!!). Well, motivation to quickly patch up the FAs on that list above. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

In the unlikely event that an article's content is deemed okay for 0.7 but it desperately needs a copyedit, feel free to ping me directly and I'll try to clean it up in time. Maralia (talk) 17:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Brandon/Hill and Doody's?

The question has come up whether the Brandon/Hill selected list and Doody's Core Titles are used, or should be used, often enough when editing medical articles that they should be mentioned (or mentioned prominently) at Wikipedia:Reliable sources (medicine-related articles). If you have an opinion, please drop a line at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources (medicine-related articles) #Brandon Hill lists. Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 18:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Exclude Cochrane and similar reviews from Chiropractic?

It's been suggested to exclude Cochrane and similar reviews from Chiropractic on WP:OR grounds. Comments are requested at Talk:Chiropractic #Request for Comment: Excluding treatment reviews. Eubulides (talk) 06:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I can't believe we're even having this conversation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:10, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Sleep medicine at Peer Review

"My" article Sleep medicine, about the subspecialty and its half century of history mostly in the USA, is now listed at Peer Review]. Any comments, suggestions, criticisms or questions are very welcome there. Thanks, --Hordaland (talk) 13:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Menstrual cycle nominated for FAR

Menstrual cycle has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. D.M.N. (talk) 14:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Plantar fasciitis

Hello! Could someone take a look at Talk:Plantar_fasciitis#Recent_edit_by_User:Dr.Joshie and the associated article? Thanks. --Tkynerd (talk) 03:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

in need of a template for better linking between similar articles

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EGBUS

this article is an abbreviation for a obgyn pe charting technique. This article could use a template linking other articles with similar abbreviations. It also could link to GYN physical exam techniques. Templates in general are great for linking articles and should be considered for this article. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.174.41.52 (talk) 16:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Journal article

Posted first at WT:GEN

I can't seem to access the following article: Modell, B. and Kuliev, A. M. (1989) Impact of public health on human genetics. Clinical Genetics. 36: 286-298. Does anyone else (with access to this journal) have the same problem? If you can tell me how to access it or send me a copy of the article I would be grateful. Richard001 (talk) 07:41, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey Richard, you may wish to try WP:WRE, they seem to get their hands on all sorts of things. Alternatively, you can wait here and see if someone has a copy. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 10:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

PMID 2689000 by the way. My library only holds a paper copy, which I could retrieve at my own expense (if this is really really important and nobody else has access, which would surprise me). Have you tried requesting a reprint from the author? --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 10:30, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

My library does have access to articles from 1989, but it doesn't seem to be showing up anywhere for me online. They also have a hard copy, but it's off campus so I'll have to order it in. Can you navigate to the full article from PubMed, or does it just show an abstract? I guess I'll just get the hard copy some time. Richard001 (talk) 22:18, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

lucentis

my wife has had treatment for a.m.d. butnow has a blister at the back of the macular could this be caused by the injections 18:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

We cannot offer medical advice here. It would be immoral since you don't know who you are talking to. As such, the advice anyone gives here could be incorrect. Please have your wife see a doctor. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 19:10, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Immoral? Surely not. However Cyclonenim is correct: Wikipedia cannot provide medical advice. Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:12, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you not think it's immoral to give advice when there is no evidence of your training? —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 20:14, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I think many people would be more inclined to describe giving medical advice to a person who is not your patient as unethical at minimum. (The idea that any person would take the advice of a complete and unverifiable stranger makes me very nervous.)

Aside from that, there are so many possibilities that no one can really give useful advice in situations like these. There are a number of conditions that could cause a "blister". WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that it's neither immoral nor unethical to give advice when asked, as long as the individual understands that my advice might not be accurate or even correct. If the individual wasn't interested in my advice, he wouldn't have asked. Axl ¤ [Talk] 07:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

In this case, an ophthalmologist might actually give accurate and helpful advice. Possibilities include:-

No, it could not be caused by the injections. Ask your ophthalmologist.
It might have been caused by the injections, perhaps depending on what kind of injections. Ask your ophthalmologist.
It is part of the disease process, not due to the injections. Ask your ophthalmologist.
I've never heard of this occurring (in AMD). Are you sure that it's a blister? Ask your ophthalmologist.

[Actually one of the above is likely correct.] The problem is that the reader doesn't know if the information provided is accurate and reliable. As long as the reader understands that, the situation is not immoral or unethical. Axl ¤ [Talk] 07:36, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Touché. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 15:16, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

PAPP-A

can't find an article on PAPP-A. I think it is Down Syndrome screening test for first trimester. even if it is included in a more general article, shouldn't this also get a stub? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.151.241.35 (talk) 20:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I haven't looked but there are in inevitably going to be articles we haven't created yet. Feel free to step in and help :) —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 21:05, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I've created a redirect to Pregnancy-associated plasma protein A. --Arcadian (talk) 21:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

cool, Arcadian found that the article already exists. I appreciate your help!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.151.241.35 (talk) 21:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

looking for a willing surgeon etc to write Howship-Romberg sign

looks like an interesting physical exam sign. Is there a template that links different physical exam procedures and different "signs" together? That would be pretty cool to have all the named "signs" linked in a collapsable template.

See List of eponymous medical signs, and scroll to the bottom. --Arcadian (talk) 21:16, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

That is awesome! you guys rock. thank you!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.151.241.35 (talk) 22:08, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Pneumonia

I found this previously featured article with a coding error but am unsure how to fix it myself and it looks like it has been there for a long time, so am unable to revert or find a earlier accurate copy. The code error can be found here and it deletes a large section of the article Pneumonia#Prognosis and mortality. As this article has been referred to as one of the best articles on Wikipedia, i thought i best post here. Regards Boylo (talk) 11:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Done --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 12:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Black Death

Black Death has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Articles are typically reviewed for one week. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here. Gary King (talk) 19:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Common cold

Could some kind soul review Common cold - an anonymous IP editor is adding info regarding the use of marijuana as an herbal treatment. I have reverted twice and don't want to get nailed for edit warring. Thanks—G716 <^T·_C> 02:55, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Just the thought... Stoned and congested at the same time. (COI: never smoked, let alone used marijuana.) JFW | T@lk 16:30, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Pregnancy-induced hypertension article should be changed to gestational hypertension

gestational hypertension is more correct. most guidelines say the term PIH should be phased out. pregnancy does not persay "induce" the hypertension. verify if you want, but PIH, although still used in hospitals that are slow to adapt should be changed to gestational htn. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.174.41.52 (talk) 06:34, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you follow the process on WP:RM. JFW | T@lk 16:29, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 20:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

where should hypermodel conception redirect to?

I think it means aneuploidy, but I'm not sure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.151.243.48 (talk) 21:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure a redirect is needed? I get no Google hits for "hypermodel conception". JFW | T@lk 21:26, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, in its plural form I get four ghits. I'd say redirect to polyploidy. JFW | T@lk 21:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Automated wearable artificial kidney merger proposal

I need some more feedback regarding whether or not to merge AWAK to Dialysis. Please see the talk page on dialysis for more information. Thanks! Chaldor (talk) 21:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

so I hear that at the end of a page (like a beeper page), you can put -4 for medical student. -1 for pharmacy, -5 for intern, -6 for R2, etc etc. Do we have an article for that? I'm curious to what -2 and -3 are. Is -3 for nurses? Is this standardized across the US / World or is it only institution specific. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.151.244.1 (talk) 00:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I've never heard of it. It sound very much like an institution-specific protocol that is unlikely to be notable for the purposes of Wikipedia. JFW | T@lk 18:04, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Like JFW, I have not seen or heard of this in the UK. Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on reliable, verifiable sources, which means published or at least held in a public library or document archive. If this is a local practice, it may have no usable source. On the other hand, the OP's question relates to shorthand used in electronic communications more generally, and Wikipedia has some articles about that. See for example Shorthand and Internet slang and Medical slang. OP, you might ask on Talk:Medical slang about pager slang in hospitals. --Una Smith (talk) 21:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be Coarctation of the aorta?

Shouldn't Aortic coarctation be at Coarctation of the aorta? Bit low down for me as I only do the neck up, but I seem to recall this from med school....come join the fun. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Reliability of information

I've come across two articles that state information that appears to be contrary to what I've been told by doctors or what I've found in science papers on the internet. Namely - Otomycosis article states that A. niger is an uncommon cause of the infection (whereas many other sources site that it's the most common fungus to cause it). Iron deficiency article states that it's rare in non-menstruating adults, whereas it seems to be very common in both men and women who don't menstruate (such as on depo provera or skip their sugar pills). Is there a wiki code that marks a sentence as "possibly incorrect, expert attention required"? (something similar to citatation). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.55.201.197 (talk) 22:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

You could start with {{fact}}. Or if you have reliable sources (try searching for a review at PubMed.gov), then you could just correct the information. {{Sofixit}} applies to errors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:06, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

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

←

→

"eMedicine dictionary"

Personally, I'm not in favour of this and how it is used.

IMHO, a reference should be a reference -- not merely a link.{example} If we extend the logic here, one could say that we should do way with PubMed references and just give the PMID.
There is no such thing as the "eMedicine dictionary"; eMedicine uses Stedman's Medical Dictionary.[11]

Any thoughts on this?

Nephron T|C 02:51, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

What's the additional value of providing a reference saying "Retrieved Sept 25, 2008"? For this source, the reference tag is just cumbersome but not useful, imho. The same logic is already used in {{eMedicine}}, {{WhoNamedIt}} etc. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 09:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Is there an easy way of directly linking to Stedman's? If not, we could edit the template mentioning them both. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 09:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

See Template:Stedman's. Note that the content at Stedman's and at eMedicine is not identical. For example, the entry for aorta at eMedicine reads:

"A large artery that is the main trunk of the systemic arterial system, arising from the left ventricle and ending at the left side of the body of the fourth lumbar vertebra by dividing to form the right and left common iliac arteries. The aorta is made up of the ascending aorta, aortic arch, and descending aorta, which is divided into the thoracic aorta and the abdominal aorta"

and Stedman's entry reads

"A large artery of the elastic type that is the main trunk of the systemic arterial system, arising from the base of the left ventricle and ending at the left side of the body of the fourth lumbar vertebra by dividing to form the right and left common iliac arteries. The aorta is subdivided into: ascending aorta; aortic arch; and descending aorta, which is in turn, divided into the thoracic aorta and the abdominal aorta. ". --Arcadian (talk) 13:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I suspect the Stedmans website is now using the 28th edition, but hasn't updated the blurb on their site. WebMD has the same text as Stedmans's but notes the 28th edition. Either way, you are supposed to cite the source you used. So unless you've got the dictionary and are just supplying a convenience link, you should give WebMD or eMedicine as a web source (which requires an access date) but may mention the original source that web site is copying. I think mentioning the original source is worth doing here, so in the future someone can see the definition has changed yet again, and the reason is that WebMD used the 31st edition from 2012.

Aorta. WebMD Medical Dictionary. Cited 26 September 2008. Based on Stedman’s Medical Dictionary. 28th ed. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2006.

FWIW, I don't use these templates; we have more than enough citation templates. Colin°^Talk 09:03, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

All of those templates are problematic as they result in inconsistent citation formats, meaning they have to be replaced when articles come to FAC and have to comply with 2c, consistent citations at WP:WIAFA. I wish they'd all be deleted; we do have enough citation templates, and we don't need additional ones that are incomplete and inconsistent. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:27, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

MCOTW

The current Medicine Collaboration of the Week is Meningitis.
Last week's collaboration was Heart failure.

JFW | T@lk 23:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

It would be nice if we could push this article up to GA status at least. It is not very common, but it is a dreadful disease and should be a high-quality article. JFW | T@lk 23:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

It's more common than G6PD, that's for sure :) —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 06:47, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Eponym templates

I propose merging templates that categorize eponymous medical signs into templates that categorize medical signs more generally. Several such templates exist. See for example Template talk:Eponymous medical signs for digestive system and general abdominal signs. --Una Smith (talk) 06:31, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

As creator of both of the templates references, I don't object if someone wants to merge them, but if they are merged, then the same decision should probably be made with the corresponding templates for the other body systems, for consistency. --Arcadian (talk) 03:16, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

"Oxygen toxicity" or "Hyperoxia"?

