Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Neurology task force/Archive 1

Archive 1

We are up and running!

Took about a day of hard work but the WikiProject is now pretty much fully working (with a few exceptions!)

Feel free to comment on here about improvements (let's face it, we need a lot of them!)

Thanks! Regards, CycloneNimrod^Talk?_Sign? 21:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Several subprojects have been started, many of them dried up in spite of great contributors (see for example, WikiProject Gastroenterology). Nevertheless, it's better to have a vision than to be chasing the facts; all the best with this initiative! --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 13:14, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I added a hierarchy of parent wiki-projects at the top, and a list of related WikiProjects (currently only two) in the middle. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 20:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

• The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
• The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
• A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 21:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Articles flagged for cleanup

Currently, 959 articles are assigned to this project, of which 254, or 26.5%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 14 July 2008.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. More than 150 projects and work groups have already subscribed, and adding a subscription for yours is easy - just place a template on your project page.

If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page; I'm not watching this page. --B. Wolterding (talk) 17:21, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Sense of time

There's a dispute about the last sentence at Sense of time (currently sort of on the talk page). If someone who actually understands the science could please take a look, I'm sure it would be appreciated. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Might be best to ask at WikiProject Neuroscience or WikiProject Psychology, we only really deal with disease processes here. —Cyclonenim^T@lk? 18:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

to punish doctor.,

R/Sir,

My elder brother who was alcoholic was admitted in semi govt. hospital to maintain his sodium & potassium level, Doctors to that hospital has raised his level from 105 to 152. Soon he went in Coma, we shift him to a private hospital[Wockhardt], they told that he is suffering from CPM ie.Central Pontine Myelinosis. We the middle class family doesnot understand what to do, Now he is in Government hospital under nursing care which my father & mom do, not a single doctor or nurse take care of him. for further treatment we don't have money. please help me Sir. at ceatner@gmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.96.176.23 (talk) 11:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Please see Central pontine myelinosis for more information. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Neurology

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 23:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

What is the difference between neuronal circuitry and neural circuitry?

Hi: I'm working on the Wiki article about the essay "Is Google Making Us Stupid?" and I have been unable to determine the difference between the adjectives neural and neuronal. The question has also been posed at WikiAnswers by someone other than me. If you could enlighten me about the differences I would appreciate it. Nicholas Carr, in his essay "Is Google Making Us Stupid?", says "Over the past few years I’ve had an uncomfortable sense that someone, or something, has been tinkering with my brain, remapping the neural circuitry, reprogramming the memory." However, in an email, he told me that "Given what we know now about neuroplasticity, it seems certain that internet use is changing our neuronal circuitry." So he even seems to use the terms "neural circuitry" and "neuronal circuitry" interchangeably. The same goes for "neural network" and "neuronal network", as well as "neural level" and "neuronal level"—terms which are used on page 117 of Norman Doidge's book The Brain That Changes Itself without any apparent differences. I can't see any at least. Sincerely, Manhattan Samurai (talk) 19:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Quality problems with section Dream theories of the Dream article

Hi, this section of the article Dream seems to be overly focused on (mostly very old) philosophical theories of dreaming and ignore the more recent scientific findings. It would be nice, if an expert could rewrite it accordingly. --84.178.77.48 (talk) 07:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Please try WikiProject Neuroscience. This WikiProject deals with neurological disease. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 07:56, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Hippocampus is at FAC

I have just nominated Hippocampus at FAC, and opinions from the people who participate here would be valued. Note while I'm at it that Benzodiazepine is also currently nominated as of May 26. Looie496 (talk) 17:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposed Policy concerning Photosensitive epilepsy

There is a proposal being offered to change policy concerning all articles with involuntary health consequences. All interested parties are invited to give their opinion at User:Danglingdiagnosis/Involuntary_health_consequences signed Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 23:30, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Huntington's disease at FAC

I have just nominated it for FA. Since it is an important article for this project reviews are most welcome. Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 09:32, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Brain GAR notice

Brain has been nominated for a good article reassessment. 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.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:01, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

service message

Someome should perhaps do some archiving as most articles are past 20 days old --DerekvG (talk) 23:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

HELLO

hulloohohohohoh
is somebody around, around, around
Im a wee bit lost, lost, lost :-)
--DerekvG (talk) 15:40, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

• I seem to be all alone here .. or is this the whales belly ... GEPETTO!!

Is someone available of teh Neuro taskforce??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DerekvG (talk • contribs) 15:41, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes Pinocchio, you were calling? JFW | T@lk 23:06, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

oh Gepetto, at last i found you !!!--91.179.103.4 (talk) 01:16, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

seems i wasnt logged in but the remarks wer mine --DerekvG (talk) 14:11, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello there, I've been around here a few days and I didn't get any reaction. Are you part of the Neurology task force? --91.179.103.4 (talk) 01:16, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not a neurologist but I am a member of the talkforce. Now how can I help you? JFW | T@lk 13:57, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

actully i'm looking for participants in the neurology task force that can help me proofreading, and making suggestions/correction about the format of my articles

I'm rewriting brain tumor and a number of articles about different type of brain tumors, the probelm is makeing the references and formatting qoutations form other sources.

In the section above i wrote about the definition of a word beacuse i think in some cases i found the wrong wording. --DerekvG (talk) 14:11, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Je moet wel je Engelse spelling een beetje oppoetsen als je van plan bent meerdere bijdragen te leveren. Ik zou bij voorbeeld het woord "I" altijd met een hoofdletter spellen. JFW | T@lk 14:28, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Ja dat zou ik ook doen maar mij is juist gezegd om dat dat niet meer gebruikelijk is in het engels - spelling is sowieso een probleem ik ben zwaar dyslexisch daarom wil ik ook iemand om proofreadign te doen. Ik heb de laatste dagen 2 artikels on line gezet Pleomorphic Xanthoastrocytoma en Pilocytic astrocytoma ik hebook sandbox waarin ik artikelen schrijf voor ik ze on-line zet in de gewone name space --DerekvG (talk) 15:27, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

SORRY for the rest of the world - bad habit of 2 doubleductsh-speakers that encouter each other here: I wrote that I'm dyslexic (heavily dyslexic) and that I need help with spelling - that is why I'm looking for proofreaders, I also need people that can help me getting references correctly formatted. I also wrote that I've put 2 articles on line aboutt Pleomorphic Xanthoastrocytoma & Pilocytic astrocytoma after preparing them in my personal sandbox --DerekvG (talk) 15:32, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Will have a look when I have the time, but perhaps you could simply try WT:MED if you get no response here? JFW | T@lk 22:06, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Magnetism

Magnetism (neurological sign) has been nominated for deletion here as a possible hoax. There are no refs, but the editor's usual standard was quite high, e.g., [1][2][3], so I really doubt that it's a hoax. Is there perhaps another name for this phenomenon? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:43, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

In the article is a central reference for Corticobasal_degeneration in which alienahnd syndrome is more scientifically explained. the author might not have intended to write a hoax but a more popularising article. I thin this article is IMHO superfleous, or should be transformed into nothing more then a referal to Corticobasal_degeneration#Alien Hand Sydrome, --DerekvG (talk) 13:35, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Poll: requested move: mesencephalon → midbrain

Hello, I wish to find out what people think of the idea of renaming the article on “mesencephalon” to “midbrain”? Please to go talk:mesencephalon to offer your input. Bwrs (talk) 04:10, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Neurology articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Neurology articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

FAR

I have nominated Down syndrome for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 01:52, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Satellite cell (glial)

A new editor has asked for help at WP:FEEDBACK with Satellite cell (glial). It sounds like she's a student and has significantly expanded the article. If someone who knows a thing or two about this would please leave a note on the article's talk page at Talk:Satellite cell (glial), then I'm sure she would be grateful. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:26, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Call for comments on linking to a neurology website

Please comment on "External links" at WT:MED. Input is needed from editors interested in neurologic disorders on linking to a newly available neurology website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Presto54 (talk • contribs) 16:32, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

(answered) Is it correct to say that the cause of Alzheimer's Disease is unknown (except 1-5% known genetic cause)?

