Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Neuroscience/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

WP Neuroscience in the Signpost

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Neuroscience for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. –Mabeenot (talk) 23:32, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I've responded there, and I hope others who contribute to this project will as well. Looie496 (talk) 17:03, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

It's great to see this, and I will comment there too. I'm going to sleep on it first, because Looie did such a good job with his answers, and I don't want to have to just say "me too". --Tryptofish (talk) 22:04, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

The article is out, and there's a link at the top of this talk page. Kudos all around! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:52, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Neuroscience on the Wikimedia blog

Hey guys - I wrote up the WikiProject report into a post for the Wikimedia blog. This post can be found right here. More notably - have a look at this comment here - potentially a new source of contributors? JSutherland (WMF) (talk) 16:01, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks so much! (And you were very kind to me, indeed!) How should we get in touch with the person who left that comment? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:49, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

No problem :-) I've pointed him to this talkpage. He seems to be part of a standalone wiki, focused on "emergency medicine", so it might be a bit tricky to get the two very different projects working together. Not least for licensing! But let's see how it goes? JSutherland (WMF) (talk) 21:59, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'll keep an eye out for anyone who comments here, and if they fit better at WT:MED, I'll point them that way. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:51, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Suggestions for Sleep Disorder Section

I thought it read very easily and it explained things clearly for people who might not have a background in psychology but something I would add is more of an explanation of which sleep disorders go with parasomnia (i.e., Somnambulism, REM sleep behavioral disorder, sleep talking, sleep terrors, and Bruxism) and with dyssomnia (i.e., Insomnia, hypersomnia, narcolepsy, sleep apnea, restless legs syndrome, and circadian rhythm sleep disorders) and I would add more information on each of the sleep disorders, instead of just the simple definitions; like treatments and symptoms. I would also explain exactly what the polysomnography measures (i.e., brain wave activity, muscle movements, eye movements, and heart rate).

I learned this information and more from: Green, S. (2011). Disorders of Sleep.Biological rhythms, sleep, and hypnosis Basingstoke, Hampshire [England: Palgrave Macmillan. Bcabiele (talk) 02:52, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm new to this project. Where is the "Sleep Disorder Section"? --Hordaland (talk) 11:11, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Proposed nerve anatomy illustration

I'm thinking of commissioning a professional medical illustration of a nerve from Blausen Medical. I have something like this in mind. Might such an image be useful? It's rather expensive, so I'd appreciate feedback before I proceed. If anyone is aware of an existing free image of similar scope, I'd appreciate a link, too. I've left this message at Talk:Nerve#Proposed image, so it's probably best to leave any thoughts you may have there. Cheers. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 11:40, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

What is a distributed representation theory?

At Grandmother cell, a section reads The opposite of the grandmother cell theory is the distributed representation theory, which in turns takes through a redirect to Artificial neural network. This was done with the reasoning "there is no reason for a separate article on this minor aspect of what is a separate article"[1] I am absolutely confused about how a 59,674 byte article about data mining and artificial intelligence should concisely explain what a distributed representation theory in the context of a central nervous system is to a layman such as me. Could somebody please improve this? ~ Nelg (talk) 22:25, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

The idea of a distributed representation, both from a philosophical viewpoint and mathematical or computational viewpoint, would certainly be a notable topic and worthy of a standalone article. But that article hasn't been written yet. A better wiki link for distributed representation might be connectionism, which describes the basic idea of distributed computing and representations and in particular the section connectionism#Parallel distributed processing. Neural networks, artificial or natural, are examples of such distributed systems. --Mark viking (talk) 23:08, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Autism cure movement

Template:Autism cure movement has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 22:45, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Royal Society journals - subscription offer for one year

I'm delighted to say that the Royal Society, the UK’s National Academy for science, is offering 24 Wikipedians free access for one year to its prestigious range of scientific journals. Please note that much of the content of these journals is already freely available online, the details varying slightly between the journals – see the Royal Society Publishing webpages. For the purposes of this offer the Royal Society's journals are divided into 3 groups: Biological sciences, Physical sciences and history of science. For full details and signing-up, please see the applications page. Initial applications will close on 25 May 2014, but later applications will go on the waiting list. Wiki at Royal Society John (talk) 02:55, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Einstein area

The area-anatomy and function-physiology of Einstein area should be described more clearly. Hsiao Hsian Li April 12,2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.252.97.162 (talk) 09:20, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

What is the "Einstein area"? Presumably this refers to some distinctive area of Einstein's brain, but I am not familiar with the term. Can you give a pointer to some article that uses it? Looie496 (talk) 14:30, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware there were no structural anomalies in Einstein's brain when compared to an "ordinary" brain. Some areas were larger than average, but nothing really astounding was found, so I'm lost as to what Einstein area may refer to. If any articles use such terminology we need to make sure it's based on proper research and not speculation. CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 11:18, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Cerebral cortexes

I struck upon a number of articles which I find quite ambiguous. For one, not all cortexes which come up in the articles have their own entries, and those that do contradict each other frequently. The articles I am talking about are at least:

• Paleocortex
• Archicortex
• Allocortex
• Periallocortex - does not exist, is mentioned frequently
• Proisocortex
• Neocortex & Isocortex

They contradict each other wildly, at least on how many layers are in each type of cortex. I'm not really sure how to proceed as my knowledge in this area is rather limited. Any thought? (Also posting this on WT:Anat.) CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 18:30, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry I'm a bit late replying, but I see from the discussion at WT:Anat that there are merge proposals for these pages, and I think that's a good solution. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:03, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Shortcut

I just noticed that WP:NEURO directs to the Neuroscience Portal, whereas WT:NEURO directs to this talk page. Wouldn't it make better sense to have WP:NEURO be a shortcut, instead, to this WikiProject page? --Tryptofish (talk) 00:09, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, especially since the portal is essentially abandoned. I have gone ahead and changed the redirect. Looie496 (talk) 02:57, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Reflexes

There are a number of articles on Wikipedia concerning what reflexes are that aren't entirely clear:

• Reflex - top importance article at start level
• Involuntary behavior Same as involuntary action?
• Preflex

As well as an article in AfC now about:

• Draft:Cutaneous reflex in human locomotion

which I've commented on. -- CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 08:41, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Discussion about popular press/primary source on Gray matter

Just putting this out there for your input: Talk:Grey_matter#Source_for_effects_of_child_abuse&pornography. CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 10:58, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Psychosurgery and History of psychosurgery

Hi, not a subject I know a lot about, but two editors are fighting here (as well as elsewhere: Phineas Gage, Deep brain stimulation, Electrical brain stimulation) about the appropriateness of a reference and could benefit from some guidance. --Randykitty (talk) 17:08, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I've given up on Phineas Gage. I took a quick look at Psychosurgery and History of psychosurgery, and it looks to me like the dispute might fit better at WT:MED, because the issues tend towards the clinical. You might get better help there. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:57, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I tried there before coming here, but got no takers... --Randykitty (talk) 18:24, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I didn't know that. (After the Gage fiasco, I'm not ready to be a taker here.) --Tryptofish (talk) 18:26, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Neuroscience editathon at the Royal Society, 7 June 2014

The Royal Society; we'll have a nice view of The Mall

An edit-a-thon on Neuroscience will take place on Saturday, 7 June 2014 from 10:30 to 13:30, see the event page. The form of the event will different from our previous events aimed at scientists, and those with an interest in science, who wanted to learn about editing Wikipedia. This time there will be smaller groups of scientists and experienced Wikipedians who will work together to improve articles. So there will not be the usual workshop-style training, though the scientists attending will certainly come to understand Wikipedia editing processes. We also welcome online participants, and suggestions of important articles in a poor state. Wiki at Royal Society John (talk) 18:18, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Still places here - see the event page for how to apply on Evenbrite, or sign up online. Johnbod (talk) 21:01, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Note the new list of RS journal articles that will be released to be freely available online from 6-8 June. Wiki at Royal Society John (talk) 00:12, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