Which is better? Please comment here. Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:34, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

CDC Public Health Image Library

The Public Health Image Library contains a large number of high quality images, most of which are in the public domain. I think these would make a good addition to wikicommons for use in wikipedia. I was thinking it is probably possible to automate the import of all images that are public domain to wikicommons including converting those in tiff format to png. Except I don't have the technical knowledge to do that. Does anybody think this would be useful and who can help with that? --WS (talk) 21:46, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

If it is possible, the people over at WP:BOTR will be able to help you more than we ever could. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 21:57, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it would be that useful, a blanket move would include a lot of images that may already be duplicates that are on en.wiki or commons with less specific tags (see Category:United States government images), the images would still need semi-automated addition of categories, and the images are just as easy to search and add to relevant pages from the CDC-PHIL page as they are on commons. Everything that is currently tagged with a template as from the CDC-PHIL is in commons:Category:Images from the CDC Public Health Image Library, I've done most of the re-tagging/moving of images in that category. I would suggest instead to go through various categories and pages on wiki or commons to make sure they have valid tags and move the images accordingly, and use the CDC-PHIL's image of the day, or what the current MCOTW is to decide what image/category to look at. We may also want to post the links to CDC's PHIL, and Parasite image library as well as the National Cancer Institute Visuals Online. -Optigan13 (talk) 22:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah I didn't know so many were uploaded already. Almost none of them seem to be the high resolution version though that is available for most pictures. --WS (talk) 22:58, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I've now added links to the libraries along with Pubmed and Iberri's PMID tool to the project mainpage. If you see any that need high res versions go ahead and upload the replacements where you see fit. They way I've been doing it is to: 1. open the image on wiki, find it in PHIL (or vice-versa); 2. add an information template, update the license, add any relevant categories, and add language links using the What is that? tool; 3. Convert the TIFF image in MSPaint (GIMP removes the metadata on me) and upload the updated version if needed; 4. If the uploaded image finds a dupe then tag one for deletion, otherwise try to link any similar/dupe images in the other versions line; 5. Repeat for each image in the category you're working. It's a pretty light task if you want something to do with minimal conflict. -Optigan13 (talk) 23:28, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Image needs replacement

Hello all...

An image used in the Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder treatments article, specifically Image:Adderallrx.jpg, has a little bit of a licensing issue. The image was uploaded back when the rules around image uploading were less restrictive. It is presumed that the uploader was willing to license the picture under the GFDL license but was not clear in that regard. As such, the image, while not at risk of deletion, is likely not clearly licensed to allow for free use in any future use of this article. If anyone has an image that can replace this, or can go take one and upload it, it would be best.

And also Image:Amine hormones, norepinephrine and triiodothryonine.jpg at Endocrinology

You have your mission, take your camera and start clicking.--Jordan 1972 (talk) 01:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

FAs needing review

A Wikimania talk on the quality of Wikipedia's scientific articles by a biochemist, discussing the high quality of our scientific featured articles.

Praise for our developed content, not so for our undeveloped content. He singled out breast cancer as particularly bad, and mentions DNA repair, which is an older FA and needs review.

By the way, these are our oldest medical FAs that haven't been reviewed, it would be stupendous if they could be reviewed and restored without WP:FAR:

Date promoted	Article	Notes
2003-01-21	Menstrual cycle	Citations needed, ~~doesn't conform with WP:LEAD, many WP:MSH breaches,~~ MoS cleanup needed, writing needs serious attention, this article should not be featured
2004-05-16	Paracetamol	Somewhat undercited, needs MoS cleanup. Needs restructuring and pruning of vast swathes of redundancy— Preceding unsigned comment added by Una Smith (talk • contribs)
2005-07-08	Chagas disease	~~Bad shape, shouldn't be featured. Sorely lacking in citations, images need attn, MoS cleanup, listiness, and an external link farm has developed.~~
2005-07-18	Tooth enamel	Not bad, citation check, some MoS tuneup, ~~see also needs to be pruned per WP:LAYOUT~~
2005-09-03	Asthma	Undeveloped WP:LEAD, seriously undercited, linking and WP:OVERLINKing need attention, MoS cleanup needed, no History section, this article should not be featured
2005-09-03	Cerebellum	Lacking citation, MoS cleanup needed, images should be moved to a commons cat
2005-10-16	Multiple sclerosis	~~Lacking citation, MoS cleanup needed, should not be featured~~
2005-11-12	Barbara McClintock	In good shape, but undercited
2005-11-19	Pneumonia	Almost completely uncited, external jumps, MoS cleanup needed, WP:OVERLINKed, this article should not be featured
2005-12-18	Prostate cancer	~~External link farm~~, WP:LEAD needs trimming, some sections are undercited

I post this again since I have finished reviewing and referencing multiple sclerosis. I think right now it fullfills FA criteria. It would be great if anybody gave its opinion and did some copy-editing (I did my best :-) Let's see if we can take all of them to current FA criteria. --Garrondo (talk) 13:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I did my damndest to copyedit. Please look over my changes carefully—I'm not a total dummy when it comes to medical terminology, but I'm no doctor, either—and if I did anything boneheaded, I'd really appreciate an explanation so I can do better next time. I also left a few specific questions on the talk page. Maralia (talk) 20:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

It definitely needs some more copy editing. I still found words like "ambulation" in it. --WS (talk) 23:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Hm, I guess that's too obscure/jargony? I didn't choose the word, but I left it in. Maybe I had too many years of Latin. Maralia (talk) 23:30, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Eucalyptus oil a conventional medicine

It was suggested that I discuss this subject in the Doctors Mess if I disputed a fellow editors decision to exclude Eucalyptus oil from the Wikiproject Medicine banner on the basis that it should not be considered as a conventional medicine.

However, it appears that eucalyptus oil is indeed a conventional pharmaceutical on this basis:

1. Medicinal quality of Eucalyptus oil is specified by minimum standards defined in the British, United Sates and other pharmacopoeias (Boland et al, 1991) and cited in the Journal of Pharmacy and Pharmacology[12].

2. "Eucalyptus oil" is included as an active ingredient in pharmaceutical products [13] [14].

3. The efficacy of eucalyptus oil is supported by pharmacological research[15][16].

4. Products containing eucalyptus oil as an active ingredient are recommended by doctors to patients.

5. Eucalyptus oil has a long history of use by surgeons and the medical fraternity (see history in Eucalyptus oil article).

I think the confusion by the fellow wiki editor appears to be a result of branding issues (but not based on evidence of EO as a pharmaceutucal active), and also a confusion between essential oils and homeopathics (which are quite different of course). Of course, eucalyptus oil is also used in natural therapies, however this does not automatically exclude an ingredient as a conventional pharmaceutical as well, if that ingredient is used in conventional pharmaceuticals as an active ingredient.

I recently spoke to my local pharmacist and he is of the opinion that eucalyptus oil as an active ingredient within a pharmaceutical product should be most definately considered conventional, as it is a recognized active ingredient in pharmaceutical products that are also recommended by doctors to patients attending their pharmacy, and because it had a defined pharmaceutical standards per the BP, and is used in pharmaceutical-style products.

Of course, pharmaceutical products containing eucalyptus oil are sold over-the-counter but that has no bearing as to whether it's considered pharmaceutical or not, as many other conventional pharmaceutical medications are also sold over the counter.

Given the evidence, I find it hard to see how eucalyptus oil can be excluded from conventional status.

I would appreciate any comments. Thank you.John Moss (talk) 05:50, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that eucalyptus oil is mostly something used in complementary and alternative medicine but also has strict pharmacological and medical applications. Even if that weren't true, CAM is still a part of medicine. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 18:36, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that Steven - that's very helpful. I'm also curious to know if any Wiki physicians actually recommend pharmaceuticals containing eucalyptus oil? Maybe as a decongestant or topical for muscular pain.

Thanks once again. Cheers.John Moss (talk) 22:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Let's have one discussion, please, at Talk:Eucalyptus oil. Steven, perhaps you'd like to add your comments to that page, and perhaps expand on them to name the conventional medical applications of this herbal preparation. You might also like to have a look at WP:WikiProject Medicine/Assessment#Is_WPMED_the_correct_WikiProject_to_support_this_article.3F to see the standard divisions between the projects. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi WhatamIdoing, just a technical correction: an essential oil is not usually considered a "herbal preperation" per the school of herbalism. Herbalists tend to use whole leaf tinctures etc, and specifically the standards in the BP and other pharmacopoeia are defined by measurable quantities of isolates per conventional medication standards - unlike herbalism which shys away from isolates.

Also I checked the WikiProject Medicine, and it does say there is scope for both categories. Eucalyptus oil is a widely used pharmaceutical ingredient in decongestants and topicals for treating musculoskeletal pain, and as Steven says with "strict pharmacological and medical applications." If eucalyptus oil is used in a conventional pharmaceutical product, supported by pharmacological research, recommended by doctors, than surely it's a conventional medication.

Also, if you refer to the history of eucalyptus oil in the article, you will see that it's grounded in conventional medication - not alternative therapies. It was surgeons and pharmacists who originally initiated the development of eucalyptus oil. Eucalyptus oil by itself never existed as a folk remedy - the distillation of eucalyptus oil was first done by surgeons. It's actually drifted from conventional into alternative therapy use. Not the other way. And that conventional history is also why there are very well established standards for eucalyptus oil in pharmacopoeias and explains why it's still uesd in pharmaceutical products.

WhatIamdoing, it was your original suggestion to flag the issue in the Doctors Mess, and I fully concur with that. We need to flag the issue with physicians to get fresh perspectives. Why change that now?John Moss (talk) 08:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

It's one thing to point everyone to an ongoing suggestion, it's a bad idea to discuss in several places at the same time. Article specific issues should be discussed on the talk page. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 18:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'll go with that. Cheers.John Moss (talk) 00:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

2008 Wikipedia for Schools

The 2008/9 Schools Wikipedia is now available for browsing and feedback is welcome. Downloads start in two weeks so final improvements are possible; this is a big project with millions of users so it is worth doing well. The list of health and medicine topics included is here. Feedback welcome at Wikipedia:Wikipedia CD Selection. Historical versions of articles were hand picked by volunteers, choice of topic was manual mainly from the version 1.0 selectionbot output. --BozMo talk 10:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Gadget for welcoming anons interested in medicine

For those of you familiar with WP:FRIENDLY, there is now a script that allows you to add project-specific welcome templates to your interface (such as {{MedWelcome}}. Check out WT:FRIENDLY#Project-specific welcome templates. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 21:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Position of "toxicology" infobox

Are there any strict rules (or even guidelines) governing the position of a template like {{toxicology}}?

The article Oxygen toxicity that I'm working on has expanded and I'd like to add more images, but they are related to topics near the top of the article. Since the {{toxicology}} box is quite long, it moves all the images down (particularly on wide screens) and disconnects them with their topics. Is there any reason why the {{toxicology}} box should not be lower down the page, perhaps even in the References section?