Answered at WikiProject Medicine. Please see Talk:Alzheimer's disease#Causation. Input would be appreciated. -- Jo3sampl (talk) 17:59, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Update: There's a 2011 date on the page http://www.med.nyu.edu/adc/forpatients/ad.html#causes and I'm sure NYU Medicine is a reliable source. The page has this:

The cause of Alzheimer's disease is not yet known, but scientists are hoping to find the answers by studying the characteristic brain changes that occur in a patient with Alzheimer's disease. In rare cases when the disease emerges before the age of sixty-five, these brain changes are caused by a genetic abnormality. Scientists are also looking to genetics as well as environmental factors for possible clues to the cause and cure of Alzheimer's disease.

I plan to update tge Alzheimer's disease page to say that the cause is unkniwn except for 1% to 5% of cases where genetic differences have been identified.

Please respond at Talk:Alzheimer's disease#Causation if you see problems with this. (Cross-posted at WikiProject Medicine.) -- Jo3sampl (talk) 19:08, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Cancer pain nominated for GA

Hi. Just letting you know I've nominated Cancer pain for WP:GA. Your thoughts would be very much appreciated at Talk:Cancer_pain#GA_Review. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:38, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Ulegyria for DYK?

Hi guys, can you help expand this stub to DYK status? I found this as a heavily tagged article but managed to expand it a little. I think expanding it more would require people more familiar with the injury--Lenticel ^(talk) 01:12, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Parental brain at GA

Parental brain is at GAN. It's the reviewer's first time, and assistance from knowledgeable people has been requested. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:56, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Brain-disabling psychiatric medical treatment

Hi, this article (the result of a class assignment) could use some attention of a specialist. Thanks! --Randykitty (talk) 10:18, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

This article, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brain-disabling psychiatric medical treatment is now up for deletion.--MrADHD | T@1k? 21:04, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Neuroscience of multilingualism

The article is currentl nominated for deletion, needs some copy-edit. Regards. Zia Khan 06:16, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Article assessment

I don't know how useful this is, since this project hasn't really attracted other contributors so far. If this is done, at least consider using the "multiple wikiprojects" template. I don't think most of the assessments should differ from the Medicine WP assessment (such as it was the case on Talk:Seizure). --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 14:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

My apologies. The reason for this is that I got a fellow user's bot to automatically assign {{WikiProject Neurology|class=|importance=}} and then filled in automatically using AWB to make all articles have the assessment of Start class and Mid importance. My efforts now are to scan through all of these and reassess all articles to their correct parameters. If you have a quick-fire way of changing them to mimic WP:MED's assessments, then that'd be grand. Regards, CycloneNimrod ^talk?_contribs? 14:31, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know enough about automatic assessment to help you with that. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 14:35, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I'll post a bot request later to see if anyone can help out. Regards, CycloneNimrod ^talk?_contribs? 14:36, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

You have two conflicting templates at Talk:Myelencephalon. I'd delete one for you, but I don't know which is the correct one. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:24, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Brodman Area 21: MT

The middle temporal area is also involved in visual perception. Specifically its neurons are tuned to the direction and speed of moving contrasts in luminance. Is there a reason the article does not mention this? Falk (talk) 21:35, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Probably better to bring this up at WP:NEURO, the project for Neuroscience. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 11:19, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Foerster's syndrome

This article could do with an expert eye - I have rescued it from the CAT:HOAX bin, but though it correctly describes a use of the name by Koestler to describe compulsive punning, I think he may have adopted a term which medically had another meaning. Details on the talk page. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 21:27, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Eeew

I was going to ask whether any of you had seen Consciousness recently -- but I'm perfectly certain that no competent editor has given it more than a passing glance in recent months. It's heavily weighted towards philosophical considerations, and desperately in need of a decent copyeditor as well. If you have an interest in it, please feel free to take a look. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:29, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I think there are many varying perspectives in that area. I think neurologists hang out more in articles relating to level of consciousness rather than the philosophical tangent. JFW | T@lk 21:47, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Neurology and Nervous system categories

I have been working on restructuring anatomy- and medical specialty-related categories. I just made a first pass through Category:Neurology, and I wanted to explain my edits. Basically, the root category can be seen as Category:Organ systems. This contains Category:Nervous system, which is then a parent of Category:Neuroanatomy and Category:Neurophysiology, as well as Category:Neurology (and Category:Neuroscience, which I haven't really touched). With this structure, categories within Category:Neurology should contain articles specifically to neurology. Anatomy and physiology are kept outside of the neurology structure, since they apply to everything within the nervous system. I also tried to separate out the neuroscience fields from the neurology fields. If you take a look at the category tree of Category:Nervous system, the hierarchy is much easier to navigate now. Let me know what you think and if I missed anything. --Scott Alter 04:58, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Nice work :) —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 11:18, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Added category tree here.

Nervous system Central nervous system Peripheral nervous system Neurological disorders Animal nervous system Motor control Neurology Neurosurgery Sensory organs Sensory systems

Organ systems Diseases and disorders by system Drugs by target organ system Human anatomy by system Toxicants by organ system affected Circulatory system Digestive system Endocrine system Exocrine system Genitourinary system Hair Immune system Integumentary system Musculoskeletal system Nervous system Reproductive system Respiratory system

SriMesh | talk 19:02, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 06:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Neurolex etc

Can someone with a background in taxonomy have a look at what's going on with http://neuinfo.org/ and http://neurolex.org/ please? New WP user User:NifCurator1 (talk) has been spamming external links to these sites through many neurology articles, e.g. Hair cell. It looks like we'd be better off with one or two infobox parameters.LeadSongDog come howl 16:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

He LeadSongDog, We were not trying to spam w/ external links - we are trying to find a way to reference external semantic/ontological sources of information related to articles on Wikipedia. This would allow users then to gain access to tools being built on-top of these referenced informatics activities.

However, perhaps a bit of background for everyone. The NeuroLex terminology is part of a project (NIF) that is funded by NIH's Neuroscience Blueprint. The primary goal is to provide an enhanced search portal for the neuroscientist to discover data and information from resources that are many times not easily discovered via current search technologies (e.g. databases and form based web sites that are sometimes referred to as the hidden or deep web). A core part of enabling such an infrastructure is the utilization of domain specific terminologies/ontologies. NeuroLex is the part of the project that looks to bring such terminologies together - that is, NeuroLex isn't building a completely new terminology. Rather it is incorporating open source terminologies when available and developing/updating terminologies where content is not available. For example, terminology related to brain regions is covered in a variety of sources. In NeuroLex (http://neurolex.org/wiki/Category:Cerebellum) we have incorporated the terminology from various sources and formalized this in OWL (Web Ontology Language) while maintaining all the links and references to the source terminologies (e.g. NeuroNames, UMLS, FMA etc...). The use of such ontologies is important in the development of many "semantic" applications. For example, when searching for gene expression in the cerebellum - what should you search for: cerebellum, Purkinje Cell layer, Dentate, etc... By having an ontology, we can then automate this "expansion" of the search to include all relevant "parts-of" the cerebellum. NeuroLex is actually built on MediaWiki with Semantic Media Wiki extensions - allowing the research community to define formal relationships and attributes on terms (e.g. Purkinje Cell is located in Purkinje Cell Layer which is located in Cerebellum) that can be incorporated in formal ontologies.