New neuroanatomy atlas (1960)

I've uploaded a new atlas to the commons, and a few of the images are very good.
Currently the page covering the images is not complete, although there is a link to the source where captions can be found, and a table of contents displating the different chapters. It is avaible here: User:CFCF/Lawrence
To get an idea of what images there are, it may for now be best to use: commons:Category:Lawrence neuroanatomy
The atlas in question is A functional approach to neuroanatomy, and has lapsed into the public domain.
It offers a simplistic approach, and has a number of images and diagrams which can explain complex topics in a simple manner. --CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 12:00, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Neat! Those are bound to come in handy for a number of articles. Looie496 (talk) 20:24, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Nice. Is there an electronic copy of the plates and associated captions, if one were to aid in the captioning? Also, how did you come by this information? Is there are a service that tracks works that fall out of copyright? ~ Nelg (talk) 22:47, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Nelg I'm really really sorry to be so late to answer you. Yes the entire book is available online at: HathiTrust. (Ebay: 1967 edition (in copyright)

There are some ways to find out if a book has fallen out of copyright in the US. Books published between 1923-1968 needed to have their copyright renewed, and therefore there are many books that are fairly modern that are public domain.

I've been keeping track of books at HathiTrust, which states in the side-bar to the left is public domain. They have a massive collection of several million books, so I almost feel spoiled for choice going there. Please get in touch if you want to help out captioning the images, it would be enormously helpful. -- CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 21:51, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Leaflet For Wikiproject Neurocience At Wikimania 2014

Hi all,

My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.

One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.

This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:

• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film

• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.

• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.

• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____

• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost

For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to:
Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 16:13, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I've created a draft, and it can be seen at the link just above. I'd welcome other editors improving upon it. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:27, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Cool, looks good to me. Looie496 (talk) 13:34, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I changed the image to an svg file which I think will look much better in the large format the leaflets are going for.

• 
  I chose this one
• 
  Alternative with some physiology
• 
  Maybe more esoteric - get people to take a second look?
• Old one, not so high resolution
  Old one, not so high resolution

Additionally I had uploaded a high resolution image of a sheep's brain with the cranial nerves labeled, but it has been removed. I will try to sort out why, it might be high enough resolution.

P.S. I will be present at Wikimania, so if you have any suggestions on what to do with the leaflets I will be happy to help (that is if I have time, pretty busy schedule).

-- CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 10:53, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! I agree with you that svg is better, and I certainly wouldn't want to shortchange the spinal cord. I took the liberty of making a further edit, to note that you will be at the meeting. I don't think you really need to do anything with the leaflets. If I understand correctly, there will be some kind of central place where some groups will have booths, but we won't, and the leaflets will just be somewhere where people can pick them up if they want. Like everything Wiki, how much or how little you do is entirely up to you, and is appreciated. Enjoy the conference! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:09, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

The markup of the actual leaflet is now viewable at the link above. (I'm please with it, although I'm not clear on how wikilinks will work on paper.) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:49, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

All,
My sincere apologies for forgetting to mention this, but the deadline to submit your leaflet passed on 1st July. However, if you submit on 3rd of July, then we will still accept your leaflet.
Kind regards,
Adikhajuria (talk) 09:16, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Human Brain Development Timeline

Fix this typo:

This was identified by the process of myelination where the developed ((((( regions axons' )))) were myelinated first while the association areas were still able to develop through adolescence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.244.107.47 (talk) 03:12, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Human brain development timeline somehow wasn't on my watchlist. I've fixed the sentence in question, but there is a lot of other grunge in that article. Looie496 (talk) 13:42, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

New article from AfC

Just a heads up, Edward Roy Perl has just been accepted at AfC if anyone wants to improve it. --Cerebellum (talk) 16:06, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Wiki

Wiki Education Foundation is hiring two experienced Wikipedia editors for part-time (20 hours/week) positions: Wikipedia Content Expert, Sciences and Wikipedia Content Expert, Humanities. The focus of these positions is to help student editors do better work, through everything from advice and cleanup on individual articles, to helping instructors find appropriate topics for the students to work on, to tracking the overall quality of work from student editors and finding ways to improve it. We're looking for clueful, friendly editors who like to focus on article content, but also have a strong working knowledge of policies and guidelines, and who have experience with DYK, GAN, and other quality processes.--Sage (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:27, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Tail of the ventral tegmental area

I just created an article on this GABAergic nucleus. I don't normally create articles on brain structures, so I'm not familiar with WP:NEURO's nav temps and cats; I figured I'd just note the page here in the event there's any relevant categories/templates to add or update which I haven't included in the article. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 12:45, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Cool! Looks good to me. Looie496 (talk) 15:26, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Students

Students in Education Program:Ohio State University/EEOB3310 Evolution (Autumn 2014), in which User:Antlady is the instructor and User:Bluerasberry is the online volunteer, are showing up on some of the pages in this project. Editors here may want to keep an eye open for new accounts editing these pages. And everyone who hasn't yet done so might want to take a look at WP:ASSIGN. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:42, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Neothalamus

Anyone here know what the Neothalamus is? Does it simply entail any neocortex communicating parts of the thamalus? Or is it more specifically part of the ventral thalamus, or something else entirely? In any case I'd think it should be merged with a parent article. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 11:32, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Not that this proves anything, but this is the first that I've heard of it. Here is a Google Scholar search: [2]. With only 192 results, not exactly a hot topic. Seems like a developmental term, contrasted with paleothalamus, which is a red page for us. Especially per WP:NOTDICTIONARY, I think it would be fine for you to go ahead and merge it. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:35, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Brain size and Human brain size

An editor recently moved Brain size to Human brain size, and I believe that this requires some discussion. After all, most of the size differences between brains occur between species, not within the human species, although evolution of the human brain is obviously a very important part of the encyclopedic topic. I'm uncomfortable with this move. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:21, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I actually think it might be better to make this species specific. Relationships between brain size and other metrics for humans probably don't hold for many other species. With that in mind, I'm not sure how a general article on animal brain size could be adequately covered due to the massive scope of that topic. A more limited topic like the brain size of hominids would probably be more workable though. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 20:39, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

He also moved all the animal-related content out to Brain-to-body mass ratio, which is a more appropriate way to look at the issue across species. Perhaps Brain size should redirect there now. But he certainly should have discussed the matter first, & should be told as much. Johnbod (talk) 20:40, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

If we do go with having a human-specific page, I'd be inclined to flip the body mass ratio page around the other way. In other words, rename Brain-to-body mass ratio as Brain size, making the body mass ratio a major section of that page. I'm basing that on what I suspect readers would first look for in searching for a page, since the ratio is a rather technical term. It would parallel the way we have Human brain as well as a more general page about Brain. We might also want to look at where Evolution of the brain fits into all of this. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:54, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Brain size per se (across species) is not scientifically interesting - obviously an elephant has a bigger brain than a mouse (well, obviously or not, it has). It is the variations in the ratio between species that are interesting. Johnbod (talk) 02:37, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I have already said I support the idea of merging Brain-to-body mass ratio with brain size.. It seems to explain most of the animal part.. And I am supportive of anything that improve the current situation.MicroMacroMania (talk) 16:31, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