I am asking here in case there's already a consensus that requires the box to be near the top of the page for consistency with other articles. Thanks for any help --RexxS (talk) 09:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if there are any guidelines, but I personally prefer the ones at the bottom of the page, like the oxygen toxicity page also already has. The one at the top could easily be merged into the one at the bottom. --WS (talk) 11:09, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:ACCESS wants infoboxes at the top. Editorial judgment is still appropriate. Have you tried putting some of the images on the left? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:41, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - that was a good heads-up! I found this: "Vertical navigational boxes, sometimes called "sidebars", and horizontal navigational boxes are sometimes placed in the lead, especially when no infobox is present. If an infobox is present, the navigation sidebar may be moved to either the top or bottom of any other section in the article." As there is an infobox in Oxygen toxicity and the problem is the navbox (even though I called it infobox), it looks like I can move it. Although, I'm also attracted to the idea of some images on the left. Only problem there is when you look at the page in 800x600 resolution. --RexxS (talk) 17:37, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know there isn't any official policy preferring right sided or bottom navigation boxes. WP:ACCESS only says they can be in the lead. However they might be problematic especially with regard to accessibility, because they take up large part of the screen on low resolutions, and for people with screenreaders, they put a lot of stuff before the actual article. Most discussions I have seen therefore seem to favour bottom of article navigational boxes. --WS (talk) 22:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the HTML content of the article at present, the infobox comes first, then the side navbox. The bottom navboxes are almost at the end of the page content, so I concur with WS's view. However, I quite like the comprehensive content of the side 'toxicology' navbox. If the bottom 'poison & toxicology' navbox had the same content, it would be no contest - the bottom box would be my choice. I'm therefore attracted by WS's other suggestion: to merge the content of the side one into the bottom one. But then I would be changing a template in use on other pages - would that cause problems for others? or can I just go ahead and do it? Any advice appreciated and thanks again --RexxS (talk) 00:09, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Value of Epocrates external links

I'd like to hear some opinions on using Epocrates in external links. Me and others have seen several links to this site appearing in external link sections, and the question arises how these should be treated. Epocrates Inc. provides free medical information in a partnership with the BMJ Group.

I think there could be two conclusions:

This is a useful resource, similar to eMedicine and maybe more so that GPNotebook (both of which are linked from {{Infobox Disease}} and have their own templates. Therefore, this should be treated similarly, or at least not be deleted as "spam".
This external site provides little extra on top of what a featured Wikipedia article would contain, and should be treated as spam (and maybe a request should be made to add it to the spam blacklist).

I myself am not completely sure, or else I wouldn't ask. A first look reveals that this site contains some interesting features (like images of pills, drug interactions etc.) and a useful organisation which makes me lean towards option nr. 1. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 14:05, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Side note: GPnotebook nolonger free access and Arcardian therefore downgraded the {{GPnotebook}} external link template. David Ruben ^Talk 14:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I searched for some drugs and found some very terse information that wouldn't be any use to the general reader. Looked like it was aimed at the prescriber, though there wasn't really any guidance, just lists. The patient info and pill pictures required (free) registration, which is forbidden by our external links guidelines. Then I clicked on diseases and was told that was only available in the US and Canada. So, that's a #2 from me. Colin°^Talk 14:59, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Strange, I'm in Belgium and I could see the page on pulmonary embolism... The site is indeed directed at practitioners, but the same could be said about eMedicine. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 15:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Steven, the link you provided requires me to register in order to view the website. Therefore I will not be looking at the website or using it for references. Axl ¤ [Talk] 15:21, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Axl, an example of an external link that was added is this: can you view this without registering? --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 15:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

(EC) I was politely invited to comment here do to my deleting this as spam. My reasoning is that first, this is being added every few months by multiple anon IP's that are going to a lot multiple articles and adding the link to them without making any other edits other than to add this site. Second, I don't like sites that require a sign in first to see any of the information enclosed in that site. I think this site violates WP:EL policies. I don't think readers should be required to go to a site and sign in to read the information. I can't say off the top of my head if this is a violation of external links or not but I do know that it is a violation to spam it to multiple articles just to have the site added to Wikipedia. I really think that this URL should be added to the spam blacklist since it is has continually been spammed to many artilces and remove as quickly by many editors. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 15:25, 4 October 2008 (UTC) As can be seen by the comment by Axl, I am not alone in refusing to sign up to see the site.

Sites requiring registration are banned for ==External links== (but not ==References==) under WP:ELNO #6. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

References don't require any web link at all, but in the case of this website the web link must be navigable by anyone seeking to validate a citation, because the website is all there is. So I favor no more linking to this site. --Una Smith (talk) 02:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Request submitted to User_talk:XLinkBot/RevertList#epocrates.com. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 18:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Steven, thanks for the new link. I am able to view a limited amount of information. However the details are restricted. The website trips up on criteria 1 & 6 at WP:ELNO. Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:52, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Done this has now been added to XLinkBot's revertlist by User:Versageek. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 17:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

GA nomination for Osteochondritis Dissecans

I have nominated the article Osteochondritis dissecans up for GA review. It's information is well referenced with use of inline citations throughout. Perhaps it requires some expansion, however the most relevant and widely-accepted information (found so far) has been presented. Your review and/or help on this article would be much appreciated! Cheers! Food_Puma 17:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

variable deceleration - obgyn fetal heart strip finding

I'm having trouble finding an article on variable deceleration. does one exist? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.151.240.70 (talk) 21:03, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The closest thing I found was Cardiotocograph. Feel free to expand on variable decelerations there. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 15:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we can get some people on the reproduction task force to take up fetal heart monitoring articles. It should be an important topic for OBs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.174.41.52 (talk) 07:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The trouble here is that the analysis of these strips seems to be an emerging practice. I have found only nursing school notes listing rules of thumb for what is a "variable deceleration", nothing of the quality required for Wikipedia. Absent reliable sources, the article would be amount to original research. --Una Smith (talk) 18:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense, I know for a fact that there are clear definitions. Not sure if this can be found in peer-reviewed journals though. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 18:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Stevenfruitsmaak, I think we're saying the same thing here. I have found more than one clear definition, but not exactly the same and not published where it would stand up as a reliable source. --Una Smith (talk) 19:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

there is at least class B research/articles defining fetal heart strip monitoring. I believe consensus meetings were just held. Practically every OBGYN knows how to interpret heart tracings and it is in almost every OBGYN textbook. If it is in the textbook it has to be able to be sourced. 163.40.121.20 (talk) 06:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

merge of overeating and Compulsive_overeating

There is a discussion on merging overeating and Compulsive_overeating at Talk:Overeating#Merge_with_Compulsive_overeating - come join the fun. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Photos of medications

Hi,

if you're interested in discussing if and how we can get more pictures of drugs, please voice your opinion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pharmacology#Photos of drugs.

thanks, --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 16:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

2008 Nobel Prize in Medicine

These articles are going to be linked from the main page for a while, more watching eyes are welcome...

Cervical cancer
Human papillomavirus
Luc Montagnier
Françoise Barré-Sinoussi
Harald zur Hausen
Human immunodeficiency virus (which is semi-protected anyway)

--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 19:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Also suggest a few extra eyes and watchlists on Robert Gallo, who was conspicuously absent from the Nobel Prize listing; his article is also attracting signficant attention. MastCell ^Talk 21:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Pubmed citation bookmarklet updated

The Pubmed citation bookmarklet has been broken for quite a while, but I updated it and it should be working again now. --WS (talk) 17:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Computer vision syndrome merger to Asthenopia

Computer vision syndrome (which has 17 PubMed hits - ie exists but not widespread used term) is already mentioned in Asthenopia ("eye strain" which has 96 PubMed hits) article, and thus should be merged (using per WP:MEDMOS the technical term for the condition vs redirected lay-term) - I've set up discussion thread at Talk:Asthenopia#Merge of Computer vision syndrome David Ruben ^Talk 01:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

"medical billing resentment" syndrome, MBR

DIAGNOSIS and CAUSES: Patients hide painful conditions, (like arthritis pain,) well know danger signs, (like frequent urination,) and chronic conditions, or genetic predispositions, (like incidence of hypertension in progenitors,) and other life-limiting conditions that should be treated, because they have had ruinous prior experience with medical billing procedures. Persons afflicted with MBR eschew timely treatment and contrive actions detrimental to their personal well being, As the incidence MBR grows, public health will become endangered.

MBR is thought by some students to originate in the insurance companies selling their financial service as a useful service. Spreading the risk of potentially catastrophic health care cost to a large population is sold as a useful service. Historically, however, most peoples interactions with medical billing and insurance companies lead to the conclusion that bureaucracies, public and private, are greedy to collect money, and miserly to dispense treatment. "What happens to me is never covered!"

While most people want to contribute their fair share to meeting societies health care needs, they feel that they are being held up for lavish pay to insurance executives et cetera.

As medical finance bureaucracies prosper richly by using elaborate and deceptive financial procedures, resentment festers in both the healthy and afflicted. As unmitigated resentment lingers endemic, the population suffers apathetic atrophy rather than suffer at the hands of exploiters.

PRESCRIPTION: A sick and hurting population calls out, "Prompt and effective reform of all predatory and unethical medical billing practices,now!" Oversight, regulation, more regulation, socialism, whatever it takes."

ALSO SEE: Reverse Munchausen syndrome.

Preliminary unscientific studies have verified several cases of MBR, more study is needed Cactusmitch (talk) 17:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Fascinating. Is this entity geographically restricted to the U.S.? MastCell ^Talk 21:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

)))) - MastCell, I can't say about the geographic distribution. I live in Arizona. Conversation with several Americans, all west of the Mississippi, have confirmed that they have a similar conditions. Thanks for reading my stuff. Cactusmitch:) ((((

Have never seen this in Belgian patients; it takes the form of hospital bill neglect syndrome in Europe, I think. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 21:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

There is a cure... the National Health Service! However, it should be noted this causes significantly more damage in huge waiting lists. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 21:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, people are much better off being totally uninsured than having to spend time waiting for healthcare... :) MastCell ^Talk 22:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, your normal ER/A&E waiting times aren't THAT long in comparison to other countries where paid health care if the norm. It's more when it comes to minor surgeries. The NHS is fantastic at saving your life but not so good at improving it. Bit of a generalization coming from someone outside the actual profession for now, but alas that's my opinion... —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 06:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

)))) Cyclonenim, I have in laws who use the Public Health Service, (Indian Health Service.) Far from perfect, MBR seems rare in Reservation facilities. The billing entities may just be willing to settle for basic insurance payments. Contract health providers have some detractors. Thanks for reading my entry... Cactusmitch:) ((((

p.s. I may have contracted MBR. I sign acceptance of lots of fine print without a lawyer's opinion. Now I write, "No surprise co-pays," of "Paid in full." on office visit checks. Cactusmitch:)

Mitch, it will only be possible to have a Wikipedia article on this topic if you can produce some reliable sources. Much of what you've said makes perfect sense, but you must demonstrate that people hide symptoms from their physicians for overbilling concerns. If this is a problem, I'm sure it has been studied. JFW | T@lk 06:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

It's probably not a good idea to compare different countries nationalised heath services because they'll all work differently to different efficiencies. Just to clarify, my comments above was a joke. The NHS is not a perfect solution at all, but it does mean you don't have to worry about payment-related stress. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 11:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

fleet enema

pt got a fleet enema in the E.R. What is a fleet enema? it is not in wikipedia... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.40.108.175 (talk) 22:30, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Fleet is a brand name. It's a very common enema often chosen for its laxative qualities. The active ingredient is sodium phosphate. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. For future reference, you may wish to use the Science Reference Desk :) —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 06:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I created a redirect to "Enema". Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Tensor

The article at [[tensor]] is about multidimensional mathematical functions. I was going to add a hat note to an article on tensor muscles, but there isn't one. Shouldn't there be an article on tensor muscles? Randall Bart Talk 00:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean by a "tensor muscle"? I am aware of three muscles named "tensor": "Tensor fasciae latae", "Tensor tympani" & "Tensor veli palatini". Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

cranial nerve 5 innervates the tensor named muscles I believe. Tkjazzer (talk) 04:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

just the ones in the Head. Tkjazzer (talk) 04:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Coronary artery disease and Ischaemic heart disease

These two terms describe virtually the same disease. I proposed a merge a couple of years ago, there was one opponent saying that ischaemic heart disease can be caused by causes other than atherosclerosis, but did not provide any external source for that; an admin summarized that there was no consensus to merge. I would like to bring these two overlapping (if not duplicate) articles to the attention of Wikpedia's medical community and decide whether they really need a merge or a major rearrangement of content to avoid unnecessary duplication. I don't think anyone disagrees that this is a topic of very high priority, bearing in mind its leading role in mortality causes around the world. --Maxxicum (talk) 07:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Disagree - Problem is that CAD and IHD whilst usually synonymous, are not invariably so and nor do they precisely mean the same thing even when considereing just elderly patients complaining of a chest pain.