As mentioned above, in building NeuroLex we provide links back to the source terminology that we have incorporated. We are beginning this process with Wikipedia right now - provide links from NeuroLex to Wikipedia and vice versa. That is why I originally structured the external links section the way that I did - I can actually envision other ontology efforts placing similar links to their ontology content and the "Semantic" heading provided a place for such links to be added without interfering with the rest of the article. However, if infobox parameter(s) are more appropriate a discussion of how to add this type of content would be a good place to start, as you mentioned.

Hopefully, this provides some information for a following discussion... Jgrethe (talk) 20:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Quite useful, thanks. In fact, I think it would be nice to add the explanation above to the lead of the NeuroLex article, because what you wrote here is a lot easier to make sense of than what is written there. Looie496 (talk) 21:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Areas of Brain

In case you missed it Huntington's Disease is the current WP:MCOTW... I keep looking for images of different sections of the brain... We don't seem to have a thorough 'map' of the brain, by that I mean a common image with numerous derivatives highlighting a different section each, maybe some with connected systems. File:Brain human sagittal section.svg seems to be increasingly popular as a base image, but I'm not sure about other projections - there doesn't seem to be an equivalent top/front/isometric. So my questions/suggestions are

1. What is the best way to represent an area of the brain, top-down, sideon, faceon, or some 3d projection - or maybe all three. Some areas will be better shown using one projection or another, but a complete view could be all projections in 4-panes of an image (like a technical drawing).
2. These base images need to be defined or created. If created then we could either start with a complicated image with all areas outlined - which can then be coloured in for derivative images of sections, or a simple base image which is duplicated with each area filled in - these could be composited to show several areas at once.

Not a simple question or task and I'm no expert in brain anatomy - but I think this system would improve the look and comprehension ( through consistency) of a number of articles, I can be handy with the art and a bit of a gnome, so point me in the right direction and we'll get it sorted out ( assuming I haven't missed some glaring thing like 'category:3d pictures of the brain by region' ) ! LeeVJ (talk) 11:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe something like this would be the best option, but we'd need to find either a public domain image, or someone needs to create an image. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 13:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I had in mind a way of showing the smaller parts (nearer the centre) as well -which would require at least two images - as for the isometric project bit was thinking along the lines of File:Striatumcortex1.jpg but without the face/skin and in line drawn format... 23:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

There really is no single "best" way. Especially when dealing with curved structures such as the caudate nucleus or hippocampus, it takes a certain amount of artistry to make their shapes apparent. Some critical areas such as the Raphe nuclei are tiny areas in the brainstem, other extend across major parts of the brain. "One size fits all" just doesn't work. Looie496 (talk) 21:34, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

pyschomotor function

Erm, we seem to be possibly missing an article- currently psychomotor function redirects to psychomotor learning, and there is pyschomotor retardation and psychomotor agitation, I changed pyschomotor disorders into a disambig to these ( which previously redirected to retardation ). None of these articles are that big or well referenced so they might be well better merged, I'm no expert in the terminology so don't know if there is a fuller article under a different name sitting out there already. L∴V 22:33, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Neurolex (copied from user talk space)

I'm not sure what this neurolex thing is, or why you've invented a new confusing format for external links, but I'm going to roll them all back. If you'd already had a discussion some place about this, please link it here now. Otherwise, please explain what's up. Dicklyon (talk) 03:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Dicklyon: I hope you have some way to get rid of all of them at one fell swoop? I've just run into them, and there are many, many. Since NeuroLex is an article, I added it as a 'See also' to Giant retinal ganglion cells, but I'm not about to follow up on all those articles!

(The NeuroLex article itself is another matter, addressing itself to "you" and with lots of formatting problems.) - Hordaland (talk) 09:36, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

This is mainly addressed to Dicklyon and Hordaland: NIF is a bioinformatics project funded by NIH and being implemented at UCSD. I don't think these links constitute spam, in fact I think the idea of linking Wikipedia's neuroscience articles to a high-quality anatomical database is very exciting. However, the project is in a very early stage of development, and some of what is happening is premature. I've been in contact with Maryann Martone, the coordinator of the project, and I hope all of us can work out some principled way of dealing with this issue. Maybe Talk:NIF would be the best place for a unified discussion? In any case, let's please not war over something where everybody has good motives and the only real difficulty is a lack of effective communication among us all. Looie496 (talk) 16:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

A quick look at it suggests that there is a lot to be gained by cooperating between NIF and Wikipedia:WikiProject Neurology. I've asked at that project's talk page for someone to look into this. It may be we just need a new parameter in an infoboxLeadSongDog come howl 16:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

If a wikipedia project works out a framework for including such links, that will be great. But for the NIF curator to spam them into a lot of external link sections, in a bloated confusing format, is not OK. Dicklyon (talk) 16:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. There's ample precedent. {{DiseaseDisorder infobox}} is used on over 4000 articles. Its parameters include several similar taxonomy tools that greatly contribute to the articles.LeadSongDog come howl 17:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Neurology has been absorbed into WikiProject Medicine. WikiProject Neuroscience is de facto involved already because I've been maintaining it for the past year or so, but there aren't a lot of people contributing to it currently. Looie496 (talk) 18:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi LeadSongDog, the parameter for the infobox would be a very good way to handle these kinds of page annotations. I work with Maryann on the NIF project and I see these annotations not only coming from NIF, but other similar informatics related projects as well. This is our first venture in trying to provide this type of information to Wikipedia and we are focused on cells initially. I can continue the discussion on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Neurology talk page. Jgrethe (talk) 20:05, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

My response was not because the content nor the intent was spamming, but because of the unique, remarkable and as DL says bloated formatting of an 'External link' section where the primary link should have been in a 'See also' section as far as I could see. I never suggested this was spam.

Fine if there's a good discussion on content/intent with good result! People who know how formatting works here must also be involved. Folks like Looie496 can surely take care of that. - Hordaland (talk) 20:16, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I've been asked on my talk page to offer feedback (probably because of my involvement with {{DiseaseDisorder infobox}}, {{Infobox Brain}}, {{Drugbox}}, and {{Chembox}}, and because I've been through variants of this process many times before). I have some concerns about this, but I also see the potential. One way forward may be to: (1) create a new template (to demonstrate the intended parametrization), and use it on a limited number of pages. (2) open a discussion thread on the talk page of the newly created template, providing a central location to discuss use of the link. (3) Notify the relevant wikiprojects of your goals (in this case, probably at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Neurology task force, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anatomy, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Neuroscience) and refer to the template, so there can be a centralized discussion. --Arcadian (talk) 20:19, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

The idea of incorporating the material into an infobox makes a lot of sense. A number of the neuron-type articles already use template:infobox neuron, and it would be straightforward to incorporate an optional "nifidx" (or whatever) field there. This would also allow the way the information is presented to be modified at a single central location, instead of having to edit every single article. Looie496 (talk) 21:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Arcadian for those template references. Actually, the Brain Template at {{Infobox Brain}} does already provide this kind of linkage to two terminologies (MeSH from NLM and NeuroNames from BrainInfo). It would be very simple to extend this and other infoboxes, e.g. {{Infobox neuron}}, with a NeuroLex field. I could also see {{Infobox Brain}} be extended with an FMA (foundational model of anatomy) identifier as well. If we were to try this first with neuronal ontology identifiers through the {{Infobox neuron}}, is this infobox coordinated through this task force? Jgrethe (talk) 16:29, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