A very helpful thing to do here would be to look for reliable sources both for what terminology they use and for how they relate the topic(s) to one another. Are there reliable sources that treat all species with brains together in an overview, or are there not? For this kind of topic, we should especially look at the content guideline about reliable sources on medicine. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 03:24, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Brain-to-body mass ratio and the related Encephalization quotient are well-established topics in biology, and there are plenty of RS, several used in the various articles. Historically, human brain size across genders (female brains are smaller) has a long and dubious history; I'm not sure it's a very active topic these days, or much covered in medicine per se. Johnbod (talk) 10:52, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Hey! I reversed all my edits.. Seems like you guess want a discussing first. Anyway I am sorry for that.. Anyway I think there is a talk page going on the page about brain size.. MicroMacroMania (talk) 07:53, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm personally adverse to having separate human titled articles as most people will be looking for human content, and as John says Brain size on its own is irrelevant. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 08:15, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

When we are having the discussion. we can merge the article about "Brain-to-body_mass_ratio" with the article "brain size", if you think than is a better way to have the topic structured. Most of the stuff about animals deal with that part as you mentioned. I added some more text to the part about "cranial capacity" btw. MicroMacroMania (talk) 10:23, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I very much think that we need to slow down on the page edits, because we do not yet have a consensus (and frankly, I'm having difficulty following what page has what, at this point). Some editors have said that they don't want to have separate human-titled pages, because readers are only interested in humans anyway. Although I agree that readers are more interested in humans, keep in mind that we have both Brain and Human brain, and there is plenty of encyclopedic content in the former. I take the points that it is the brain-body ratio and not brain size that differs in interesting ways across species, and that both the ratio and the quotient are subjects that are well-sourced. But as I see it, that misses the point. As long as we have redirects from the more technical terms, and have page sections that cover the technical topics in the necessary detail, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't name the pages in terms of "size". Please see WP:UCRN. It seems to me that we are dealing with content that, broadly, falls into two groups (but not with precise boundaries): the basic biology of how brains evolved in animal species, and the specifically human subject of the human brain and how it came about and how it may vary. Both of those two subjects are encyclopedic, and both merit distinct pages here. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:10, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

To clarify what the controversy was–major articles on anatomy such as thorax, heart etc. didn't mention humans, and covered insects and other animals, just not humans. When it comes to Brain & Human brain there should be very little controversy as there is so much material available, and when people think of a brain they might not necessarily think of the human brain at once. So until we start arbitrarily splitting locus coeruleus into a main and a human article things should be okay in this project.

An example that is covered by this project: Human sex differences in psychology instead of Sex differences in psychology–of course the second alternative is going to be the common name.

So to move forward, could we list the articles that do exist, and just very briefly what they are on, so that we can discuss the best naming regimen? -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 06:19, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I understand better what you mean now, thanks. Of course, with psychology, there is an implicit assumption that material for a general readership will be about human psychology unless specified otherwise; and for anatomy, the brain is different from other organs because of its complex association with mind and all those other brainy things.

Your point about getting a list of articles together in one place is a very good one, and I'm going to try to do that now. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:47, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

My main issue with brain size is that is a giant article that cover a giant subject.. I just want it shorten down and split up in some extent.MicroMacroMania (talk) 07:36, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Articles for consideration

Here is a list of pages that I think we may want to consider in this discussion:

• Brain
• Human brain
• Brain size
• Human brain size (currently redirects to Brain size)
• Evolution of the brain
• Brain-to-body mass ratio
• Encephalization quotient
• Cranial capacity (currently redirects to Brain size)

Please add others I might have overlooked. (I'll leave notes at each talk page.)

Obviously, Brain and Human brain should remain as individual pages, as they are now. For the others, there's an open question as to whether any of them should be merged, and if so, what gets merged into what. Personally, I think there is room for some consolidation, but I would like to keep material that is specifically about the human brain separate, in this reorganization, from material about how brains have changed from species to species. I also think that WP:UCRN is important to consider. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:00, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for creating the list. I would just add cranial capacity, currently a redirect to brain size. They are obviously not synonymous, but cranial capacity is sometimes used as a predictor of brain size, especially by anthropologists. --Mark viking (talk) 20:19, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I added it to the list. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:55, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

• I would reinstate MMM's edits, splitting out the non-human content of Brain size to Brain-to-body mass ratio (which most of it concerns anyway), and leaving the remainder as Human brain size. Leave the rest. Some tidying-up would be needed. Brain size should either be a disam page, or redirect to Brain-to-body mass ratio or Human brain size. Johnbod (talk) 20:36, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm starting to think about, instead, moving all the human-related material at Brain size to Human brain size, which is similar to what you are suggesting, but instead, I think that Evolution of the brain should be the primary page for the other material. I think that Brain-to-body mass ratio, Encephalization quotient, and Cranial capacity could all be sections within (and redirects to) Evolution of the brain (again, putting importance on WP:UCRN). I don't really see the need for separate pages for two of the three methods. Then, I think Brain size would be a redirect to Human brain size, and there would be cross-pointing hatnotes at the tops of Human brain size and Evolution of the brain. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:17, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm ambivalent about one thing, and going back and forth about it: Although I definitely do think that Evolution of the brain should be one of the pages, I'm ambivalent about whether the other should be Human brain size (per Johnbod), or Brain size (per what CFCF said above the section break). --Tryptofish (talk) 23:23, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
    • I hadn't actually looked at Evolution of the brain, which seems misnamed. I think it should be merged into Brain-to-body mass ratio, which most of it actually deals with (not as well as the other article). There's only a couple of sentences really on Evolution of the brain - there no doubt is plenty to say on that, but this doesn't do it. Johnbod (talk) 23:32, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
      • In its present state, Evolution of the brain needs a lot of work, but I think that it should be the target page name, because it is really the primary topic, and because of WP:UCRN. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:39, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
        • The variation in Brain-to-body mass ratio is the focus in scientific interest, and the main subject of these various texts, mostly in terms of various species alive today. This is not what one expects to find at "Evolution of the brain", which should cover how different large groups of animals have different brain structures and functions, and how these have developed in evolution. There's none of that in these articles, which mainly deal with mammals anyway. We shouldn't name a page for a subject it doesn't cover. Johnbod (talk) 23:56, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
          • I'm thinking about this in terms of what the articles should become, going forward, as opposed to what they currently contain, because in their present form they still need a lot of work. Although evolution obviously is something that has occurred over time, it is very much reflected in species that are present today (phylogeny if you prefer). Subject to all the caveats about Google hits, Google Scholar returns 2,910,000 results for "evolution of the brain", [3], versus 1,860 for "brain-to-body mass ratio", [4]. That's a big difference. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:11, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
            • Those are bridges we should cross when and if we come to them. Johnbod (talk) 21:45, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
              • Well, right now, we are at the time when "evolution of the brain" is the correct choice per WP:UCRN, and "brain-to-body mass ratio" is the wrong one. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:51, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

As mention my main problem with brain size is the giant scope of the article. You might want to add Bergmann's rule.. Is also in the subject cause of biogeograohic variation in brain size.. That is an example of bergmanns rule..

But from what I can see there is two things we can do:

• 1. Human part to human brain as a separate part called size, though the part about bio-geographic variation go to Bergmann's rule. Animals to Brain-to-body mass ratio. Cranial capacity get a separate article.
• 2. Separate article about human brain size all about humans stay. Animals to Brain-to-body mass ratio. And cranial capacity get a separate article.