Kawasaki disease can cause small aneurysms on the coronary arteries of children, but this is not atherosclerosis buildup that usually is the cause of IHD.
When considering the more typical adult patient:
- CAD would IMHO better describe the structural abnormalities that may be present. As CAD article states "most individuals with coronary artery disease show no evidence of disease for decades as the disease progresses before the first onset of symptoms". Example: a patient being worked-up for a heart murmur (that might eventually prove to be of little importance) might be shown to have advanced coronary artery blockages, yet they have been asymptomatic of any angina, breathlessness etc (i.e. the blockages have not been critical enough to cause ischaemia of the heart on typical activities, or at least not caused symptoms) - the patient has CAD but not IHD (obviously needs assessement as to what prophylactic interventions & measures are needed to prevent symptomatic illness)
- Whereas IHD is more the clinical persentation of the patient, and as the article sets out may include both symptoms & signs of chest pain or of heart failure. As acute coronary syndrome indicates, not all cases of those with chest pain necessarily have significant (CAD) athersclerosis or thrombus occlusion.

I agree entirely though that we might expect most lay readers coming to our articles may have prior assumption of the equivalence of the terms. I have no problem therefore agreeing that the articles should be clearer in distinguishing meanings, and also to not over duplicate details. David Ruben ^Talk 19:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Great information, thank you! Can you please edit these articles so that they reflect this information, and also so that CAD article has a clear reference to the IHD article, and the difference between these close terms is explained in detail? Thank you in advance. --Maxxicum (talk) 15:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Schizophrenia FAR

Schizophrenia has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:22, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Menstrual cycle FAR

This FAR says Med was notified, but I don't see it here. The article has received a lot of work and could be brought over the hump, I think, with a small amount of effort: help appreciated. It's already been up for a long time, so time is running out.

Menstrual cycle has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The original notification is here. I'm planning on doing some more work on the article this weekend (Sunday). I will work on any tagged statements first. Lyrl^Talk _C 22:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Talkheader, archiving

I've added a template talkheader to the page to try to clean up the archive links and messages that were showing up above and below the table of contents and were a bit messy. I've also added a request to index the archives of this page and the Preclinical and clinical med project pages. Also, as far as I know the current image should go because it features a picture of the simpsons on tv so prominently, but I wanted to see if anyone objects before I replace it with Image:Rod of asclepius.png. -Optigan13 (talk) 06:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Nice improvement! Why do you want the image to go though? I like the current one a lot more than the one you propose. --WS (talk) 10:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for improving the header, it needed doing. I agree with Wouterstomp, though, I prefer the current image. This is the doctor's mess after all ;) —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 15:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Very cool, well done! --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 16:57, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem with image - it nicely promotes a highly reliable source of medical information (I've learnt all my knowledge of interpersonal relationship counselling and the fact that radioactive contaminated waste is safe to eat from that programme - LOL anyone actually tried to read psychology textbooks), and it nicely promotes several soft drinks manufacturers without whom I would have dehydrated whilst on call and of course pizzas (<nods approvingly> a varied and balanced diet) - all-in-all seems highly acurate doctor's mess to me :-) David Ruben ^Talk 18:11, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I forgot to specify that I was thinking the image might need be considered non-free because of the simpsons image, not really much with my personal taste as the simpsons do cover such topics as cardiovascular surgery, obesity, nephrology, and let's not forget that under-reported Hypohemia. -Optigan13 (talk) 19:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, the image also features a Coca-Cola Bottle, a drink that was once thought to cure morphine addiction, dyspepsia, neurasthenia, headache and impotence. But seriously, the photo wouldn't be allowed if it was a derivative work, which I don't think it is. More information can be found on Commons:Derivative_works--WS (talk) 22:01, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I have created an article

Could someone take a look at my article Suzuki frame? I would be pleased if you did. Thank you.--Skullsplitter Viking (talk) 17:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

It's a good start. A photo would be really helpful, to demonstrate what makes a Suzuki frame different from a simple splint. Do you have any freely available photos handy, or do you have access to a Suzuki frame which you could photograph and upload? I'm afraid I don't, but if you do then I think it would add to the article. MastCell ^Talk 18:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Skullsplitter Viking has been blocked as an apparent Grawp sock. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:44, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

MedCab request

MedCab has a backlog of cases. Anyone can volunteer as an informal mediator. I was wondering if an active member of WikiProject Medicine would adopt Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-10-04 Medical degree. Thank you for any assistance! Vassyana (talk) 15:29, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I've responded at MedCab & Talk:Medical degree that I think teh problem is one of varying geographical criteria as well as individual subjective inclusion perspective. Better, IMHO, would be rename to Healthcare degree for which there would be little argument over current listed items. David Ruben ^Talk 19:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Template:GPnotebook

Since GPnotebook became a payable service, Arcadian blanked the template. However, it is still on many pages, as I just found it in an empty external links section of Gas gangrene. Looks like it is present on between 500 and 1000 pages; is it OK if I (maybe with the help of another candidate) use AWB to remove all these links? --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 20:33, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused about this. I can access GPnotebook for free via the link given on the article GPnotebook. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 20:57, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

So can I. Is there some sort of viewing limit or something? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 21:08, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Me three... --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 21:18, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Right. So essentially we've established that the site remains free, at least temporarily. Althoug, as Fvasconcellos suggests, there may be some limit to the viewing. I'll have a closer look and see but try not to go removing everything with AWB just yet. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 21:25, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

In September, the site was disabled for all users (paid and unpaid), with a note stating that it would be back in a month, but with the free access disabled. It is possible that the proprietors of the site have rethought this policy change. --Arcadian (talk) 03:32, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

On the FAQ, it states that there are costs for subscription to enjoy the 'full features' (whatever they are?) of the site but from what I can see, all articles appear to be free. If this is the case, the template should remain on pages. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 17:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I've restored the template unless someone shows why we shouldn't. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 17:17, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Public health's SeeAlsoFarm

Could someone that is adept with templates turn the "See also" farm at Public health#See also into one or more appropriate navigation templates? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:48, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

*points to Arcadian* —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 17:47, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I've created Template:Public health based upon those links, but it probably could use some pruning. --Arcadian (talk) 18:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

New templates

I created a new template {{Diseases of the skin and appendages by morphology}} and put some comments on the discussion page. I plan on using this template as a guide to pages I create/work on. Any feedback would be greatly appreciated. Kilbad (talk) 03:10, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, I created another new template {{Clinical and histological nomenclature for skin lesions}} and wanted to get some feedback about it. How do you feel about the overall content and organization? Please see the discussion page for my desired scope and rational. Kilbad (talk) 18:08, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Hope the templates been well categorised, as I for one will never remember {{Clinical and histological nomenclature for skin lesions}} - why not name it instead {{Dermatology nomenclature}} or {{Dermatology terminology}} (that I might remember how to spell). Likewise {{Diseases of the skin and appendages by morphology}} rename to {{Dermatology diseases}} ? David Ruben ^Talk 18:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Changes to Infobox Symptom

Recently a template-tidier removed the subline of "Classifications and external resources" from {{Infobox Symptom}}, see edit. I quite liked original as it explicitly implies that the infobox is not a summary per se of the symptom (eg organ system, surgical sieve), that we constantly seem to be warry over (parameter creep), also was consistant with {{Infobox Disease}} having same explanation - what do others think ? David Ruben ^Talk 18:14, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

This might be a good opportunity to merge the two templates, adding a parameter to state what the type was. This could also address some of the recurring concerns at Template talk:Infobox Disease. --Arcadian (talk) 18:35, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Then what would we call the template - {{Medical infobox}} ? I agree it would removal all disagreement over "disease vs condition vs symptom vs disorder" and "sign vs symptom"... but that "type" parameter will be the next source of disagreement as to what to use as permitted values eg "disease" & "presentation". David Ruben ^Talk 19:13, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

We could use "condition" as the default if no additional parameter was provided, and then hold overrides to the same reliable-sourcing standards we use for the article text. --Arcadian (talk) 00:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Dermatology Project

I just wanted to post that I have started a WikiProject Dermatology page. Please let anyone interested in dermatology on wikipedia know. Thanks! Kilbad (talk) 03:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

For some reason this was listed as a task force instead of a WikiProject. I've corrected it. I've also changed the banner to include parser functions similar to WPMED. This template can be viewed at {{WPDERM}}. :) —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 15:51, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

The project was originally created as a project, but I discussed it with Kilbad, and then moved it to a task force. I have a request for an admin to modify {{WPMED}} to add parameters for a derm task force. See the collaboration's talk page for more details. --Scott Alter 15:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I completely just realised when I checked Kilbad's talk page to inform him of my changes. Please see there for my comments. I'm sorry, I should have checked there first. Anyway, there's a lot of work to undo if we move this to a task force, but I'm not convinced it's better off as such. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 16:02, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

A semantic difference perhaps, but I think that this should indeed be a task force. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 16:56, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree it should be a task force - but no matter how you name it, we need more derm pictures!!!!! Make entire galleries with the same rash - not just one. And count the number of derm articles with no images. 163.40.101.157 (talk) 18:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

If you are willing to search the web and find these images, be my guest. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 19:14, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

If someone out there owns quality images of dermatologic findings and would like to add them to wikipedia, but (1) does not have the time and/or (2) are unsure how, please notify us here and the task force will review and add them for you! Kilbad (talk) 19:48, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Subarachnoid hemorrhage

Has made Today's Featured Article. It's going to be subject to high levels of visitors today and most likely vandals too. Could a few of you who are available over the next few hours add it to your watchlist please? Congratulations to all those who worked on the article to allow it to get to the quality needed to be a featured article on Wikipedia!

—Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 06:39, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Argh, a bit more warning would have been good. JFW | T@lk 22:58, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry :-) I added the maindate advisory to articletalk almost the moment Raul scheduled it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:00, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Dermatology without any citations

I recently started the WikiProject Medicine/Dermatology task force and have been sorting through articles, finding that many do not have any references or citations. I think the most obvious one is the main Dermatology article, and with such examples, I feel the best way to get a properly referenced article would be to start over completely. Therefore, my question is this, when is it appropriate to pare down an article back to essentially a stub when there is a lack of in-text citations and start over? This is what I want to do with the Dermatology article. Kilbad (talk) 20:53, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if that would be such a good idea; the article already contains some structure and useful content, I wouldn't throw all that away. I think this would be only appropriate if the structure would be useless, or if a lot of it is how-to and original material. I would instead move section by section, completely rewriting sections where necessary, creating new sections where needed, and removing improper sections.

Does anyone here have a lot of experiences with speciality articles like this? --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 21:02, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

My advise to Kilbad would be to leave anything that is not obviously wrong unless he fully rewrittes the article. When I writte articles it is much easier to look for refs on content already written than to redo a full article from scratch. At the same time until somebody provides refs is better to have some info than nothing.

--Garrondo (talk) 07:47, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Template of photos?

Tomorrow I will be uploading a lot of dermatopathology images, many slides of the same structure but at different views (10x, 40x, 100x). In these cases, would it be ok to make a template of related photos for inclusion in a page? Also, what are other ways to link related images? Kilbad (talk) 20:53, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

First of all, I hope you are planning to upload these images to Wikimedia Commons. It's an interesting idea to create a template to put one picture on a page, and provide links for different magnifications. Typically, if you upload an image to commons, you can put a link in the "other versions" field, which will list or display any other versions you've made of the same subject. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 20:58, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I am planning on uploading them directly to wikipedia. Aren't there bots that can transfer them over after they have been uploaded here? Kilbad (talk) 21:18, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

No, it is very important that you upload images directly to Commons. The advantage is that projects in other languages, and projects like Wikibooks, Wikinews etc can use the exact same image without duplication. You probably didn't realise this, but as a contributor to other languages and other projects, I cannot understate how frustrating local uploads are; they are plain selfish. Wikipedia is not a repository of images. There are some scripts which indeed can move images, but they still need human attention to execute them, and admins then need to delete the image locally; all a waste of good editor time.

You'll find that Commons is easy getting used to; creating a login is just as simple. It already contains a lot of histopathology images; try finding the right categories before uploading (Commons has over 3 million files).