See also {{tl:Nervous tissue}}. I notice that many of the articles linked from that tl do not have infoboxes at all, though most have images. Seems to me that it would be a great way for an industrious premed student to get a jumpstart on the topic. Any takers?LeadSongDog come howl 17:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

People following this might like to take a look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Neuroscience#Society for Neuroscience is Coming. Looie496 (talk) 18:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

It appears the revised infobox is up and running. See Hair cell for example. Nice work, Jgrethe. Now if we can just get reciprocal linkage from NeuroLex to the wp article. LeadSongDog come howl 18:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC) LeadSongDog come howl 18:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks LeadSongDog - I have also fully documented the neuron infobox (there was no documentation at all) and made some minor enhancements to the Brain infobox. Not all neurons currently listed have an infobox or have the correct infobox (some had an anatomy infobox without the specific neuron information). We are adding the missing infoboxes (so that others will know to populate them further) and correcting the infobox type when appropriate. Jgrethe (talk) 20:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Edward Taub

Hi there. I was wondering if someone wouldn't mind creating an article on neuroscientist Edward Taub (known for his work in developing Constraint-induced movement therapy). Right now his name redirects to Silver Spring monkeys which to me seems rather odd. I am not a science person, otherwise I would do it myself. On a side note, I did just create an article on his wife, soprano Mildred Allen.Singingdaisies (talk) 03:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Mesial temporal sclerosis and Hippocampal sclerosis

..looks like two articles on a single topic.. I'm not an expert, but maybe a merge is needed? --CopperKettle 13:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Help! neurological expert help required at the wiki dyslexia project

Hi

I am helping to edit the Wikipedia:WikiProject Dyslexia set of articles which includes the main Dyslexia which has become a summerised article and now has additional sub articles

• Dyslexia research (Sub category, main article)
  • Orthographies and dyslexia
  • Genetic research into dyslexia
  • Brain scan research into dyslexia
  • History of developmental dyslexia (The history of dyslexia is the history of dyslexia research)
  • Theories of dyslexia (Sub sub category main article)
  • Phonological deficit
  • Perceptual noise exclusion hypothesis
• Management of dyslexia (Sub category, main article)
  • Managing dyslexia: alphabetic orthography
  • Category:Dyslexia support by country
    • Dyslexia support in the United States
    • Dyslexia support in the United Kingdom

there could be more.

Currently we are having problems with developing the Orthographies and dyslexia. The problem is to define the neurological skills required to perform the task of reading in the different orthographies of the different writing systems. Because until they are established it is very difficult to determine which neurological skill deficits will cause problems in which writing system.

We need to explain how a bilingual individual is only dyslexic in one language.

Any help you can provide would be very much appreciated dolfrog (talk) 21:42, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I've sent Orthographies and dyslexia to AFD: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orthographies and dyslexia. The problems in development are that the topic as Dolfrog wants it is entirely original research. Nobody has made a previous analysis of multiple orthographies / neurological skills /dyslexia. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 00:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I wish join the Neurology task force

Hi all. I am a new entry for the Medicine WikiProject. I wish join the Neurology task force. I write almost exclusively on Neuro-oncology. To start I have prepared a “simplified” WHO classification of the tumors of the central nervous system, based on official WHO documents. Criticism, suggestions and comments are welcome. I need also your help to assess the article according to the assessment scale. Thank you in advance. --Giovanni Camporeale (talk) 07:43, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

By simply talking here you are joining the task force, there is no formal sign-up process, just start contributing! Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  12:36, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Giant cell glioblastoma

Hi. I have just released a “first version” of the article Giant cell glioblastoma. Criticism, suggestions and comments are welcome. Thank you in advance.--Giovanni Camporeale (talk) 13:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Grading of the tumors of the central nervous system

Hi. I have just released a “first version” of the article Grading of the tumors of the central nervous system. Suggestions and comments are welcome.--Giovanni Camporeale (talk) 13:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments needed on a source for the Alzheimer's disease article

I have asked for imput on the usability of a review as a reliable secondary source for the Alzheimer's disease (Kheifets, L; Bowman, Jd; Checkoway, H; Feychting, M; Harrington, Jm; Kavet, R; Marsh, G; Mezei, G; Renew, Dc; Van, Wijngaarden, E (Feb 2009). "Future needs of occupational epidemiology of extremely low frequency electric and magnetic fields: review and recommendations". Occupational and environmental medicine 66 (2): 72–80. doi:10.1136/oem.2007.037994. ISSN 1351-0711. PMID 18805878) in the Reliable Sources Noticeboard here

Specific concerns have been raised by an editor that states that the author can not be considered an expert according to wikipedia standards of WP:MEDRS; while I disagree. Since the discussion directly affects one of the FA-top importance articles of the project I would greatly acknowledge any comments on the matter. Thanks to everybody in advance.

Although I have also posted this comment in the general talk I want to specifically ask for help to the neurology task force, since it affects one of "our" articles. Comments in the noticeboard would be very very welcomed.--Garrondo (talk) 07:52, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

To be more clear the exact question is if she is "someone widely recognized as a reliable source of technique or skill" in the "Alzheimer's disease" field--Nutriveg (talk) 14:27, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Seizures linked to Endometriosis???

Lately I've been having some problems. My doctors aren't exactly sure what's going on with me, and they're beginning to think that I might have Endometriosis. I was doing a little bit of research for my own benefit and I found that it can cause passing out. I was admitted into the emergency room about a week ago and they said that I passed out, but it looked something like a seizure. When I read that Endometriosis may cause passing out, I started to think and I was wondering whether or not it could cause something more than simply an episode like I had or whether it could neurologically be causing me actual seizures. So, here I am, freaking out slightly and wondering whether or not these "seizures" are something to be concerned with or not. Help?

bethaniiann 20:03, 16 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bethaniiann (talk • contribs)

You really must try not to self-diagnose on the basis of advice from random strangers. Wikipedia gives no medical advice. To my knowledge there is no link between endometriosis and seizures, and I even have difficulty for finding an explanation why endometriosis could cause syncope. To make things more complicated, shaking may occur during syncope. Please discuss your concerns with your own doctor. JFW | T@lk 20:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:JOURNALS need help

Copied from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Neuroscience#WP:JOURNALS needs help

There are several neuroscience/neurology-related journals missing in Journals cited by Wikipedia.

Here's the list of the most-cited ones (see the writing guide for guidance/help):

• Neurosci. Lett.
• Brain Res. Mol. Brain Res.
• Brain Res.
• Mol. Cell. Neurosci.
• J Autism Dev Disord
• Eur. J. Neurosci.
• Neuroreport
• J. Neurosci. Res.
• J. Comp. Neurol.
• Acta Neuropathol.
• Studies in Intelligence
• Neuroscience Letters
• Brain Research
• Neuropsychobiology
• J. Neural Transm. Suppl.
• J. Neuropathol. Exp. Neurol.
• Neurobiol. Aging
• Neurochem. Res.
• Cell. Mol. Neurobiol.
• Prog. Neuropsychopharmacol. Biol. Psychiatry
• J. Neurophysiol.
• Acta Neurol. Scand.
• J. Neurosurg.
• Pediatr. Neurol.
• Brain Res. Bull.
• Journal of Neurophysiology

Have fun. If you have questions, just let me know. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 05:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Sleep & sleep disorders

Sleep and some sleep disorders are within Neurology, no? A good while back I proposed a Task Force for sleep medicine. As big as that topic is, it is too small for a task force of its own.