I to be honest dont know what is best...MicroMacroMania (talk) 07:41, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

What reliable sources for articles on medical topics do you have to recommend? Merely gathering a bunch of (possibly unreplicated) primary research articles based on suggestions from blogs would be a very bad way to go about reorganizing and updating articles here on Wikipedia. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 15:51, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Huh? I havent added any study from a blog.. what are you talking about? And just made a response to the above. And I have used a large amount of time trying to fix the article brain size. Havent you seen my edits and adding of more sources. But you are welcome to help trying to improve the article.. MicroMacroMania (talk) 16:08, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I looked at Bergmann's rule, and it doesn't seem to me to be about the brain, more like the whole body, so I don't think it figures here. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:53, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Seems like the discussion is over.. Case closed..MicroMacroMania (talk) 10:59, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:UCRN

I believe rather strongly that we need to comply with WP:UCRN in deciding which page titles to use. Although Google hits are not a perfect measure (and neither is anything else), I think that we can regard Google Scholar as an approximate guide in assessing what is the common name that our readers would search for, and what names are less familiar, and thus, potentially redirects to a page with the common name. Here is what I find:

Evolution of the brain: 2,910,000 [5]

Brain-to-body mass ratio: 1,860 [6]

Encephalization quotient: 1,770 [7]

Cranial capacity: 147,000 [8]

It's pretty clear, I think, that Evolution of the brain is by far the most common term, even in scholarly sources, and I think that it might make sense to merge the other 2 pages and the redirect into it. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:05, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately "Evolution of the brain is by far the most common term" for something entirely different to what these articles cover! The relevant part of the titles of a couple of the top hits is allometry; most others are about completely different topics. Johnbod (talk) 01:21, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

But those "different" topics still are, per (most of) those sources, about "evolution of the brain". At this point, I think the two of us have each laid out our arguments pretty clearly, and we don't seem to be converging on a solution, so I'd like to step back and hear what other editors think. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:56, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

We do not seem to actually agree on what to do. But to be specific. We agree that cranial capacity should have its own article? Or you want to keep it under brain sizeMicroMacroMania (talk) 08:45, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to say, because I still hope to hear from more editors. There are a couple of editors who are usually very active at this WikiProject, but who have not commented here; perhaps they are away, and perhaps they will comment here in the near future. I've already said that I'd like to see cranial capacity and some other pages become parts of Evolution of the brain. Anyway, WP:There is no deadline. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:17, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Well I just needed to check. I am totally in favor of waiting a week or two to let everyone comment. We need to get everyones opinion :) MicroMacroMania (talk) 06:14, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

From what I understand I brought the idea of having a part about brain size in the article human brain? Just containing what is not primary sources of the brain size and not about direct brain size, just the most important. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MicroMacroMania/sandbox MicroMacroMania (talk) 18:31, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

@Looie496, Randykitty, Mark viking, and CFCF: I feel like this discussion would benefit from input from more editors, so I'm pinging four editors who frequently comment at this WikiProject. If you have any advice, thanks, and if not, no worries. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:49, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

My thoughts: (1) Brain size should be a separate article, because it is often treated in non-evolutionary terms. "Comparative" is not the same as "evolutionary". (2) There should be separate articles for evolution of the brain and evolution of the human brain. The latter would focus on the part of the pathway after the origin of primates. There is tons of material on that topic and it doesn't really fit well in a general article on brain evolution. (3) Human brain size would best be treated in an article such as brain and intelligence rather than a separate article of its own. However I am open to a separate article if there is enough material to support it. Looie496 (talk) 12:47, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I follow that line of reasoning, and like the suggestions. My only fear is that by having evolution of the human brain we get an article with very little page-views and few readers/editors, thus condemning it to poor quality. While I'm adverse to arbitrarily splitting articles into a main and a human I can get behind this one as long as the evolution of the human brain is discussed in the main article as well, with a proper {{main|evolution of the human brain}} link and section. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 17:57, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Looking at the articles, there are a couple of different axes along which brain size is considered. One axis is in allometry, where scaling in brain size, brain-body ratio, encephalization quotient, brain surface area, etc, are considered in a cohort of different animals in the present day. Another axis is evolution of the brain, which considers evolutionary development and change of qualitative structures in the brain as well as size. Evolution of brain size in hominids is a notable subtopic in this. A third axis is medical implications of brain size in humans: what range of sizes are normal, pathologies, differences by gender and ethnicity (although the latter could be considered evolutionary, too.) Given these different axes, I agree with CFCF and Looie496 that Brain size (738,000 Google hits) for the allometric, comparative aspects makes sense, as does evolution of the brain for evolutionary aspects. I think there is enough secondary content out there to support evolution of the human brain as a subtopic. We could leave the medical axis for another day, as the current articles considered don't much touch on this. --Mark viking (talk) 19:15, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I seem to agree with above statement somewhat. But the article evolution of the brain certainly need some work before it is a good article. We keep brain size as a separate article. But what about cranial capacity? Do we let it stay as a part give it a separate article? MicroMacroMania (talk) 19:42, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to the editors who responded to my ping. To answer the question about cranial capacity, it seems to me that, since we seem to have an emerging consensus for a page on brain size, dealing primarily with allometric rather than evolutionary aspects, there is so little difference between cranial capacity and brain size that I think cranial capacity should continue to be a redirect to brain size. About a possible page about brain and intelligence, I'd be reluctant to create such a page as a result of the discussion here, given the ArbCom restrictions on the subject. I also agree with the opinions that have been given about having pages about evolution, and I can point out that someone more up-to-date than I could probably add a lot of encyclopedic material about molecular evidence about brain evolution.

So, I think there is an emerging consensus about the following pages:

• Brain size (comparative, allometric)
• Human brain size (redirect to Brain size)
• Cranial capacity (redirect to Brain size)
• Evolution of the brain (evolutionary, up to primates)
• Evolution of the human brain, to be created

That leaves these two pages, for which I do not yet see much of a consensus in any direction:

• Brain-to-body mass ratio
• Encephalization quotient

I suppose, absent any further comments in this discussion, we should go with the status quo, so that each of those two pages would remain standalone pages, covered per WP:Summary style in Brain size and perhaps in the two evolution pages.

--Tryptofish (talk) 22:35, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with your conclusions on the emerging consensus and think summary style in Brain size is a good compromise for Brain-to-body mass ratio and Encephalization quotient. I would support this approach. --Mark viking (talk) 23:13, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Seems like we found agreement. Case closed I guess?MicroMacroMania (talk) 11:01, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Wait, something I never got cleared out, what about the small summary I wrote about brain size? It could not be used anywhere? Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MicroMacroMania/sandbox. I wrote it as a small subsection for the article human brain as a link to the article about brain size. MicroMacroMania (talk) 15:48, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I would say that it should not go into Human brain. It needs some revising (which can come later), and revisions could go, mostly, into Brain size, and perhaps in small part, into the new Evolution of the human brain. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:51, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Ok seems like we got everything cleared out :)MicroMacroMania (talk) 20:02, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

It saddens me that cranial capacity did not get a separate page. There is enough material in the topic. MicroMacroMania (talk) 07:18, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk:John O'Keefe (neuroscientist)

There is some discussion here about an IP trying to insert some (fringe?) views into the article. (Presumably,) the same person is spamming neuroscientists on ResearchGate with this stuff. Some extra eyes may be helpful, especially from someone who can confirm whether or not this is indeed fringe stuff (I'm not qualified for that, it's just that the way this guy is going about it has "fringe" written all over it...). --Randykitty (talk) 12:16, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I've responded there. @Looie496: you know a lot about this subject, so maybe you could check it as well. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:38, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not too much into electrophysiology and haven't followed the field very closely recently... Thanks for looking into this! --Randykitty (talk) 16:06, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Open Access Reader, tool to find missing academic citations

Hi, I'm working on a project to find important academic citations missing from Wikipedia, which I think might be useful for this Wikiproject. It's just a proof of concept right now, but if you have any ideas or feedback, that'd be really helpful at this early stage. Check it out: Open Access Reader.