You're not the only person who doesn't realise how important this is; I've seen a few long-term contributors who needed trout-smacking for locally uploading files. Let me know if you need any help in uploading the images. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 21:26, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I understand now. I will use the commons for my uploads. Then, once I upload an image, how do I link to it in a wikipedia article? Kilbad (talk) 21:39, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Use [[Image:IMAGENAME.jpg]] for example, replacing imagename with the image's name and making sure that the file format (such as JPG, PNG etc) is correct. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 21:42, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Using images on commons is exactly the same as if the image would be on Wikipedia. That's the beauty of it. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 22:07, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Steven, agree images then included in articles in the same manner, but I understood not quite the same at time of uploading as fair-use images do not seem permitted on Commons (example the resolution-reduced image of a photo I took of British National Formulary book cover) - did I misunderstand rules at Commons ? David Ruben ^Talk 19:26, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

No, you didn't, fair use is the only exception. But Kilbad is not talking about fair use. Commons is the central media repository for free images only, doesn't allow fair use (as most Wikipedia's in other languages don't accept them either). --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 19:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

bactrim ds tab

It's hard to find a definition of DS tab of bactrim. Others might not know either what it means (hint, me either). Is it worthy of a stub? Tkjazzer (talk) 03:41, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

double strength I think. Tkjazzer (talk) 03:46, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it means double strength. A normal patient (e.g., someone with HIV or on chemotherapy) would take one double-strength tablet or two regular strength pills. The article is here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

In some countries it is called "Forte" instead. I don't think we need a dedicated article on DS tab or forte. JFW | T@lk 09:27, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

It is not worthy of a stub article. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:53, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

This might be a candidate for Wiktionary, but it's not really worth an article here. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 10:03, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Admin request

Hey. Per advice from JFW, I'm changing WikiProject Neurology into a task force in order to give it a bit more life (hopefully!). However, I need to edit the WPMED banner in order to class articles under the task force. I've copied and pasted the code into notepad and edited everything necessary, I just need an admin who is willing to do the copy and pasting back into the template. Any offers? If so, I'll email you the code upon reply. :) Kind regards

—Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 09:59, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Would it be a good idea to create a combined task force of Neurology and neuroscience? The Wikiproject Neurosciences has been death for a long time (I think that no editions for more than a year). The aims and themes of both fields are really close and hopefully combined they will atract more contributors.--Garrondo (talk) 10:18, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

JFW made a good point on his talk page that I don't think we considered. Neuroscience covers things which aren't medical in the slightest and are strictly a science (such as glial cells) whereas Neurology covers neuroscience in a medical context. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 10:47, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with JFW. We should only include medicine-related neuroscience articles (aka neurology). As for {{WPMED}}, for previous task force additions, I have used Template:WPMED/new as a sandbox, and then asked at Template talk:WPMED for an admin to copy the code. I just added in neurology task force parameters to the sandbox template, so you could just add an {{editprotected}} to Template talk:WPMED and ask for it to be copied. --Scott Alter 11:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. --Garrondo (talk) 12:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I've requested the change over at Template talk:WPMED, but it's probably quicker if an admin who watches this page does it. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 12:52, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. --WS (talk) 13:12, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Could you please re-copy Template:WPMED/new over Template:WPMED? There are 2 issues - the capitalization of the task force name, and the addition of a check to see if the neurology parameter exists. Thanks. --Scott Alter 20:35, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes your are right, also done. --WS (talk) 22:03, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Functional medicine

We've got an unregistered POV pusher in action there, removing relevant information on rather frivolous claims e.g. [17]. I don't have much interest in that article, but I feel somewhat responsible since I've removed the {{prod}} because I found references for this notable quackery. VG ☎ 20:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Photo issue in schizophrenia article

OK, we have an interesting photo of a house with lots of writing of apparently delusional material which can be seen on an olde version of the page before being reverted.

It is being discussed about here at Talk:Schizophrenia#I_like_the_image_but.... - all input most welcome. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:43, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Something sort of interesting...

An anon (IP address: 38.99.158.114) edits the CPSO page and deletes the criticism section.{latest version by 38.99.158.114} The IP address on whois gives:

$ whois 38.99.158.114
OrgName: Performance Systems International Inc
.
OrgID: PSI
Address: 1015 31st St NW
City: Washington
StateProv: DC
PostalCode: 20007
Country: US

OrgNOCHandle: ZC108-ARIN
OrgNOCName: Cogent Communications
OrgNOCPhone: +1-877-875-4311
OrgNOCEmail: noc@cogentco.com

OrgTechHandle: IPALL-ARIN
OrgTechName: IP Allocation
OrgTechPhone: +1-877-875-4311
OrgTechEmail: ipalloc@cogentco.com

Now, Netcraft tells me the CPSO IP is: 38.99.158.115,[18] and that it is the same hosting company...

Site http://www.cpso.on.ca
Last reboot unknown
Domain cpso.on.ca
Netblock owner Performance Systems International Inc.
IP address 38.99.158.115
Country US Nameserver auth1.dns.cogentco.com
Organisation The College of Physicians & Surgeons of Ontario
Nameserver Organisation Cogent Communications, 1015 31st St. NW, Attention Legal, Washington, 20007, United States

Is there a way to show that the two IP addresses (38.99.158.115 and 38.99.158.114) are both related to the CPSO?

Nephron T|C 05:46, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd say that based on proximity, you can almost certainly assume that their related. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 08:24, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

The people at WP:CHECKUSER might be able to help. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:04, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Systemic Lupus

Hello I am a 35 year old woman who was recently diagnosed with lupus. Although I am relieved to know that all my ailments finally have a name I am scared to death of what is up ahead. I was told by my doctor that it can be hereditary and mainly in females. This of course scares me as I have an 8 and 10 yr old daughter. I was wondering if any readers out there are dealing with this illness or know of someone who is that may be able to give me some words of wisdom and comfort. Thank you for your time

12.208.119.163 (talk) 08:42, 19 October 2008 (UTC) CB in Nebraska

I'm sorry CB but we don't give medical advice. But I can tell you that the Lupus Foundation of America has a support group in Nebraska. See http://www.lupus.org/webmodules/webarticlesnet/templates/iowa_support.aspx?articleid=1423&zoneid=339 . --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 08:52, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Eclampsia needs your help

Eclampsia is still IMHO surprisingly stubby. Can anyone contribute to this? Thanks. -- 201.53.7.16 (talk) 15:03, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that we have only a few contributors with expertise in obstetrics. I'd try approaching Ekem (talk · contribs). JFW | T@lk 23:04, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Done, thanks. -- 201.53.7.16 (talk) 19:18, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone working on the article. -- 201.53.7.16 (talk) 19:21, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

revised. Ekem (talk) 00:22, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

bladder TCC insitu with bone mets

a patient has been diagnosed bladder TCC insitu for many years, is recently found metastasis to bone. is it possible that a bladder TCC insitu patient has a bone mets?

Thanks,

George —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.139.228.161 (talk) 16:25, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not provide medical advice, I'm afraid. Secondly, these sorts of questions should be posted to the reference desk since this area is only to discuss Wikipedia's medical articles. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 16:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Transitional cell carcinoma now addresses the question. --Una Smith (talk) 04:58, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

How to create subcategories in dermatology

I am working on the WikiProject Medicine/Dermatology task force and want to create some subcatagories of dermatology. For example, if I wanted to create a subcatagory of "papulosquamous disorders" under dermatology such that it would show at Category:Dermatology (like the subcatagory "burns" for example," how would I do that? Kilbad (talk) 14:32, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I thought you just have to add [[Category:Dermatology]] to the subcategory's page. --WS (talk) 18:31, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Why is the category "Skin diseases" not showing up under the category "Dermatology", or "Nail Disease" for that matter? Restated, why when I visit Category:Dermatology is it NOT the same list as seen at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Dermatology_task_force#Categorization Kilbad (talk) 00:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

They are the same list, but due to having >200 articles in Category:Dermatology, you will only see the categories starting with the letters M-Z after clicking "Next 200." There is a way to create an additional full list of subcategories on the top of a category (using {{categorytree}}), but the problem should go away as articles are removed from Category:Dermatology and properly placed in a subcategory. --Scott Alter 01:21, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

So should articles NOT be categorized under Category:Dermatology and a subcategory (like with this article for example, Macule), but instead only categorized under the subcategory? (so in this example, only Category:Dermatologic terminology Kilbad (talk) 02:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Correct. If an article is located in Category:Dermatologic terminology, which is a sub-category of Category:Dermatology, then the article is also within the hierarchy of Category:Dermatology and does not also need to be in that category. I have been going through Category:Dermatology, and re-categorizing the articles so they are only within the appropriate sub-categories. Similarly, any articles in Category:Skin diseases should not be also located in Category:Dermatology. I haven't yet removed skin diseases from the dermatology category because we might want to further sub-categorize skin diseases. --Scott Alter 03:40, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your help, and I apologize for the confusion. I am still getting the ahng of things. Kilbad (talk) 14:58, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I doubt anyone wants an apology from you, you're doing a damn good job so far. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 15:40, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

<undent> Agree good job. Just in case not already appreciated, generally categories (or subcats) should be different between the field of medicine and its list of diseases. Hence Alexander Flemming & Agar plate are listed under Category:Microbiology, whilst influenza & pneumonia are listed under a suitable subcategories of Category:Infectious diseases. David Ruben ^Talk 19:37, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

On a related note, I am willing and ready to categorize all existing dermatology articles. However, I am uncertain what the categories and subcategories of dermatology should be. How should skin diseases be best sub-categorized? There are many ways all this could be divided, and different texts divide these topics differently. I have some ideas; however, before I spend a lot of time categorizing, I wanted to get some opinions on how best to categorize the dermatology articles. Again, once a consensus has been reached, I don't mind doing it, but I want to get an outline of the category structure first. I am looking for specific examples of how your dermatology category tree would look. Kilbad (talk) 20:30, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Here is my rough draft of how the dermatology categories should be. This is list has been modified from several texts I have (particularly Lookingbill and Andrews (see my user page)). I like these categories because they allow a small amount of "cross-categorization" which is good for dermatology. Also, despite what you may think, each item on this list is a "category" in the field of dermatology. For example, for those of you not extremely familiar with dermatology, "psoriasis" is a group of diseases, not just one. Your feedback is greatly appreciated. Here it goes...