I hope that this is the right place to drum up interest among knowledgeable people, as many of the related articles do need work. At the discussion linked above I linked to

• my long, more-or-less organized, sleep sandbox/soapbox, which includes lists of relevant articles, and to
• an interesting discussion in an archive: Talk:Major_depressive_disorder/Archive_10#Cause -> Bad sleep?.

I am not scientifically nor medically trained, just a patient with a circadian rhythm disorder who has read a lot about it. Hoping for some interest! - Hordaland (talk) 18:44, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Stroke

Although the main stroke article is in really good shape, articles about types and subtypes of stroke are minimal and sometimes redundant. We have a bunch of stubs out there like intraparenchymal hemorrhage, cerebral hemorrhage, and intraventricular hemorrhage that can probably ALL be merged into only 2 articles: intracranial hemorrhage and brain ischemia. It might take some scouting to find all of the individual articles hiding under synonymous article titles and inappropriate redirect pages, but it would be really nice to have all of the stroke material reorganized and condensed into a couple of detailed articles.

I've been working with stroke research in a hospital for about a year now, and one of the toughest things for me to figure out was all of the terminology. I think wikipedia should be able to help people like me. In its current structure (one strong, central article and several scattered stubs), it's still a bit confusing. I'd love to hear other people's comments on this topic too, of course.--Jmjanzen (talk) 19:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. To be honest i'm not brilliant at that sort of thing so i'll leave it to you or someone else :P Be bold!. — CycloneNimrod ^talk?_contribs? 19:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

May i offer my help on this one? Stroke should really be a GA (good article). Where do we start? PizzaMan (talk) 06:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

ConnectomeWiki Released

Recently this year (March 2009), there has been a paper published by a number of neuroscientists entitled:
"A Proposal for a Coordinated Effort for the Determination of Brainwide Neuroanatomical Connectivity in Model Organisms at a Mesoscopic Scale".

The ConnectomeWiki is an open and collaborative platform concerned with the goals of this proposal.
Please see User:ConnectomeBot for the discussion! --Unidesigner (talk) 13:57, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

A discussion about this bot at the Village pump

I opened a discussion at the VPR (Village Pump Proposals) about this ConnectomeBot's RFBA. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 03:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Combining neuropathy articles

I've suggested a major rearrangement of the neuropathy articles at Talk:Peripheral_neuropathy. Please let me know your views. Neurotip (talk) 17:54, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Neuropathy rearrangement complete! (see discussion at Talk:Peripheral_neuropathy) Comments and/or further edits welcome. Neurotip (talk) 10:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Neuroacanthocytosis

Hi! I believe neuroacanthocytosis needs help. Is is described as an umbrella term for a group of different disorders at eMedicine, but here the impression is that it is a disorder in itself. Specialist help needed. Cheers, --CopperKettle 22:10, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

The "differential diagnosis" section, as I understand, simply describes conditions that manifest with neuroacanthocytosis. If so, the article is really in a bad shape; but I'm afraid yet to edit, know too little about the condition. Cheers, --CopperKettle 23:24, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Parkinson plus syndrome

I feel the task force should review the Parkinson plus syndrome article. I've tried to edit it in a way that references are provided, but if anyone can do it better, be my guest. My dad died from one of the Parkinson plus disorders, specifically multiple system atrophy, though I've privately wondered if he didn't have a combination of MSA and Lewy body dementia--Robert Treat (talk) 19:49, 27 December 2009 (UTC).

Neuroprotection

The Neuroprotection article looks like it needs some attention. At the moment it has an awful lot of material on erythropoietin (probably too much, even were it a full-length article) and not much else. I've just rejigged the headings to make the structure clear, but I don't know enough about the topic to do more. Can anyone help? Neurotip (talk) 11:02, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Anti-NMDA receptor encephalitis

Started Anti-NMDA receptor encephalitis, help is welcomed. Cheers, --CopperKettle 18:04, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

help needed

terminology : can some one help me with correct definitions of invasive and infiltrative (regarding Brain tumors) AFAIK :

• invasive(ness) : is the capacity of a tumor to take up space and push out other tissue (often compressing the tissue) like in meningioma's
• infiltrative(ness) : is the factor that a tumor is not limited to a single delimited area but that further away from the center of the tumor, other tumorizing cells are "seeded" in the tissue (like in GBM) or tentacles are formed that invade the surruonding healty tissue (like in diffuse astrocytoma)

could someone correct /confirm ? provide a link to information --DerekvG (talk) 10:35, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

ICHD

These five articles are on the WPMED cleanup listing specifically because of missing ICHD information:

• Coital cephalalgia
• Ictal headache
• Mixed tension migraine
• Red wine headache
• Tension headache «High»

Does anyone here know how to classify them? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:57, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:JCW help

There's a new WP:JCW report.

Out of the 500 most highly cited missing journals, here's a few that fall into your scope, or near your scope.

• J. Neurosci. Res.
• J. Comp. Neurol.
• Neuromuscul. Disord.
• Neuropsychobiology
• Studies in Intelligence
• Exp. Neurol.
• Psychosomatics
• Neurobiol. Dis.
• Prog. Neuropsychopharmacol. Biol. Psychiatry
• J. Neuropathol. Exp. Neurol.
• Neurochem. Res.
• Neuropsychologia
• Brain Res. Bull.
• Neurobiol. Aging
• Cell. Mol. Neurobiol.
• Prog. Brain Res.
• J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry
• Pediatr. Neurol.

See the writing guide if you need help with those. Some of these might be better as redirects (Guide to redirects). Feel free to remove those which you think are too far from neurology from the list. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:42, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Autonomic nerve

Came across this new article on new page patrol and was just wondering as I know nothing about biology is it covered in this article Autonomic nervous system, or does it deserve a stand alone article? Best Mo ainm~Talk 13:37, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Binaural beats

Hi, I see that the Wikipedia page on Binaural beats comes under your purview. Having had a quick read, the page seems contain a lot of claims that sound quite unbelievable. Not being an expert myself, is there someone who is able to have a read and maybe clean up the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Markhoney (talk • contribs) 13:56, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Clinical Trials as Sections?

I'm wondering what the general consensus - or for that matter, Wikipedia policy - is regarding having article sections describing ongoing clinical trials for a given disorder. Such trials are usually interested in recruiting patients, and although trials are listed on sites like clinicaltrials.gov I'd think having a mention of them in a related Wikipedia article would be useful. But is it appropriate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.79.248.237 (talk) 20:10, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Have a look at WP:MEDMOS and WP:MEDRS. Not all trials are worthy of mention. I would go as far as saying that trials should only be mentioned if the intervention or treatment under investitgation has been mentioned in heavy-duty other sources. In other words, a treatment is regarded as "the next big thing" in a particular disorder. JFW | T@lk 21:31, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Citation templates now support more identifiers

Recent changes were made to citations templates (such as {{citation}}, {{cite journal}}, {{cite web}}...). In addition to what was previously supported (bibcode, doi, jstor, isbn, ...), templates now support arXiv, ASIN, JFM, LCCN, MR, OL, OSTI, RFC, SSRN and Zbl. Before, you needed to place |id={{arxiv|0123.4567}} (or worse |url=http://arxiv.org/abs/0123.4567), now you can simply use |arxiv=0123.4567, likewise for |id={{JSTOR|0123456789}} and |url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/0123456789 → |jstor=0123456789.