EdSaperia (talk) 13:22, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Cerebellum

I have nominated Cerebellum 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. DrKiernan (talk) 13:07, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Apparent Movement

Dear neuroscience experts: This old AfC submission will soon be deleted as a stale draft. Is there material here that should be added to the article Phi phenomenon? If so, I can move the draft to Apparent movement, which is currently an empty redirect, and redirect it to the Phi phenomenon article until someone with knowledge in this area wants to take on the merge. I can help with the attribution templates if necessary. However, if the content isn't useful, leaving it unedited should lead to its deletion in the next week or two. —Anne Delong (talk) 21:54, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

@Anne Delong: thanks for posting this. I've taken a quick look and there does not appear to be very much that needs to be incorporated into Phi. All that I can see are the two examples at the beginning of the Example section: electronic signs and motion pictures. But I'd rather have someone who knows more about the source material than I do check whether those two examples really apply. This subject is actually not so much a neuroscience topic as a psychology one, so I would strongly recommend posting about this article at WT:WikiProject Psychology, where you are more likely to get knowledgeable input. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:20, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Related discussion

About Brodmann areas, editors here may want to look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anatomy#How do we organize BAs?. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:25, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Infobox type for norepinephrine

Comments are solicited at Talk:Norepinephrine/Archive 1#Drug box or "infobox neurotransmitter"?. Looie496 (talk) 13:36, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Dopamine at FAC

The article Dopamine is now at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates. Any interested editor is invited to participate in the review. Looie496 (talk) 14:49, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

"Heritability of IQ" and "Intelligence Quotient"

Please forgive me and correct me if this is inappropriate. The Heritability of IQ and Intelligence Quotient pages are significantly related to neuroscience. The G factor (psychometrics) article is within the scope of Wikiproject Neuroscience, it's my opinion that Intelligence Quotient and related articles are also within the scope of this Wikiproject. I just wanted to get the opinions of other members of the community on this. Thank you for your time, and again, please forgive me if this is inappropriate. ScholarBlue (talk) 18:21, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Sure. There are already a number of articles on the general topic of brain-and-intelligence listed for the project, but feel free to add those and any others that seem appropriate. Looie496 (talk) 18:41, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that would be fine with me, too. Obviously, there is overlap with psychology, which seems to me to be the primary topic area in these examples, rather than neuroscience. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:53, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Neural population

I've created links from some articles to Neural population, a currently non-existent article. Can or should that article be created? 2601:445:4001:4514:7916:685B:4868:A7B1 (talk) 19:05, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

It depends on the kind of "population" that is being discussed, and I think that, strictly speaking, it would probably be a neuronal population, rather than neural. We already have Nucleus (neuroanatomy) for populations of neurons defined anatomically, and Biological neural network for populations defined functionally. I'm not clear on what further we would really need. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:16, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Probably this should redirect to neural ensemble (or vice versa). Looie496 (talk) 19:35, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

I was trying and trying to think of a page that I was overlooking, and of course that's it. Better than a network. There may be a few contexts where nucleus is the intended meaning, but I agree that it will usually be an ensemble. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:40, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

OK, I'd be happy to make the page blue. I see three options for doing it, however. One would be simply to make Neural population a redirect to Neural ensemble. The second would be to make it a DAB page, listing ensemble, nucleus, and network. The third would be to make it a redirect, but also to put a hatnote on ensemble, saying Neural population redirects here. For the anatomical cell group, see Nucleus (neuroanatomy). I prefer the second or the third, and I'm leaning toward the third. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:44, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

The third solution seems preferable to me. Looie496 (talk) 12:47, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Good, me too. I'll implement it shortly. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:36, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

 Done Someone who must have been watching here beat me to the redirect. I made the hatnote. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:55, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Large scale brain networks

A brand new stub article freshly hatched from the AFC review process, please help expand and improve it. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:07, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I went through it and fixed a bunch of things, and it's now on my watchlist. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:42, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Brachial plexus help

Could someone please help fill in the empty boxes in the table at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brachial_plexus#Specific_branches ? 173.225.249.190 (talk) 16:17, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

This is not a topic I know a lot about, but I'm not sure there is anything to fill in. Some nerves are purely sensory or purely motor. A quick glance that a couple of the nerve-specific articles suggests that they fall into those categories. If you think that's wrong, could you indicate why? Looie496 (talk) 16:39, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I would suggest asking at WT:MED. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:43, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Discussion about concerns over student editing

FYI: Wikipedia talk:Student assignments/Archive 2#Questionable articles. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:33, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Discussion about generally considering articles from predatory publishers unreliable

There is a discussion here if that topic is of interest. It has been going on since Feb 26, but just wanted to make sure folks here are aware of it. Jytdog (talk) 18:12, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

@Jytdog: I was aware of it but not paying much attention. Are there any neuroscience-related pages that you know of, where such journals are being cited as sources? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:41, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Nope. I just posted this to assuage an open-access activist who was concerned that the discussion at RSN was somehow being "hidden" from the community, so I provided notice to science-based WikiProjects. Not a bad idea anyway. Jytdog (talk) 22:47, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

self-disorders and neuroscience

We've started a new article self-disorder, a hallmark characteristic of schizophrenia, which I have added to this project because of the number of articles available that deal with neurobiological issues relating to them. Some of these articles are: [9] (full text: [10]) and [11]. There are other articles, as well as related terms like "anomalous self-experiences" and "basic symptoms."

Unfortunately, I don't really have a very good understanding of the topic and I'm not as familiar with the sources involved, so I am asking for some assistance in adding to the self-disorder. As I understand, the self-disorders in schizophrenia seem to arise from problems of perceptual organization, multisensory integration, and other neurobiological factors. Any assistance would be appreciated. Thank you. --Beneficii (talk) 23:49, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Here is another review article on the topic, which is open access: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23973319 Here self-disorders in schizophrenia develop from "perceptual incoherence." I am not confident in my knowledge on this topic enough to write it on Wikipedia, however. --Beneficii (talk) 19:36, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

@Beneficii: the kind of information that you are dealing with there really isn't neuroscience per se, so much as psychology and psychiatry (in other words, it doesn't really get down to the level of identifying specific brain regions or nerve cell groups). You will probably find more expert help at WT:MED than here. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:53, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Expert comment requested at redirects for discussion

Please comment here. Thank you, Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:46, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I've commented there, and I see other comments from editors who appear not to really understand the subject matter, so it would be useful for other editors from this WikiProject to take a look there. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:05, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

The discussion has been relisted at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 March 17#Action potential threshold for more comments, so editors at this project may really want to see if there is anything you want to add. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:17, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Trouble finding references? The Wikipedia Library is proud to announce ...

The Wikipedia Library

Alexander Street Press (ASP) is an electronic academic database publisher. Its "Academic Video Online" collection includes videos in a range of subject areas, including news programs (notably shows like 60 Minutes), music and theatre, lectures and demonstrations, and documentaries. The Academic Video Online: Premium collection would be useful for researching topics related to science, history, music and dance, anthropology, business, counseling and therapy, news, nursing, drama, and more. For more details see their website.

There are up to 30 one-year ASP accounts available to Wikipedians through this partnership. To apply for free access, please go to WP:ASP. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 06:58, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Class project at Neuroscientist

A heads-up to experienced editors: please see Talk:Neuroscientist#BIOL 3501 outline for Neuroscientist under "Danielggpeters". Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:20, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Merge Pleasure center into Reward system?