Human Integumentary system

Skin

Skin anatomy

Skin physiology

Hair

Hair anatomy

Hair physiology

Nails

Nail anatomy

Nail physiology

Dermatology

Dermatologic signs

Dermatologic surgery

Cutaneous laser surgery

Cosmetic dermatology

Cutaneous pharmacology

Dermatologists

Cutaneous diseases

Skin disease resulting from physical factors

Pruritic skin diseases

Neurocutaneous skin diseases

Dermatitis

Atopic dermatitis

Eczema

Contact dermatitis

Seborrheic dermatitis

Pustular dermatitis

Noninfectious immunodeficiency and skin disease

Drug eruptions

Erythemas

Uritcaria

Connective tissue diseases

Abnormalities of dermal fibrous and elastic tissue

Mucinoses

Psoriasis

Recalcitrant palmoplantar eruptions

Erythroderma

Papulosquamous skin diseases

Hyperkeratotic skin diseases

Lichenoid eruptions

Acne

Infectious skin diseases

Bacterial skin diseases

Mycotic skin diseases

Yeast skin diseases

Mycobacterial skin diseases

Viral skin diseases

Cutaneous infestations of the skin

Stings and bites

Nutritional skin diseases

Subcutaneous skin diseases

Subcutanous tumors

Endocrinologic disease and the skin

Skin diseases from errors in metabolism

Genetic skin diseases

Hereditary skin diseases

Congenital anomalies of the skin

Dermal growths

Epidermal growths

Epidermal nevi

Epidermal neoplasms

Epidermal cysts

Melanocytic skin diseases

Melanocytic nevi

Melanocytic neoplasms

Macrophage/monocyte skin diseases

Malignant lymphoma and skin disease

Diseases of skin appendages

Mucous membrane diseases

Vascular skin diseases

Disturbances of pigmentation

Nail diseases

How can on improve on this, or how would you do this differently? Please, I need feedback before I move forward on this. Kilbad (talk) 21:35, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

It may be best to take this to the Dermatology task force talk page. It's going to take up a lot of space here eventually. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 21:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I will put future posts there, but I need this to be reviewed by more than just two people, hence why I put it here. Kilbad (talk) 21:45, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Just wondering, about how many articles do you think will be categorized somewhere within Category:Skin diseases? I do not know much about derm diseases, but 52 different subcategories seems like a lot. I question whether there would be sufficient diseases in each sub-category to warrant its creation. Even if all 52 categories are needed, there should probably be at least one more level of categorization so that one does not need to scroll through so many categories to find the appropriate topic. Also, I'm not sure that the anatomy categories should be within the specialty categories (ie should Category:Skin anatomy be within Category:Dermatology?). A similar question is how the specialty and organ categories should be categorized. Should Category:Dermatology be a subcategory of Category:Skin (as it currently is), or should Category:Skin be a subcategory of Category:Dermatology? I think that Category:Skin should be the parent, since Dermatology encompasses (deals with) skin - rather than skin encompassing (dealing with) dermatology. This is why I think the organ system categories should be separate from the specialty categories. The exception being (skin) diseases, which is the intersection of the organ (skin) and medicine (dermatology). Finally, what do you plan to include in "Skin pathophysiology?" Wouldn't most, if not all pathophysiology-related contents be within Category:Skin diseases? --Scott Alter 22:30, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

There are ~1300 skin diseases which, after forming proper catagories, I will index in the "skin disease" page list, so that is how many will be catagorized
If sub sub categories are need, if we can agree on the top categories now, sub dividing further will be less cumbersome as there will be smaller groups to subdivide, right?
I agree that Cat:Derm should fall UNDER Cat:Skin
Skin pathophysiology will include articles such as (maybe not titled this way exactly) "Epidermal kinetics" about how cells are created and migrate through the epidermis, and how changes in that dynamic lead to certain skin diseases

So with all that being said, what would you category tree look like? Kilbad (talk) 23:04, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Rather than classify the items on a single axis, try three axes. On the first, you have the type of object ("pathophysiology", "anatomy", "sign", etc.) On the second, have the primary type of tissue affected ("nails", "skin", etc.) On the third, have the cause ("infection", "congenital", "neoplasia", "trauma", etc.) Then you don't have to create distinct categories for each conceivable combination. --Arcadian (talk) 18:38, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply! So would you mind giving me an outline of what your derm category tree would sepcifically look like? Kilbad (talk) 18:55, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I like how the category tree is progressing. I still question the need of the "pathophysiology" categories. Your example, "Epidermal kinetics," seems more like an article about physiology, that could contain links to articles about the relevant disease processes when something goes wrong. So I think "physiology" categories would be better (and correspond with Category:Neurophysiology, Category:Respiratory physiology, and Category:Renal physiology).

Getting to Category:Skin diseases, if 50+ categories are needed to categorize everything appropriately, then so be it. Personally, I'm a bit overwhelmed with one big category containing subcategories named solely with medical jargon. A person with no medical knowledge would have no idea where to start. Because I am not all that familiar with dermatology, I can't really give you any good suggestions for categorization, but Arcadian has provided good advice with using multiple axes. Thinking about how these diseases should be categorized using layman's terms may lead to a more coherent structure. I'd start of by renaming "dermatoses" to "skin diseases." You could probably create "Dermatitis" as a parent category for "Eczema" and the other dermatitis categories (if they are needed). Finally, I think some categories should be eliminated because they are too specific. There do not need to be categories for "Hansen's disease," "Syphilis," "Yaws," "Bejel," and "Pinta." These articles could just fall somewhere within "Infectious diseases of the skin." --Scott Alter 20:08, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I have (1) added cutaneous pharmacology, and (2) removed the "Hansen's disease," "Syphilis," "Yaws," "Bejel," and "Pinta" categories. In general, I am personally happy with the list as a starting point, but again, appreciate any feedback! I would like someones blessing (like Arcadian) before I actually do the categorization. Also, with regard to renaming terms for lay-persons(sp?), dermatology is linguistically a very precise field, which is one reason I like it so much; however, as such, I do not feel it is appropriate to change terms for lay-people because it creates ambiguity about the topic being covered. For example, I think it is inappropriate to call the lesions of a pemphigus vulgaris a "blister," because that term is too vague... what is a blister... is it a bulla, a vesicle, what is it? I think it is better to use the appropriate term, bulla, and let the reader learn what a bulla is from another article. So I guess my question is, how much am I to dumb-down the category list above? Kilbad (talk) 20:46, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Some suggestions: (1) instead of "cutaneous bacterial/viral/... infection", I'd simply say "bacterial infections of the skin"; (2) are bites and stings not always related to the skin? "bites and stings" seems sufficient per se; (3) don't know what a genodermatosis is, but unless you mean a genetic skin disease, I think the list is as simple as it can get. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 20:59, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

(1) and (2) are good points, and I have changed the list to reflect them. See Genodermatosis for the definition, and I have changed that category to "hereditary skin disorders". I have also replaced all instances of the work "dermatoses" with "skin diseases" Kilbad (talk) 21:25, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

When should I be using "of the skin" versus "cutaneous"? You will notice a mix of those phrases in the list? Thank you again for the feedback (all of you!). Kilbad (talk) 21:28, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you think we can get a final consensus on this categorization scheme in the next day or two so I can start moving forward with the actual categorization? How would you structure your categories differently? Can you give an example of your scheme? Thanks again! Kilbad (talk) 13:00, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Some more thoughts:

There's hair and nail anatomy and physiology, what about hair and nail diseases?
I have switched "Skin diseases" to "Cutaneous diseases" to encompase skin, nails, and hair
Do we need a separate category for Cutaneous laser surgery, isn't that a part of Dermatologic surgery?
I have made "Cutaneous laser surgery" a subcategory of surgery
You could also make a new category, "Laser surgery," and have "Cutaneous laser surgery" be a subcategory of both "Laser surgery" and "Dermatologic surgery." --Scott Alter 23:50, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
"Cutaneous Noninfectious immunodeficiemcy disorders" seems a long title (with a spelling error, btw), and I'm not sure if many immunodeficiencies are strictly cutaneous.
I have fixed the spelling error (thanks), and no, there are not strictly cutaneous immunodeficiemcy disorders, but many that present with cutaneous findings, therefore, I agree this category could be better named, however, I am not sure what a better/shorter name would be. Any suggestions?
I'd just put these in the category "Immunodeficiency disorders".
But then the category name is not specific to dermatology.
Maybe diseases that present with dermatologic symptoms should not be in the "Cutaneous diseases" structure. Would "Endocrine diseases and the skin" also fit into this situation? What would this category contain? Addison's disease? --Scott Alter 23:50, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Addison's disease would be an example of one of the many systemic diseases that affect the skin. However, I think these diseases that are not strictly cutaneous should be included in this categorization, because some diseases, such as Addison's, or lets say SLE, have significant derm findings. Kilbad (talk) 00:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Is Contact dermatitis not a subcategory of eczema?
No
Maybe it's a language difference, but I thought eczema and dermatitis are synonymous. Note that contact dermatitis is mentioned as a subtype in the Eczema article. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 17:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
The term dermatitis encompases eczema (of which there are several types), so eczema can be called dermatitis. However, all dermatitis is not eczema. Kilbad (talk) 17:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
So how about making a "Dermatitis" category, containing subcategories for "Eczema," "Atopic dermatitis," "Contact dermatitis," "Seborrheic dermatitis," and "Pustular dermatitis?" --

Scott Alter 23:50, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Done Kilbad (talk) 00:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
I have no clue what "Recalcitrant palmoplantar eruptions" means, any way to simplify or explain what that is?
These are "rashes" of the palms and soles that are resistant to available treatments currently avaliable.
Are there many of these disorders, enough to deserve a category? --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 17:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Don't know if Erythroderma deserves a category of its own; how many articles would be in it? Could either be classed under skin diseases in general, or under drug eruptions (although that's not always the cause).
Erythroderma a topic that, if eventually covered fully, I believe will need categorization (Exfoliative dermatitis (Dermatitis exfoliativa, Pityriasis rubra (Hebra), Erythroderma (Wilson-Brocq)))
You mention four diseases, which is still too low for a category of its own. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 17:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
How many diseases warrants a category? Kilbad (talk) 17:21, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
I can't find the general guidelines at the moment, but there are no hard and fast rules. However, 4 seems very small - especially if there is little to no potential for category growth. My personal preference is that 5-10 articles is a good minimum, with 50 as a maximum. Many categories have more than 50, but often large categories have no other suitable basis for subdivision (like categories of types of people or places). If you think many of these categories would have <5 diseases, maybe we can come up with a way to combine categories by finding additional commonalities between the current proposed categories. --Scott Alter 23:50, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Within the next few days I will be adding a complete listing of all skin diseases, after which I can give you an exact number of Erythroderma related diseases. If there are not that many, I will exclude this category. After I have a full disease index, I will also be able to tweak this category scheme a little more as well. Kilbad (talk) 00:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Isn't psoriasis a subcategory of Hyperkeratotic skin diseases?
Yes, however (and this is subjective, and why we are having this discussion), to describe psoriasis as strictly a Hyperkeratotic skin seems too narrow to be. Also, there are so many different types of psoriasis, and psoriatric like diseases, I think it should be a main category of "Cutaneous disease"
I agree that it might narrow, but broadly speaking, I think it could be a subcategory of Hyperkeratotic diseases. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 17:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Maybe Lichen planus should be "Lichenoid eruptions"? Otherwise I don't see many conditions in the category.
Excellent point. I meant that category to include lichen planus and related disorders, so I think that is a good renaming
Can't we group fungal and yeast infections under "Mycotic"?
Good point, and I will leave yeast as a subgroup of that
My point was that many, including myself, never really got the difference between a yeast and a fungus, and this might lead to unnecessary confusion. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 17:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
"Diseases of the subcutaneous fat" is limited to the fat, but maybe it should be about the subcutis in general? Perhaps "Subcutaneous disorders"?
I renamed it to "Diseases of the subcutaneous tissue", I agree with you about making it more broad than just the fat (although, that is mainly what it is)
How about calling this "Subcutaneous diseases" - to mirror "Cutaneous diseases?" --Scott Alter 23:50, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
I have renamed it Kilbad (talk) 00:58, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
I'd merge "Abnormalities of dermal fibrous and elastic tissue" into "Connective tissue diseases".
I think "Connective tissue diseases" should be in a category by itself as these constitute a well defined group of diseases within the medical community.
If there are sufficient conditions about "Abnormalities of dermal fibrous and elastic tissue," then this category could exist as a subcategory of "Connective tissue diseases." --Scott Alter 23:50, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
That seems reasonable. Kilbad (talk) 00:58, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Hereditary skin disorders and Cutaneous congential anomalies are indeed different, but I'd make the former a subcategory of the latter, no?
But are cutaneous congential anomalies aways "inherited"?
You could classify them under "Genetic cutaneous disorders"
Dermal tumors and Subcutanous tumors should be subcategories of dermal and subcutaneous diseases, imho.
I have made "Subcutanous tumors" a subcat of "Diseases of the subcutaneous tissue", but have left dermal turmors alone as there is not "Dermal disease" cat at this point
Epidermal skin diseases is a problematic term, imho, because psoriasis, dermatitis etc are all mainly epidermal diseases.
I changed it to "Epidermal skin growths"
Isn't "skin" redundant in "Epidermal skin growths?" How about "Epidermal growths?" --Scott Alter 23:50, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, I have tried to remove some of the redundant terms... see the list now Kilbad (talk) 00:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Don't know if "Cutaneous macrophage/monocyte disorders" is appropriate because of the slash, perhaps this category would also be small?
There are actual several d/o that could be in this category, so I remaned it to Cutaneous monocyte and macrophage disorders
Would Acne be a subcategory of Diseases of skin appendages? Aren't hairs skin appendages as well?
They are a disease of the skin appendage. However, I think the category fits now, being that I remained the main cat to "Cutaeneous diseases"
There are also existing categories for Category:Hair-related diseases and Category:Nail diseases. Where should these fit in? --Scott Alter 23:50, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Any diseases of the hair should be under "Diseases of skin appendages"; and as far as nail disease, most of those diseases are infectious, or fall under other existing categories we already have (like psoriasis for example). However, technically, mechanical diseases like an ingrown toenail do not really fit anywhere, so I think a "Nail diseases" category is a good idea, and it has been added. Thanks! Kilbad (talk) 01:16, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps Cutaneous disturbances of pigmentation such as vitiligo are also Melanocytic skin diseases?
Yes, there may be some occasional cross categorization that may occur, but I think that may be hard to avoid completely

Finally, I have two practical questions, (1) could we move this discussion to the dermatology task force, and (2) categorisation might be easier if you use WP:AWB; others could help if it would be difficult to learn.