The full list of supported identifiers is given here (with dummy values):

• {{cite journal |author=John Smith |year=2000 |title=How to Put Things into Other Things |journal=Journal of Foobar |volume=1 |issue=2 |pages=3–4 |arxiv=0123456789 |asin=0123456789 |bibcode=0123456789 |doi=0123456789 |jfm=0123456789 |jstor=0123456789 |lccn=0123456789 |isbn=0123456789 |issn=0123456789 |mr=0123456789 |oclc=0123456789 |ol=0123456789 |osti=0123456789 |rfc=0123456789 |pmc=0123456789 |pmid=0123456789 |ssrn=0123456789 |zbl=0123456789 |id={{para|id|____}} }}

Obviously not all citations needs all parameters, but this streamlines the most popular ones and gives both better metadata and better appearances when printed. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:08, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:JCW and neuroscience/neurology/etc...

The JCW compilation updated a while ago. Here's the top-cited missing journals that are neurology-related (at least as far as I could tell, including neurochemistry, neuroscience, etc...). Feel free to edit the list as needed.

• AJNR Am J Neuroradiol
• Annu Rev Neurosci
• Arq Neuropsiquiatr
• Behav. Brain Res.
• Brain and Language
• Brain Dev.
• Brain research
• Cell. Mol. Neurobiol.
• Clin Neuropharmacol
• Curr. Opin. Neurol.
• Dev Med Child Neurol
• Eur Neuropsychopharmacol
• Eur. J. Neurol.
• European Neurology
• Expert Rev Neurother
• J Neural Transm
• J Neurophysiol
• J Neuropsychiatry Clin Neurosci
• J Psychiatry Neurosci
• J. Child Neurol.
• J. Neural Transm. Suppl.
• J. Neurobiol.
• J. Neuroimmunol.
• J. Neurooncol.
• J. Neuropathol. Exp. Neurol.
• J. Neurovirol.
• Journal of neurochemistry
• Journal of Neurotrauma
• Mol. Neurobiol.
• Nat Neurosci
• Neurobiol. Dis.
• Neurochem. Int.
• Neurochem. Res.
• Neurol India
• Neurol. Sci.
• Neuropediatrics
• Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat
• Neurosci Biobehav Rev
• Neurosci Lett.
• Neurosci. Res.
• Pediatr. Neurol.
• Prog. Brain Res.
• Prog. Neurobiol.
• Prog. Neuropsychopharmacol. Biol. Psychiatry
• Progress in Neuro-psychopharmacology & Biological Psychiatry
• Progress in Neurobiology
• Semin Neurol
• Trends Neurosci

If you're interested to help, Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Writing guide has some guidance about how to write an article on journals. Any help you can give would be much appreciated at WP:JOURNALS, as neurology/neuroscience alone represents ~10% of the missing top 500. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:24, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorely needed article

We apparently don't have an article on Brain and language/Language in the brain/Neurology of language/Neural bases of language. We have an article on Neurolinguistics, but its about the discipline and its history and methods - it doesn't outline its findings. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:25, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Some odd category titles

I've just come across a set of subcategories at Category:Deaths from neurodegenerative disease and want to check out the medicine with you before proceeding further. Do people die from neurodegenerative disease itself? I'm particularly thinking about the Alzheimer's disease, Multiple Sclerosis, Motor Neurone disease and Parkinson's disease categories. In my RL as a Clinical coder I mainly see deaths in these diseases from comorbid conditions such as aspiration pneumonia, kidney disease and strokes. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 23:33, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

None of these diseases kill directly, but they markedly increase the risk of death from conditions you mention: aspiration, electrolyte abnormalities, pressure sores, venous thromboembolism, and side-effects of their medication. One could argue that without their neurodegenerative disease these people would not have died, hence I would not object to this categorisation. JFW | T@lk 10:30, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Assessment of article Aseptic meningitis

Please see my note on this articles Talk page. This article, Aseptic meningitis, does not seem to be correctly assessed. It is also in need of much work. The stubs that link to the article need expansion. I wanted to call this to your attention since it has been this way for a long time. It is labeled as being part of your task force so instead of reporting on the Project page, I decided to go straight to the horse's mouth. I am overly familiar with many medical topics from a layperson's perspective but am definitely not an expert, I am also new to Wikipedia but if there is anything I can do to help, send me a message. Thanks for your time. Probing Mind (talk) 11:51, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Reassessed to Start class. Totally agree. JFW | T@lk 21:00, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Cleanup needed at Motor unit

Hi,

Over the last few months a biology class has made a real mess of this article. I'm considering just undoing all the edits of the last few months, rolling things back to things as of Nov 2012 but I wanted to get other input first. I know that it's not explicitly a neurology page, but I figured it could use all the help it can get (and I went to the page specifically because of a neurology class). I will also post on the Wikiproject Neuroscience page and probably on the education project page as well.

Does anyone by some chance have a contact with the class that was doing this? We might want to give them some polite and helpful feedback.

-- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 10:14, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

It's been rolled back by the WP:Neuroscience folks. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 10:51, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Add Nerve conduction study to Neurology Task Force

I am unfamiliar with how to request that a particular article be taken up by a task force, as I haven't ever been involved with task forces before. I noticed that electromyography and electroneuronography are both supported by the Neurology Task Force, so it seems natural that nerve conduction study ought to be supported also. And while I'm on the topic, I have proposed that the ENoG and the NCS articles be merged, since they discuss the same basic procedure. See Talk:Nerve conduction study for that discussion. Thanks El piel (talk) 23:05, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Agree. On the talk page is the {{WPMED}} template. Add the following parameters to it:

neurology = yes (assigns articles to the Neurology task force)

neurology-imp = low/mid/high/top (assessed importance of the article within neurology)

I'll take care of this one. JFW | T@lk 18:53, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Neurology task force talk page archives

I changed the archival system so that this Neurology task force talk page will have its own talk page archives separate from, but still linked back to, the main WikiProject Medicine. — Cirt (talk) 18:38, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Archived some threads

I've archived some inactive threads to subsections which were notifications about discussions that have since been closed. — Cirt (talk) 18:45, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Category:Disorders causing seizures

Category:Disorders causing seizures, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:18, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Scope of taskforce -> disease

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

---

WPMED has been transitioning many anatomy and physiology articles to their respective projects (WP:ANATOMY and WP:PHYSIOLOGY). Articles pertaining to disease or injury are kept under WP:MED. There are additionally already two places for many neuroanatomy articles: WP:ANATOMY and WP:NEURO (which already has 1,800 articles under its scope). Would members of this taskforce be amenable to adding to task force page:

Scope

This task force covers pages relating to neurological disease and symptoms. It does not cover pages relating to pure anatomy (WP:ANATOMY, WP:NEUROSCIENCE) or physiology (WP:PHYSIOLOGY).

The reason that this is an issue is that there is no need to have 3 places for neuro content; it clutters up the articles of this task force, which surely would like to focus on disease and symptoms; and in the future there may be well-intentioned editors who may waste significant amounts of time deciding to ensure that this task force is kept 'up to date' with WP:ANATOMY and WP:NEUROSCIENCE, with a consequent colossal waste of time in their part. I'm not advocating anything other than ensuring this task force focuses around disease and symptoms rather than being constantly tagged with all manner of neuro articles that are already well kept at the active WP:NEUROSCIENCE. Thoughts? --LT910001 (talk) 23:45, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I have posted on our main talk page, here: WT:MED#Reducing_taskforce_neurology's scope. I am closing this thread so that discussion can be centralised. --LT910001 (talk) 21:47, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

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

Redundant articles

I made a comment on the talk page of Neurological disorders but also wanted to get some opinions here. There is currently an article Neurological disorders. There is also an article Nervous system disease. There is List of neurological conditions and disorders. And there is Category:Neurological_disorders.