Pleasure is a component of reward (pleasurable stimuli are defined as intrinsically rewarding stimuli); hence, the entire pleasure system a subsystem within the reward system. Hedonic hotspots are already covered in the reward system article at the moment. I'm inclined to merge these articles, but I was wondering what others thought about this. Should we retain pleasure center as an independent article or cover the topic of "pleasure centers"/"hedonic hotspots" in a section within the Reward system article? Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 01:51, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I think that merging (with a redirect of course) would probably be a good idea. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:42, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm not necessarily opposed to merging,since the concepts are closely related, but as the terms are most commonly used pleasure is not a component of reward. Jaak Panksepp, for example, takes pleasure and reward to correspond to what Kent Berridge called "liking" and "wanting". Pleasure is defined operationally by emotional expressions and by continuing to perform a consummatory behavior after the behavior has started. Reward is defined by a tendency to repeat an approach behavior in the future when an opportunity is offered. The two constructs can be distinguished by dissociable effects on them of brain damage and drugs. In particular, dopamine antagonists interfere with reward but don't eliminate pleasure; opiate antagonists interfere with pleasure but don't eliminate reward effects. Looie496 (talk) 20:57, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Those are very good points. However, given that the pages are to some extent defined anatomically ("center" and "system"), I feel like there is indeed a lot of anatomical overlap. But I do agree that a merged page needs to carefully explain the distinctions that you just described. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:02, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm not really familiar with any of Panksepp's research, but basically every body of literature on reward that I've read/cited (mostly by Nestler, Schultz, and Berridge) has consistently described motivational salience for reward (i.e., desire/wanting/incentive salience), pleasure/liking, and associative learning (particularly positive reinforcement) as components or functions of reward. Based upon your description, it appears that researcher considers reward and incentive salience to be identical concepts. If that were the case, the reward system would really just be composed of the nucleus accumbens shell. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 01:27, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

References

I'm familiar with all of this literature, and I agree with you that we are primarily dealing with the NAc, so merging makes sense from an anatomical perspective. So I continue to be in favor of the merge that you propose. I think the takeaway here is simply that, largely per Berridge, it is very desirable that the text of the merged page explain how sources do not simply treat pleasure and reward as the exact same thing behaviorally – behaviorally as opposed to anatomically. (And strictly speaking, Berridge and some others do indeed find circuit differences at the sub-nucleus level for different behavioral components. That does not make for different "centers", but it does support the concept that we are talking about brain functions that are composed of multiple distinct parts.) --Tryptofish (talk) 20:40, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I'll make sure to reiterate the distinction in the section on pleasure centers if I go ahead with the merge then. I'll probably also cover hedonic coldspots there as well if I do merge them - there's both a hotspot and a coldspot (a disgust center a substructure that mediates the suppression of pleasure/liking responses as a result of opioid stimulation) in distinct subcompartments within the ventral pallidum and NAcc shell according to Berridge's most recent review. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 14:15, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I went ahead and merged the page. Didn't really end up merging any content since most of the sources were fairly old (1-5 decades), but I imported the cats/SA links. I made an attempt to cover the distinction between pleasurable stimuli (i.e., intrinsic rewards) vs non-pleasurable rewarding stimuli (extrinsic rewards) both in the lead and in the section where pleasure centers/hedonic hotspots are covered. It also occurred to me while writing about the distinction between intrinsic/extrinsic rewards that they correspond with primary reinforcers and secondary reinforcers respectively; might be something to mention in the article if I can find a source that covers this. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 18:37, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Issue with Category:Neurotrophins

See WT:MCB#Issue with Category:Neurotrophins. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 22:10, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

deep sleep -- a suggestion

Will someone knowledgeable please look at Talk:Neuroscience of sleep, new section "deep sleep". An IP has made a suggestion there and I have replied; neither of us is qualified to act on it. Thank you, --Hordaland (talk) 15:25, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for asking here. I made a reply there. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:28, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

See discussion importing content from database into WP

Here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Molecular_and_Cell_Biology#Transporter_classification_database Jytdog (talk) 22:09, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

There continue to be issues that are directly related to neuroscience there, as well as at Talk:Voltage-gated ion channel. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:17, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Issues in the Cerebellum article

The Cerebellum article is a candidate for publication in Wikiversity Journal of Medicine (Wikiversity draft located here). When published, the snapshot in Wikiversity will be easier for external sources to cite, and it will give clear credit to those who have contributed the most to creating the article. However, first it needs some amendment in regard to the issues found in by the peer reviewer, copied to here:

The article is very informational and is written in an encyclopedic voice. It is written at a scholarly level while still maintaining enough readability for lay readers. Though, I suggest a few changes (highlighted in the attached pdf). 1. While the article provides a comprehensive overview of the cerebellum in terms of its structure and functions, certain aspects of its anatomy are still lacking: - Information on blood supply should be added (superior cerebellar artery, anterior inferior cerebellar artery, and posterior inferior cerebellar artery), perhaps with illustrations. - Its connections to the brainstem (the three cerebellar peduncles) and tracks (e.g., cerebellothalamic tract) should be mentioned. 2. Information on cerebellar anomalies should also be added to section 'Clinical significance', e.g., Arnold-Chiari malformation, Dandy-Walker syndrome, etc. Other comments: 1. I notice some missing citations at several locations: - Page 1, 'Most of them derive from....., Purkinje cell receives two dramatically...., The basic concept of Marr-Albus..... - Page 5, last paragraph of section 1.2.1 Purkinje cell, The most popular concept of their function.... - Page 7, section 2 Function, last paragraph, Kenji Doya has argued...... - Page 9, second paragraph of section 2.3 Theories and computational methods, Perhaps the earliest "performance" theory... 2. Page 3, Figure: Microcircuitry of the cerebellum, abbreviation of CFC is lacking. 3. Page 7, section 1.2.5 Deep nuclei, use the word 'supply' instead of 'innervate'.

Also, User:Tony1 asked what "its" refers to for the sentence "This complex neural organization gives rise to a massive signal-processing capability, but almost all of its output passes through a set of small deep cerebellar nuclei lying in the interior of the cerebellum."

As this is among Wikipedia's featured articles, I think it is important to address these matters. Also, please give me a note if you think you think you've made substantial contributions to this article to have your name among the authors in the Wikiversity article. In that case, your real name should be used rather than your username.

Mikael Häggström (talk) 14:52, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

These issues have now been amended. Mikael Häggström (talk) 18:12, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Human neuroepigenetic (class I histone deacetylase) PET imaging in vivo

A recently published study used a radiotracer called [¹¹C] Martinostat to accomplish this. I figured I'd post this here in the event anyone is interested in reading the paper or creating an article on the compound (someone created it today). Seems pretty notable considering that this can be used to validate some of the key epigenetic mechanisms from animal models of the molecular neurobiology of addiction in living humans. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 00:52, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

References

Discussion about notability of a BLP

More views would be welcome at Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics)#Asking for some other opinions. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:57, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

BioRxiv support in citations

Main page: Help_talk:Citation_Style_1 § BioRxiv_support

This project's feedback would be appreciated in this discussion, as this could greatly (and positively) affect biological citations! Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:54, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Research of different species in the article "Visual cortex"

I noticed that the article Visual cortex contains information about the visual cortices of different species. The problem is that this article gives the illusion that all brains are structured in the same way.

The aim on the project page says: "This project's approach is to cover the brain from a cross-species, multidisciplinary perspective. This should provide detailed information about the distinct differences between species, and explain some possible evolutionary/ecological reasons for such differences."

How can this be achieved for the Visual cortex article? VeniVidiVicipedia (talk) 10:35, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

WP:BEBOLD. If you have sources for inter-species comparisons, please add a section about it. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:40, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Dopamine biosynthesis from phenylalanine via meta-tyramine

Biosynthetic pathways for catecholamines and trace amines in the human brain

L-Phenylalanine

L-Tyrosine

L-DOPA

Epinephrine

Phenethylamine

p-Tyramine

Dopamine

Norepinephrine

N-Methylphenethylamine

N-Methyltyramine

p-Octopamine

Synephrine

3-Methoxytyramine

AADC

AADC

AADC

primary
pathway

PNMT

PNMT

PNMT

PNMT

AAAH

AAAH

brain
CYP2D6

minor
pathway

COMT

DBH

DBH

This diagram appears in these 21 articles as of 22:03, 7 October 2016 (UTC).