If you want to move the discussion, I am fine with that. I just initially posted it here to get more feedback.

Questions posted by --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 15:43, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Answers by Kilbad (talk) 17:12, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Another thing to consider besides which categories to use is how exactly to name the categories. What I mean is consistency between the categories. In the current listing, some names are in the format "x diseases of the skin," while others are "x skin diseases." Some categories use "disorders," while others use "diseases." Finally, there is a mixture of location terms, like "subcutaneous," "cutaneous," "epidermal," "dermal," and "skin." Are all of these terms appropriately used? Are these descriptive location terms redundant or unnecessary (such as "Neurocutaneous skin diseases" and "Cutaneous disturbances of pigmentation")?. --Scott Alter 00:06, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I have tried to make the naming convention more consistent and remove any redundant terms. How does it look now? Kilbad (talk) 00:58, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

You will also notice I have included all the above categories under the "Human integumentary system" so as to exclude other animal anatomy, physiology, and diseases. Kilbad (talk) 01:01, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I have moved the proposed category scheme and discussion to: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Dermatology_task_force/Categorization#Categorization_of_dermatology_articles Kilbad (talk) 03:30, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Naming of articles requiring disambiguation

I have noticed that there is no standard way for medicine-related articles that require disambiguation to be named. For example, we currently have articles like Acute (medicine), Chronic (medical), Patch (dermatology), and Erosion (dermatopathology). After reading through the Wikipedia guidelines and MOS, the only section relating to the disambiguation words used in parentheses is Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Naming the specific topic articles. Based on this, I'd think we should use "(medicine)" for all articles needing a disambiguating word. Using "(medicine)" fits best, as it is a simple, descriptive word and not an adjective. I do not think we need specialty-specific disambiguating words like dermatology or dermatopathology, unless we need to differentiate two items of the same name within medicine. If this happens, we could then use the specialty name as a disambiguation word. Any comments or other suggestions? Should this recommendation be added somewhere to this WikiProject or to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (medicine-related articles)? --Scott Alter 04:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd support such a proposal, so yes, I think it should be discussed and added to WP:MEDMOS. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 07:53, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:06, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

So do I.--Garrondo (talk) 10:22, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

An additional word that I think should be accepted as a disambiguation word is "anatomy." For example, Nail (as in fingernail) is better off at Nail (anatomy) than "Nail (medicine)." If I think of any others, I'll add them here for discussion. What is the next step for adding this to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (medicine-related articles)? Does it need to discussed or drafted at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (medicine-related articles), or can I just create a new section in MEDMOS (probably a subsection of "Naming conventions," called "Titles requiring disambiguation")? --Scott Alter 21:13, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Nobody seems to be mad over at WT:MEDMOS this week; why don't you Be bold and we'll see what happens? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:05, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

As someone who spends a lot of time fixing disambiguations, here's my take. Have you tried fixing some of these dabs that annoy you, including "what links here"? If not, try that first, then if you really want to change the rules. Yes, more orderly naming is more orderly, but at what cost? --Una Smith (talk) 05:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that fixing redirects is a hassle. However, we do not need to go through all of the existing pages and mass rename them all. I brought this up because there is currently no guidance as to how to name articles requiring disambiguation. I'm not changing the rules (since there currently aren't any), rather setting guidelines for any new articles. Existing articles could be grandfathered in or changed individually as one desires. --Scott Alter 22:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

This proposal amounts to creating a new rule. Is such a new rule really needed? If existing disambiguation clusters don't really need to be renamed, why do we need this rule? How is it not just instruction creep? --Una Smith (talk) 17:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Limb terminology - upper/lower or thoracic/pelvic?

Since Wikipedia:WikiProject Anatomy has been pretty quiet lately, I figured I'd discuss this here. Within the category structure, the terminology for differentiation of limbs is not consistently used. If you look in Category:Limbs, there is a mixture of upper/lower with thoracic/pelvic. I'm leaning toward using thoracic and pelvic, since these terms could be used for other species; but upper and lower are more commonplace. --Scott Alter 05:22, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

My vote is with upper/lower - let's keep it simple and understandable by all, much plainer. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:39, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Haven't we already had this discussion with disease nomenclature? We sided on the side of the more complicated, scientific terminology then. Why not now? —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 13:53, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't involved then, but my reasoning would be that there is no meaning lost by using simpler terms in humans, and in quadrupeds we'd call 'em forelimbs and hindlimbs, so why not go for simpler? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:15, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Generally, I'd go with simpler/plain English terms when there is no loss of meaning. It complies with WP:JARGON -- as in "Words and phrases used as jargon by any profession or group should usually be avoided or explained". WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:54, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Avoided or explained. In this case can't we use the most general terms (thoracic/pelvic) and use redirects from upper/lower limb and fore/hind limb? When it is necessary to explain, that can be done on the category pages. --Una Smith (talk) 14:48, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Dermatologist in the house?

If there is anyone with dermatology background who who can take a look at the current image at Immersion foot. They just look like really wrinkly sodden feet - not necessarily a medical condition. The article mentions cold-induced damage, blisters, and infection as signs of immersion feet. These feet don't look pretty, but they don't look that bad. I have left a note on the photographer's commons talk page.--ZayZayEM (talk) 23:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

It's your lucky day, we recently had a dermatologist join up with WP:MED. You'll want to get in touch with Kilbad (talk · contribs). —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 00:04, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

First, there are three different immersion foot syndromes, (1) trench foot, (2) warm water immersion foot, and (3) tropical immersion foot. There are differences in those syndromes and I recommend reading (with photos): James, William; Berger, Timothy; Elston, Dirk (2005). Andrews' Diseases of the Skin: Clinical Dermatology (10th ed.). Page 26-27. Saunders. ISBN 0721629210. Second, while I cannot say for certain based simply on the photo, the picture of the "wrinkly sodden feet" could certainly be consistent with, in particular, trench foot or warm water immersion foot (I am not as familiar with the appearance of tropical immersion foot). Hope this helps! Also, if you like derm, consider joining the WikiProject Medicine/Dermatology task force! Kilbad (talk) 01:28, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Patient handout or review article

Hi,

In a recent ruling in a dispute about the lead section of Diabetes mellitus the mediator has said:

The various type should be called "types" and not forms. The reason for this is that this is an encyclopaedia, the reader is what matters, not the editors! We (experts) don't write Wikipedia for our own use, we write it for the layperson. This article must be understandable by the non-expert reader. Experts shouldn't be coming to Wikipedia for sources: frankly it would be professionally weak to do so and no peer reviewer would look kindly on a researcher using a Wikipedia article as "evidence" in any publication of note (indeed at my university, citing Wikipedia is an automatic failure for any piece of work submitted to med-school!). This place is for the high-school student, the worried new patient, the news reporter looking for a quick snippet to include in an article: the layperson. As such, we have to keep it understandable by that audience.

Should Wikipedia articles about medicine (or life sciences in general) be downgraded to a form easily understandable by laypersons? If so there are thousands of articles to be rewritten. Wikipedia is not paper so articles are hyperlinked and readers can refer to other articles for most important points in the text that are not immediately understandable.

What do you think ?

Kpjas (talk) 07:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, "patient handout" smells of medical advice, so that may not be the best example. The articles should be at least as accessible as hospital consent forms: not infantile, but stripped of jargon and making no assumptions that a reader understands more than the basics of anatomy and physiology. I think it would be appropriate to lay out a "target audience" for the articles, but that idea isn't very popular for wikipedia in general for some odd reason. If I had to make a decision, I'd say that articles should be written to the level of a nursing student: someone who has a solid grounding in the basic science and the beginnings of an understanding of clinical practice but isn't by any means an expert. I would say "Member of Congress" but that's US-specific and some of them seem to have problems with the basics of science and technology. SDY (talk) 12:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (medicine-related articles)#Audience. I agree, neither patient handout or review article are suitable styles to follow. We must Make technical articles accessible. Don't regard this as "downgrading". Accessible writing on a complex subject is achievable but takes considerable talent. The language should probably be pitched at the level of a broadsheet newspaper or popular science magazine. Jargon needs to be explained in-article and wikilinks used for the benefit of readers wanting to learn more (i.e., the reader should get the gist of what is being described without having to click away and come back).

For a few complex but important subject, WP has "Introduction to..." articles. See Introduction to general relativity and General relativity; Introduction to viruses and Virus (though IMO Virus is also highly accessible and a great example to follow). Colin°^Talk 12:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree with Colin. Per WP:JARGON, many of our articles should indeed be rewritten. We shouldn't be overly patronising or using kiddy-language, but I think high school level is more appropriate than nursing student-level, which is already too advanced. It's a lot easier talking jargon for most experts; I find it challenging but rewarding to write for the general audience. I recently saw a perfect describing of the situation at Talk:Seizure#HUH?:

“

I am not a professional in the medical field and I found this article way too confusing to follow. For now I'll go elsewhere to gather information. ...
For a reader who just wants to know what a seizure is, this is a hopeless article. These jargony medical articles really are the scourge of Wikipedia.

”

Not that this problem is limited to medicine: try learning something about maths or statistics from a Wikipedia article... hopeless indeed. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 14:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

In the first quote somebody said "we don't write Wikipedia for experts, we write it for laypersons". That's not strictly true, we write this encyclopaedia for everyone. There is, in reality, no more reason to 'dumb down' language than there is to step it up a gear. Most terms are allowed to stay here (especially if they have an article) but occasionally, for particularly complex words or for words without an article, we can describe the condition/name etc. briefly in brackets. I don't see much of an issue with this method because if and when people don't understand, they can ask at the reference desk. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 16:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I often advocate doing both. Particularly for "Cause" and "Pathophysiology" sections (which tend to be get technical than, say, "Signs and symptoms"), there's no reason that you can't start with a short, simple internal summary before proceeding to the details of biochemistry. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:08, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Kpjas is referring specifically to a long grumbling edit war perpetrated by an anonymous editor who insisted that very rare monogenic forms of diabetes needed to be mentioned prominently in the intro. This particular issue, for which the MEDCAB was alerted, has little to do with style. However, I totally agree that we need to write articles for everyone. That can be difficult, though. In hypopituitarism (my last major project), the "causes" section looks dreadfully jargonesque: an enumeration of long names that are mostly in Latin. Yet for the professional or for the (relative of a) patient, it is essential that this information is covered.

When I wrote the early drafts of WP:MED, I thought it reasonable to allow medical articles to have a "gradient of complexity". Some content simply cannot be brought down to a level that can be grokked by a twelve-year old; this is something we need to accept. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't try.

A lot of medicine has to do with bringing scientific knowledge down to a practical level. "Doctor" in its original meaning is to be translated as "teacher". A doctor talking to his/her patient about a diagnosis is essentially doing that: explaining that a disease is, what kind of treatment is available, what is known about the prognosis, and how common it is. Much of what we do here follows the same thread. JFW | T@lk 20:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The question of "audience and language" in medical articles in Wikipedia is for the most part settled. (I used patient handout or review article for the sake of the discussion only )
Reasonable guidelines are summarised in the MOS, for example Wikipedia:Manual of Style - Audience (why did I miss it?)