Should they all be merged into one? Should we keep the category but get rid of the list? I want to see what everyone thinks. --Gccwang (talk) 04:31, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Gccwang I would want to merge "neurological disorders" and "nervous system disease" which cover the same time. Lists are lists, and only lists, so that should be fine. The category and the list are similar, but somehow we seem to like categories and lists. JFW | T@lk 20:59, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Expert attention

This is a notice about Category:Neurology articles needing expert attention, which might be of interest to your WikiProject. It will take a while before the category is populated. Iceblock (talk) 00:10, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 3

Greetings! For this month's issue...

We have demos!

After a lengthy research and design process, we decided for WikiProject X to focus on two things:

• A WikiProject workflow that focuses on action items: discussions you can participate in and tasks you can perform to improve the encyclopedia; and
• An automatically updating WikiProject directory that gives you lists of users participating in the WikiProject and editing in that subject area.

We have a live demonstration of the new WikiProject workflow at WikiProject Women in Technology, a brand new WikiProject that was set up as an adjunct to a related edit-a-thon in Washington, DC. The goal is to surface action items for editors, and we intend on doing that through automatically updated working lists. We are looking into using SuggestBot to generate lists of outstanding tasks, and we are looking into additional options for automatic worklist generation. This takes the burden off of WikiProject editors to generate these worklists, though there is also a "requests" section for Wikipedians to make individual requests. (As of writing, these automated lists are not yet live, so you will see a blank space under "edit articles" on the demo WikiProject. Sorry about that!) I invite you to check out the WikiProject and leave feedback on WikiProject X's talk page.

Once the demo is sufficiently developed, we will be working on a limited deployment on our pilot WikiProjects. We have selected five for the first round of testing based on the highest potential for impact and will scale up from there.

While a re-designed WikiProject experience is much needed, that alone isn't enough. A WikiProject isn't any good if people have no way of discovering it. This is why we are also developing an automatically updated WikiProject directory. This directory will surface project-related metrics, including a count of active WikiProject participants and of active editors in that project's subject area. The purpose of these metrics is to highlight how active the WikiProject is at the given point of time, but also to highlight that project's potential for success. The directory is not yet live but there is a demonstration featuring a sampling of WikiProjects.

Each directory entry will link to a WikiProject description page which automatically list the active WikiProject participants and subject-area article editors. This allows Wikipedians to find each other based on the areas they are interested in, and this information can be used to revive a WikiProject, start a new one, or even for some other purpose. These description pages are not online yet, but they will use this template, if you want to get a feel of what they will look like.

We need volunteers!

WikiProject X is a huge undertaking, and we need volunteers to support our efforts, including testers and coders. Check out our volunteer portal and see what you can do to help us!

As an aside...

Wouldn't it be cool if lists of requested articles could not only be integrated directly with WikiProjects, but also shared between WikiProjects? Well, we got the crazy idea of having experimental software feature Flow deployed (on a totally experimental basis) on the new Article Request Workshop, which seeks to be a place where editors can "workshop" article ideas before they get created. It uses Flow because Flow allows, essentially, section-level categorization, and in the future will allow "sections" (known as "topics" within Flow) to be included across different pages. What this means is that you have a recommendation for a new article tagged by multiple WikiProjects, allowing for the recommendation to appear on lists for each WikiProject. This will facilitate inter-WikiProject collaboration and will help to reduce duplicated work. The Article Request Workshop is not entirely ready yet due to some bugs with Flow, but we hope to integrate it into our pilot WikiProjects at some point.

Harej (talk) 01:58, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 4

Newsletter • May/June 2015

Hello friends! We have been hard at work these past two months. For this report:

The directory is live!

For the first time, we are happy to bring you an exhaustive, comprehensive WikiProject Directory. This directory endeavors to list every single WikiProject on the English Wikipedia, including those that don't participate in article assessment. In constructing the broadest possible definition, we have come up with a list of approximately 2,600 WikiProjects. The directory tracks activity statistics on the WikiProject's pages, and, for where it's available, statistics on the number of articles tracked by the WikiProject and the number of editors active on those articles. Complementing the directory are description pages for each project, listing usernames of people active on the WikiProject pages and the articles in the WikiProject's scope. This will help Wikipedians interested in a subject find each other, whether to seek feedback on an article or to revive an old project. (There is an opt-out option.) We have also come up with listings of related WikiProjects, listing the ten most relevant WikiProjects based on what articles they have in common. We would like to promote WikiProjects as interconnected systems, rather than isolated silos.

A tremendous amount of work went into preparing this directory. WikiProjects do not consistently categorize their pages, meaning we had to develop our own index to match WikiProjects with the articles in their scope. We also had to make some adjustments to how WikiProjects were categorized; indeed, I personally have racked up a few hundred edits re-categorizing WikiProjects. There remains more work to be done to make the WikiProject directory truly useful. In the meantime, take a look and feel free to leave feedback at the WikiProject X talk page.

Stuff in the works!

What have we been working on?

• A new design template—This has been in the works for a while, of course. But our goal is to design something that is useful and cleanly presented on all browsers and at all screen resolutions while working within the confines of what MediaWiki has to offer. Additionally, we are working on designs for the sub-components featured on the main project page.
• A new WikiProject talk page banner in Lua—Work has begun on implementing the WikiProject banner in Lua. The goal is to create a banner template that can be usable by any WikiProject in lieu of having its own template. Work has slowed down for now to focus on higher priority items, but we are interested in your thoughts on how we could go about creating a more useful project banner. We have a draft module on Test Wikipedia, with a demonstration.
• New discussion reports—We have over 4.8 million articles on the English Wikipedia, and almost as many talk pages as well. But what happens when someone posts on a talk page? What if no one is watching that talk page? We are currently testing out a system for an automatically-updating new discussions list, like RFC for WikiProjects. We currently have five test pages up for the WikiProjects on cannabis, cognitive science, evolutionary biology, and Ghana.
• SuggestBot for WikiProjects—We have asked the maintainer of SuggestBot to make some minor adjustments to SuggestBot that will allow it to post regular reports to those WikiProjects that ask for them. Stay tuned!
• Semi-automated article assessment—Using the new revision scoring service and another system currently under development, WikiProjects will be getting a new tool to facilitate the article assessment process by providing article quality/importance predictions for articles yet to be assessed. Aside from helping WikiProjects get through their backlogs, the goal is to help WikiProjects with collecting metrics and triaging their work. Semi-automation of this process will help achieve consistent results and keep the process running smoothly, as automation does on other parts of Wikipedia.

Want us to work on any other tools? Interested in volunteering? Leave a note on our talk page.

The WikiProject watchers report is back!

The database report which lists WikiProjects according to the number of watchers (i.e., people that have the project on their watchlist), is back! The report stopped being updated a year ago, following the deactivation of the Toolserver, but a replacement report has been generated.

Until next time, Harej (talk) 22:20, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 5

Newsletter • October 2015

Hello there! Happy to be writing this newsletter once more. This month:

We did it!

In July, we launched five pilot WikiProjects: WikiProjects Cannabis, Evolutionary Biology, Ghana, Hampshire, and Women's Health. We also use the new design, named "WPX UI," on WikiProject Women in Technology, Women in Red, WikiProject Occupational Safety and Health. We are currently looking for projects for the next round of testing. If you are interested, please sign up on the Pilots page.

Shortly after our launch we presented at Wikimania 2015. Our slides are on Wikimedia Commons.

Then after all that work, we went through the process of figuring out whether we accomplished our goal. We reached out to participants on the redesigned WikiProjects, and we asked them to complete a survey. (If you filled out your survey—thank you!) While there are still some issues with the WikiProject tools and the new design, there appears to be general satisfaction (at least among those who responded). The results of the survey and more are documented in our grant report filed with the Wikimedia Foundation.