Does anyone know of any reliable sources for citing the phenylalanine → meta-tyrosine → meta-tyramine metabolic pathway covered in the Dopamine#Biochemistry section? Meta-tyramine is clearly an endogenous human biomolecule based upon the fact that it's detectable in human biofluids [12] (urine+plasma). I'm just looking for a ref that covers its biosynthesis in humans. Also, if anyone knows of a review article or textbook that covers the enzymatic metabolism of phenylethylamine into para-tyramine in humans, I'd be interested in that as well; I'd add that pathway to the {{Catecholamine and trace amine biosynthesis}} diagram if it's a notable contributor to human p-tyramine biosynthesis. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 16:16, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I've looked into it, and I am very skeptical that it is true. It's chemically plausible, but I think that it is very unlikely to occur biochemically. I've gone through several textbooks that include lots of obscure biochemical pathways, and none of them says anything about it. Furthermore, this source: [13], indicates that meta-tyramine interferes with dopamine biosynthesis in vivo, which would seem to indicate that it is not a precursor to any significant degree. Absent an affirmative source, I'd say it should not be reported on Wikipedia. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:00, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Dopamine synthesis from p-tyramine and m-tyramine in the human brain by CYP2D6 is covered in this review. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 02:48, October 4, 2016 (UTC)

OK, that source does seem sufficient to justify saying that it can occur via that pathway. However, that brings us to the question of whether this is a significant contributor to dopamine biosynthesis, or something that only contributes trace amounts. According to the abstract of the source, the 2D6 isoform appears to be expressed only under pathological conditions. And the text that you quote here indicates that 2D6 has a K_m value in the ballpark of 0.1 mM. That's a very high concentration of meta-tyramine needed for significant enzymatic activity, and it sounds like no other isoform has a lower K_m than 2D6. I'm guessing that a full reading of the source (I don't have access to the full text), and maybe some papers that it cites, would indicate that this pathway is negligible under normal conditions, but becomes measurable under pathological conditions like Parkinson's disease, where the normal biosynthetic pathway is suppressed. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:47, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

@Tryptofish: Hmm. I figured that, based upon the wording of the brain CYP2D review (temporarily available here), it was notable enough to add as an alternative pathway. In case you'd like to read the primary source that the review cited when covering the substrate affinity (K_m) of tyramine for human and rat CYP2D enzymes in the reference quote, here's a link to it. Trace amines (most of which function solely as monoamine neuromodulators as opposed to neurotransmitters), including tyramine, are produced at roughly the same rate as normal monoamine neurotransmitters but are metabolized much more extensively, hence the relatively low concentrations in cerebrospinal fluid + peripheral blood plasma and on the basis of micrograms/gram of brain tissue (in rats/mice) relative to "classical" monoamines. However, the concentration of trace amines in blood plasma appears to markedly increase over short time periods as a result of stimulus-induced augmentation of their rate of biosynthesis. If you want me to upload any other sources for you, just link me to the PMID and I'll temporarily upload the full version + provide a link for you to view/download it.

FWIW, the reasons that I figured this pathway was notable other than what was mentioned in that review are: this in vitro paper - PMID 21679153 - which suggests that CYP2D6 plays a dominant role in tyramine metabolism (w/ FMO3 and MAO-A/MAO-B contributing more to its metabolism in individuals w/ loss-of-function mutations in the CYP2D6 enzyme); and this primary source - PMID 20832343 - about peripheral dopamine biosynthesis/excretion in AADC-deficient individuals, which stated "CYP2D6-mediated conversion of tyramine into dopamine might be an interesting target for the development of new therapeutic strategies in AADC-deficiency."

Anyway, if you believe that it's not worth covering "L-tyrosine → p-tyramine → dopamine" and "L-phenylalanine → meta-tyrosine → meta-tyramine → dopamine" as alternative pathways for human dopamine biosynthesis in Dopamine#Biochemistry and in the biosynthesis diagram in this section, I have no problem with removing those pathways – just let me know. On a related note, assuming you think it's appropriate to cover dopamine biosynthesis from meta-tyramine in the dopamine article, should I remove the "L-phenylalanine → meta-tyrosine → meta-tyramine → dopamine" pathway from the Dopamine#Biochemistry section until the first 2 transformations are referenced, or should I leave that in for now? "L-phenylalanine → meta-tyrosine → meta-tyramine" isn't cited at the moment. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 21:11, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for this information. I see now that you are also asking about the para-tyramine pathway. When I wrote my previous answers, I was only thinking about the meta-tyramine pathway, so that may be two different issues. I've downloaded both those papers, so that I can read them in full. I'll need a few days to work through all this new information, but I'll reply again when I have taken it all in. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:33, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Nevermind my second question. I just noticed that BRENDA's tyrosine 3-hydroxylase entry for homo sapiens lists L-phenylalanine as an enzyme substrate and 3-hydroxyphenylalanine (meta-tyrosine) as the product. BRENDA's AADC entry for homo sapiens lists m-tyrosine as a substrate and m-tyramine as the product. I'm just going to cite these in the dopamine article for now. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 23:24, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

@Seppi333: I've finally gotten around to reading these sources carefully – thanks for your patience. Because the figure above is about the human brain, I'm going to focus on the brain, rather than blood or liver, where perhaps things might be different.

After reading carefully, my answer is actually just about the same as it was before! I think the key place to focus on is indeed the Bromek study. It's important to note that they did most of their studies in brain microsomes, rather than in brain tissue in situ. That means that they are preparing their test samples to be enriched in what they are measuring, in comparison to natural brain tissue, and that's helpful in determining whether the pathway can happen. But I want to draw attention to page 177, left column, the paragraph beginning "The physiological and pharmacological significance...", because that's where they (correctly, in my opinion) evaluate how their microsome results might relate to natural brain tissue. They say: Our study shows that the Km value of CYP2D-dependent tyramine hydroxylase is higher (256 μM for CYP2D4 and m-tyramine) than that of tyrosine hydroxylase (55 μM for soluble enzyme and L-tyrosine) (Kuczeński and Mandell, 1972), which suggests greater ability of the latter enzyme (a classic biosynthetic route) to form dopamine in the rat brain (Vmax values could not be compared because of different enzyme preparations and reaction conditions). However, one cannot exclude the possibility that an alternative CYP2D-mediated pathway of dopamine synthesis contributes to the overall concentration of this neurotransmitter in certain areas of the brain, especially under conditions of enzyme induction by nicotine (Mann et al., 2008; Miksys and Tyndale, 2004; Yue et al., 2008) and/or in situations when the classic pathway via tyrosine hydroxylase is deficient (neurodegenerative diseases).

That's very much confirming what I suspected earlier. The conversion of m-tyramine to to dopamine only occurs at m-tyramine concentrations that are very high (and even higher for p-tyramine), whereas the "classic biosynthetic route" utilizing tyrosine hydroxylase has a much "greater ability... to form dopamine in the... brain". In other words, brain dopamine comes pretty much entirely from the classic tyrosine hydroxylase pathway, with only a tiny contribution from tyramine under normal conditions. The tyramine pathway can happen, and does happen, but it only represents a tiny percentage of the dopamine synthesis in the brain under normal conditions. That small percentage is simply something that "one cannot exclude". But they then point out that certain non-normal conditions (nicotine toxicity and neurodegenerative diseases such as Parkinson's) might induce the CYP pathway when the "classic" pathway is inhibited. That's it.