Audience → everyone translates to high school student level
Language → NO JARGON mandatory in the lead, strive for no jargon wherever possible in other sections

Interesting points from the discussion:

"Introduction to..." articles for subjects with the most technical language
internal summaries for the jargonesque sections
gradient of complexity

I reviewed lead paragraphs of a few of our medical featured articles and they look very good IMO - language accessible to the general public and unfamiliar terms linked to separate articles (for a comprehensible explanation in their leads).

Finally, a very controversial proposal

subpages → "For the specialist" or "For patients" for example "/Diabetes mellitus for the specialist" or "/Diabetes mellitus for patients" linked from the main ?

Kpjas (talk) 22:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

No, I think I oppose subpages. That sounds like "Barack Obama for Democrats" and "Barack Obama for Republicans", i.e. it will eventually lead to POV and WEIGHT problems. If absolutely necessary, we could split out topical subpages if there is sufficient content to populate such a subpage (e.g. genetics of diabetes mellitus type 2, a fertile area of intense research). JFW | T@lk 22:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I also oppose subpages. Basic science articles sometimes benefit from the "Introduction to genetics" approach, but articles about diseases and medical conditions should avoid them. The problem is indeed due weight. I'm convinced that an "Introduction to type 2 diabetes" would rapidly degenerate into a patient education webpage, despite the purpose of general education. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is aimed to be the perfect reource for everyone , the target being that one day when you do cite wiki s your source for med school you won't be laughed at. Articles on other subjects aaren't dumbed down. i could barely make it through some of the complex economic theories. Why should medicine be ostracized and branded as "jargony"?. The other day i found a stub on lhermitte duclos disease. how do you explain that to a layperson. you need a certain amount of anatomy to comprehend "hypertrophy of cerebellar folia". all related terms should be hyperlinked. An encyclopedia is meant for everyone and not for "high school equivalents ony". People who moan about the hyperlinks should realize that the pleasure in reading an encyclopedia is that when you read up on " seizures" for example and you don't know what a jacksonian march is or what a temporal lobe is you can eep hyperlinking to more and more basic articles and then revert . This way lay people get to flip through many articles to get a complete view of the subject and experts can just look at the advanced stuff.

Drarvindr (talk) 17:29, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any reason why Lhermitte-Duclos disease couldn't begin with a plain-language statement that is intelligible to ten year olds, like "LD disease is a very rare kind of brain tumor, but is not considered cancer." It can then go into whether or not it's really, truly neoplastic. We don't need to use professional-level language for every single sentence. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:58, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps. But then this requires a major overhaul of most medical articles. It is much easier to link jargons to another page explaining the term at "10-yr old" level which most of the articles are doing. The pages are trying to be as thorough as possible without becoming textbooks.You cannot oversimplify things. Before you know it the page on retinoblastoma opens like "It is a tumor that grows from your retina (rhet-eye-naa)".I feel that subpages are a bad idea. Some of my patients are already self diagnosing using wikipedia. The medical pages are already "patient education" pages as they stand. they will only get worse if you add subpages.Drarvindr (talk) 16:33, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I also oppose subpages. But the fact that writing a good article is somewhat more work than writing for other professionals is not, IMO, a justification for failing to comply with WP:JARGON and WP:MEDMOS#Audience. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

GA Review Oxygen toxicity

I think Oxygen toxicity may be close to gaining GA status, but the reviewer would like a citation for "In either case, unless there is a prior history of epilepsy or tests indicate hypoglycemia, a seizure occurring while breathing oxygen at partial pressures greater than 1.4 bar (140 kPa) will be diagnosed as oxygen toxicity by exclusion." I know that's what happens but I'm at a loss to find a source to back it up. Please, can anybody help? --RexxS (talk) 19:07, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Did you introduce that content to the article? If not, you could find who did and ask them for a reliable source. --Una Smith (talk) 19:20, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes - it was me - I added it after Axl's previous GA review (he was explaining the sections for MOSMED: "Diagnosis": Presumably in diving it's a diagnosis of exclusion, in conjunction with the history?) - and I'm quite certain that it is the case, as I'm unaware of any diving incidents involving an underwater seizure being attributed to anything other than CNS oxygen toxicity or epilepsy. But I'm not a RS. I guess diagnosis by exclusion is harder than most things to cite. --RexxS (talk) 19:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I suppose you have searched Google Scholar? Anyway, if you don't find a source, then you should realise that although some things have been thought to us and we apply them in daily practice, there are no reliable sources for them. In that case, they shouldn't be mentioned in the article. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 20:13, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

After some digging around, I found this article. It indicates that arterial gas embolism (air embolism) can also cause convulsions. Ironically , it is treated with 100% oxygen. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:05, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much for looking, it's appreciated.

Steven: My searches on Google Scholar only turned up articles when CNS seizure had occurred during HBOT - the diagnosis part was inevitably related to the indication that had lead to the treatment. I'm reluctant to omit mention of diagnosis of CNS toxicity in the article: it clearly is diagnosed, but nobody seems to want to say why! I think I'll use WP:DUCK as the reference :).
Axl: Although CAGE (cerebral arterial gas embolism) can cause convulsions, among other neurological problems, it occurs as a consequence of decompression, i.e. after a dive. Whereas CNS toxicity will only occur while under pressure - during a dive. That in itself is sufficient to differentiate when making a diagnosis. (What do you call that? history? - excuse the non-medic!). Anyway, AGE is caused by inert gas bubbles, so 100% oxygen is sensible treatment. In fact, it's pretty much the universal first-aid for any diving incident, which is why divers are taught oxygen administration.

--RexxS (talk) 14:58, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you're right, Rexx. According to the article, arterial gas embolism occurs "Within five minutes of surfacing (> 80 percent) or during ascent" while oxygen toxicity convulsions occur at depth. Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:22, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Charities in external links

This is a subject I've seen many of you struggle with: when to remove external links to charities. I'd really like to learn from others to see which rules you use to judge if a charity should be included. Some food for thought and discussion from my personal External link cleanup collection:

Sepsis contains a link to Surviving Sepsis Campaign and International Sepsis Forum, and Intensive care medicine contains a link to the Veterinary Emergency And Critical Care Society.
I removed this beautiful site from testicular cancer: "checkyourballs.co.uk Information and awareness site, created by a survivor"
When pruning the link farm at foodborne illness, the victims included VeriPrime Food Safety Alliance New Farm to Fork Food Safety System, whereas Food Safety Network remained.

Not perfect examples, but I'd like to hear from your dilemmas! --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 19:12, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

My 'rule of thumb' would be - our primary responsibility is to keep only valuable and reliable resources that help making articles complete and comprehensive. We must decide for ourselves on case by case basis (sometimes hard indeed) and watch out for COIs. How much the charity and how much the Wikipedia article would benefit from the inclusion of the external link is the pivotal question IMO. Kpjas (talk) 19:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

"How much the charity and how much the Wikipedia article would benefit": I assume you're referring to COI, or do you many that it matters how much the charity itself benefits? --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 19:56, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Might sound a bit unfeeling but helping charities gain visibility is not our business - so no to link farms for the publicity's sake. I know, we'll face borderline cases and it'll be hard to say no to one charity and accept a link from another. It matters what the charity's website offers and whether the link is added with community consensus or unilaterally by the charity's PR department.
I ask myself if our readers look for or find helpful these links.
To me links appearing in the EL section seem to bear a kind of Wikipedia's invisible seal of approval.
A test case could be Niemann-Pick disease EL section. Kpjas (talk) 22:15, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I do a fair bit of this, and here are some of my current rules of thumb:

I kill all links to chat boards/support groups/discussion/local meetings/etc. because of the WP:ELNO violations. If a linked website has these "features" plus desirable features, then I strip any mention of the disallowed items from the description.
I kill all fundraising links. Unless real information significantly outweighs the "donate here" and "support the cause" stuff on the linked page, then IMO it's a fundraising page.
I remove many links based on the size of the organization including:
- links to any charity in large diseases. There are dozens of truly "major" charities for heart disease, and we can't have dozens of links). These are the heart.org kinds of links: nice folks, I'm sure, but the home page isn't especially informative.
- links for most moderately common diseases. If there are more than about four national/large organizations listed there, then that suggests that there are plenty enough groups that we shouldn't be advertising any of them.
- links to some less common diseases. My new rule of thumb (still experimental) for rare diseases is that if the disease is rare enough to qualify for the limited charity exception in WP:MEDMOS#External_links, then it is rare enough that the article should be rated of Low importance on the WPMED banner according to our assessment guidelines. As 98% of our articles have at least a preliminary assessment, then it speeds some decisions for me.
I remove most links that don't have actual, concrete, specific, detailed information on the exact subject of the Wikipedia article on the actual page that the reader sees first. If the page isn't useful to a student writing a paper for a biology class, then it's not appropriate for Wikipedia. We are not providing links for the convenience of either professionals or patients. I keep charity links that provide detailed information irrespective of considerations about their size or disease prevalence. So heart.org would go (major disease), but any link to an informative subpage on the same website would not.
- Quick rule of thumb (amazing how often it applies to less common diseases): If the name of the disease doesn't appear on the linked page, then I delete the link.

Note that I evaluate the actual page that we're linking to, and if it fails, I don't bother digging through the website to see if there might possibly be something that might possibly qualify.

By the way, if you see me "organize" links into "Information" and "Charities" subsections, that's your invitation to delete all the charities.

I don't usually watchlist pages when I weed link farms. I did for a while, but it just gets overwhelming. Perhaps one in eight weedings gets reverted, and I've decided that the time I used to spend arguing with determined promoters is usually better directed towards weeding other pages. The article will come up again, in my list or someone else's; I can weed it again some other day. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:36, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Featured topics project

Johnson

Boston College survey

Ophthalmology topics

Opinions on merger of Origins of vampire beliefs back into vampire requested

Neurosurgery

Poliomyelitis project

Triplication

Hep C nomads

Adiposopathy article

Discussion of scientific featured articles, and old FAs needing review

Alzheimer's disease for main page

Call for Help!

X-ray

Anyone interested in Pyromania?

MEDRS - guideline proposal

Notability of hospitals around the world

Two related pages

Genecological query

'Acute stress reaction' versus 'Shock (psychological)'

Is the bladder strictly one-way?

DYK push

Wilderness Diarrhea Help Request

epilepsy / impact on brain

Merge proposal (calling all osteoporosis people)

MCOTW

Interesting feature in this week's NEJM

Scope: Involuntary celibacy

Undue Weight in schizophrenia article

Dehydration needs review

Influenza vaccine

Blood glucose monitoring

Cooking#Health_effects

FAs needing review

Sanity check

Cabal, er... watchlist request

Yes or no?

Housekeeping

WP:VITAL

Monoclonal antibodies assessed as Low-importance

Help!

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Medicine

Brandon/Hill and Doody's?

Exclude Cochrane and similar reviews from Chiropractic?

Sleep medicine at Peer Review

Menstrual cycle nominated for FAR

in need of a template for better linking between similar articles

Journal article

lucentis

looking for a willing surgeon etc to write Howship-Romberg sign

Good article reassessment for Black Death

Common cold

Pregnancy-induced hypertension article should be changed to gestational hypertension

where should hypermodel conception redirect to?

Automated wearable artificial kidney merger proposal

is there an article that tells what the -x means at the end of a page (pager/beeper)?

Shouldn't it be Coarctation of the aorta?

Reliability of information

"eMedicine dictionary"

MCOTW

Eponym templates

"Oxygen toxicity" or "Hyperoxia"?

CDC Public Health Image Library

Image needs replacement

FAs needing review

Eucalyptus oil a conventional medicine

2008 Wikipedia for Schools

Gadget for welcoming anons interested in medicine

Position of "toxicology" infobox

Value of Epocrates external links

GA nomination for Osteochondritis Dissecans

variable deceleration - obgyn fetal heart strip finding

merge of overeating and Compulsive_overeating

Photos of medications

Pubmed citation bookmarklet updated

Computer vision syndrome merger to Asthenopia

"medical billing resentment" syndrome, MBR

Tensor

Coronary artery disease and Ischaemic heart disease

Schizophrenia FAR