The work continues!

There is more work that needs to be done, so we have applied for a renewal of our grant. Comments on the proposal are welcome. We would like to improve what we have already started on the English Wikipedia and to also expand to Wikimedia Commons and Wikidata. Why those? Because they are multilingual projects and because there needs to be better coordination across Wikimedia projects. More details are available in the renewal proposal.

How can the Wikimedia Foundation support WikiProjects?

The Wikimedia Developer Summit will be held in San Francisco in January 2016. The recently established Community Tech team at the Wikimedia Foundation is interested in investigating what technical support they can provide for WikiProjects, i.e., support beyond just templates and bots. I have plenty of opinions myself, but I want to hear what you think. The session is being planned on Phabricator, the Wikimedia bug tracker. If you are not familiar with Phabricator, you can log in with your Wikipedia username and password through the "Login or Register: MediaWiki" button on the login page. Your feedback can help make editing Wikipedia a better experience.

Until next time,

Harej (talk) 09:03, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 6

Newsletter • January 2016

Hello there! Happy to be writing this newsletter once more. This month:

What comes next

Some good news: the Wikimedia Foundation has renewed WikiProject X. This means we can continue focusing on making WikiProjects better.

During our first round of work, we created a prototype WikiProject based on two ideas: (1) WikiProjects should clearly present things for people to do, and (2) The content of WikiProjects should be automated as much as possible. We launched pilots, and for the most part it works. But this approach will not work for the long term. While it makes certain aspects of running a WikiProject easier, it makes the maintenance aspects harder.

We are working on a major overhaul that will address these issues. New features will include:

• Creating WikiProjects by simply filling out a form, choosing which reports you want to generate for your project. This will work with existing bots in addition to the Reports Bot reports. (Of course, you can also have sections curated by humans.)
• One-click button to join a WikiProject, with optional notifications.
• Be able to define your WikiProject's scope within the WikiProject itself by listing relevant pages and categories, eliminating the need to tag every talk page with a banner. (You will still be allowed to do that, of course. It just won't be required.)

The end goal is a collaboration tool that can be used by WikiProjects but also by any edit-a-thon or group of people that want to coordinate on improving articles. Though implemented as an extension, the underlying content will be wikitext, meaning that you can continue to use categories, templates, and other features as you normally would.

This will take a lot of work, and we are just getting started. What would you like to see? I invite you to discuss on our talk page.

Until next time,

Harej (talk) 02:53, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 7

Newsletter • February 2016

This month:

One database for Wikipedia requests

Development of the extension for setting up WikiProjects, as described in the last issue of this newsletter, is currently underway. No terribly exciting news on this front.

In the meantime, we are working on a prototype for a new service we hope to announce soon. The problem: there are requests scattered all across Wikipedia, including requests for new articles and requests for improvements to existing articles. We Wikipedians are very good at coming up with lists of things to do. But once we write these lists, where do they end up? How can we make them useful for all editors—even those who do not browse the missing articles lists, or the particular WikiProjects that have lists?

Introducing Wikipedia Requests, a new tool to centralize the various lists of requests around Wikipedia. Requests will be tagged by category and WikiProject, making it easier to find requests based on what your interests are. Accompanying this service will be a bot that will let you generate reports from this database on any wiki page, including WikiProjects. This means that once a request is filed centrally, it can syndicated all throughout Wikipedia, and once it is fulfilled, it will be marked as "complete" throughout Wikipedia. The idea for this service came about when I saw that it was easy to put together to-do lists based on database queries, but it was harder to do this for human-generated requests when those requests are scattered throughout the wiki, siloed throughout several pages. This should especially be useful for WikiProjects that have overlapping interests.

The newsletter this month is fairly brief; not a lot of news, just checking in to say that we are hard at work and hope to have more for you soon.

Until next time,

Harej (talk) 01:44, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 8

Newsletter • March / April 2016

This month:

Transclude article requests anywhere on Wikipedia

In the last issue of the WikiProject X Newsletter, I discussed the upcoming Wikipedia Requests system: a central database for outstanding work on Wikipedia. I am pleased to announce Wikipedia Requests is live! Its purpose is to supplement automatically generated lists, such as those from SuggestBot, Reports bot, or Wikidata. It is currently being demonstrated on WikiProject Occupational Safety and Health (which I work on as part of my NIOSH duties) and WikiProject Women scientists.

Adding a request is as simple as filling out a form. Just go to the Add form to add your request. Adding sources will help ensure that your request is fulfilled more quickly. And when a request is fulfilled, simply click "mark as complete" and it will be removed from all the lists it's on. All at the click of a button! (If anyone is concerned, all actions are logged.)

With this new service is a template to transclude these requests: {{Wikipedia Requests}}. It's simple to use: add the template to a page, specifying article=, category=, or wikiproject=, and the list will be transcluded. For example, for requests having to do with all living people, just do {{Wikipedia Requests|category=Living people}}. Use these lists on WikiProjects but also for edit-a-thons where you want a convenient list of things to do on hand. Give it a shot!

Help us build our list!

The value of Wikipedia Requests comes from being a centralized database. The long work to migrating individual lists into this combined list is slowly underway. As of writing, we have 883 open tasks logged in Wikipedia Requests. We need your help building this list.

If you know of a list of missing articles, or of outstanding tasks for existing articles, that you would like to migrate to this new system, head on over to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Requests#Transition project and help out. Doing this will help put your list in front of more eyes—more than just your own WikiProject.

An open database means new tools

WikiProject X maintains a database that associates article talk pages (and draft talk pages) with WikiProjects. This database powers many of the reports that Reports bot generates. However, until very recently, this database was not made available to others who might find its data useful. It's only common sense to open up the database and let others build tools with it.

And indeed: Citation Hunt, the game to add citations to Wikipedia, now lets you filter by WikiProject, using the data from our database.

Are you a tool developer interested in using this? Here are some details: the database resides on Tool Labs with the name s52475__wpx_p. The table that associates WikiProjects with articles and drafts is called projectindex. Pages are stored by talk page title but in the future this should change. Have fun!

On the horizon

• The work on the CollaborationKit extension continues. The extension will initially focus on reducing template and Lua bloat on WikiProjects (especially our WPX UI demonstration projects), and will from there create custom interfaces for creating and maintaining WikiProjects.
• The WikiCite meeting will be in Berlin in May. The goal of the meeting is to figure out how to build a bibliographic database for use on the Wikimedia projects. This fits in quite nicely with WikiProject X's work: we want to make it easier for people to find things to work on, and with a powerful, open bibliographic database, we can build recommendations for sources. This feature was requested by the Wikipedia Library back in September, and this meeting is a major next step. We look forward to seeing what comes out of this meeting.

Until next time,

Harej (talk) 01:29, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 9

Newsletter • May / June 2016

Check out this month's issue of the WikiProject X newsletter, featuring the first screenshot of our new CollaborationKit software!

Harej (talk) 00:23, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Missing topics list

My list of missing topics about neurology is updated - Skysmith (talk) 15:10, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 10

Issue 10 of the WikiProject X newsletter is here!

This month, we discuss the new CollaborationKit extension. Here's an image as a teaser:

23:59, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Lysergic acid diethylamide listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Lysergic acid diethylamide to be moved to LSD. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. SparklingPessimist ^{Scream at me!} 03:34, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 11

Newsletter • February 2018

Check out this month's issue of the WikiProject X newsletter, with plans to renew work with a followup grant proposal to support finalising the deployment of CollaborationKit!

-— Isarra ༆ 21:26, 14 February 2018 (UTC)