So there are two ways of looking at the content question. One way is to treat the tyramine stuff (both m- and p-) as something that exists and is chemically possible, but is a biologically minor pathway. The other is to leave it out or relegate it to something like a footnote. I don't care which of those approaches you choose. But I would advise against treating it as co-equal with the tyrosine pathway. I hope that helps. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:09, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

@Tryptofish: I tried to note that these were minor pathways in the dopamine article when I covered this there, but to further clarify, I've added the highlighted text in the excerpt below from Dopamine#Biochemistry:

The primary and minor metabolic pathways respectively are:

Primary: L-Phenylalanine → L-Tyrosine → L-DOPA → Dopamine

Minor: L-Phenylalanine → L-Tyrosine → p-Tyramine → Dopamine

Minor: L-Phenylalanine → m-Tyrosine → m-Tyramine → Dopamine
— Dopamine#Biochemistry

Does that address your concerns about the article text? Also, do you think I should mention somewhere in the metabolic pathway diagram (i.e., {{Catecholamine and trace amine biosynthesis}}) that it's a minor pathway or just leave the image as is? Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 20:32, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I think that "primary" and "minor" labeling works very well. Thanks! As for the diagram, I'd be inclined to put the word "(minor)" in parentheses right after "brain CYP2D6", next to the arrow going from p-tyramine to dopamine (ie, "brain CYP2D6 (minor)"). Thanks for all your good work on editing these pages! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:46, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

@Tryptofish: I've updated the diagram; I added "minor pathway" and "primary pathway" annotations to the CYP2D6 and AADC dopamine synthesis pathways, respectively.
On a completely unrelated note, do you think it's worth adding a sentence to Dopamine#Degradation stating that codeine and morphine are (very) minor dopamine metabolites in humans? The human morphine biosynthesis pathway is covered in Morphine#Human biosynthesis. Morphine has been detected in trace steady state concentrations in human brain tissue via immunological methods and urinary concentrations of morphine and codeine are significantly higher in individuals treated with L-DOPA. Based upon the current evidence, this is probably more of a "fun fact" than anything else, although endogenous morphine does putatively serve a unique/notable biological role. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 21:33, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I think the diagram looks great! Thanks. As for endogenous morphine, I consider it to be endogenous to poppies, not mammals. It's very much in the category of "fun fact", but of essentially no physiological significance. There have been papers about finding trace opioids in urine going back several decades (I remember reading some when I was a college student in the 1970s), but they have gotten no mainstream traction. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:02, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Alright, I'll leave it out then. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 23:55, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Reflist

References

Talk:Lateralization of brain function#Pop psychology - opposite the truth

Hello,

Could somebody with access to the sources and knowledge of the issue join the discussion above about the following paragraph: Lateralization_of_brain_function#Pop_psychology.

Thanks — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 15:24, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

2016 Community Wishlist Survey Proposal to Revive Popular Pages

Greetings WikiProject Neuroscience/Archive 5 Members!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about a technical proposal to revive your Popular Pages list in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

• Fix and improve Mr.Z-bot's popular pages report

If the above proposal gets in the Top 10 based on the votes, there is a high likelihood of this bot being restored so your project will again see monthly updates of popular pages.

Further, there are over 260 proposals in all to review and vote for, across many aspects of wikis.

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 18:05, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Issues in recent peer review of Hippocampus

The Hippocampus article was peer reviewed by a neuroscientist recently, discovering several issues: Wikiversity:The Hippocampus#Peer review comments
The main issue that needs to be addressed is the disconnect between hippocampal involvement in declarative memory versus spatial navigation, preferably by mentioning functional imaging studies. The peer reviewer has referred to the following works:

• Schiller, D.; Eichenbaum, H.; Buffalo, E. A.; Davachi, L.; Foster, D. J.; Leutgeb, S.; Ranganath, C. (2015). "Memory and Space: Towards an Understanding of the Cognitive Map". Journal of Neuroscience. 35 (41): 13904–13911. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2618-15.2015. ISSN 0270-6474.
• Buzsáki, György; Moser, Edvard I (2013). "Memory, navigation and theta rhythm in the hippocampal-entorhinal system". Nature Neuroscience. 16 (2): 130–138. doi:10.1038/nn.3304. ISSN 1097-6256.

I appreciate any help with this matter. After such an amendment, the article can be published in WikiJournal of Medicine, which is an open-access journal with no publication charges of any kind. The article will then be given standard citation formats and DOI codes so that it can be cited by external works. If you help out, you can be displayed among the main authors of the publication in WikiJournal of Medicine if you want, but you then need to agree and sign the "Submission letter", and you should also write your real name. In any case, contributors will be attributed by a link to the article history of Hippocampus. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions.

Cheers,

Mikael Häggström (talk) 20:00, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Editor-in-chief, WikiJournal of Medicine

Update: These issues have now been amended. Mikael Häggström (talk) 08:04, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

a questionable evo-devo model of stuttering

Wikipedia's article Stuttering says (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuttering#Causes )

More boys stammer than girls, in the ratio of 3-4 boys : 1 girl. This is because males have evolved as the hunters, fighters and as protectors and suitors. To succeed, they have required more adrenaline. Their Hypothalamic-Pituitary-Adrenal (HPA) Axis is more active.

The cite given for this information is

Stammering (Stuttering) A Complex Vocal Tic, Patricia Sims, Kindle version 2014

This work is apparently self-published (https://www.amazon.com/Stammering-Stuttering-xFFFD-Complex-Vocal-ebook/dp/B00IDHZ6GU).

Are we happy with this text as it stands, or should this be deleted or modified? -- 179.210.201.86 (talk) 04:38, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

It should be deleted unless a better source can be found. Looie496 (talk) 15:34, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Missing topics list

My list of missing topics about neurology is updated - Skysmith (talk) 15:09, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

@Skysmith: I do not really understand what the purpose is of this list... Create redirects to already existing articles? VeniVidiVicipedia (talk) 21:08, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

If I may reply to that, I've always understood the list to be suggestions for new pages to be created. But if there are already equivalent pages under different names, it would be appropriate to make redirects instead. Are there examples of topics where you do not see value in a standalone page? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:16, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I do think that many of those are suitable for redirects but I don't think I can say myself which are. Some are also terms not currently in use. If you can point out what would be suitable for what, all the better - Skysmith (talk) 22:21, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

In think these articles could be redirected if more people agree.

• Cerebral topographical map Topographic map (neuroanatomy)
• Gennari’s band Line of Gennari
• Microencephalon Microcephaly??
• Neurosensory Sensory neuron??
• Sensorimotor skills Sensory-motor coupling
• Trigeminal leminiscus Trigeminal lemniscus
• Afferent tract Spinal cord#Spinocerebellar tracts
• Carotid nerve Branch of glossopharyngeal nerve to carotid sinus because Carotid sinus nerve redirects there
• nerve tract Tract (neuroanatomy) ???
• Pyramidal fibres Pyramidal cell
• Myelinated nerve fibers Nerve
• Olfactory neurone Olfactory receptor neuron
• Optic nerve pit Optic disc pit
• Projection neurone Projection fiber see discussion above =]
• Cerebellospinal tract Spinocerebellar tract ???
• Human cerebrum Human brain literally quite a bit of overlap
• Caudal nucleus Caudate nucleus
• Mesolimbocortical system Dopaminergic pathways ???
• Middle temporal area Visual_cortex#Middle_temporal_visual_area_.28V5.29
• Prestriate area Visual_cortex#V2
• Substantia negra Substantia nigra

Got to the cognitive neurology section. I think its fastest to discuss the ones with least discussion first. VeniVidiVicipedia (talk) 21:44, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I recognize that there may be many links suitable mostly for redirects, like these ones. But often I am not sure enough to create them myself. - Skysmith (talk) 20:17, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

WikiJournal of Medicine promotion

The WikiJournal of Medicine is a free, peer reviewed academic journal which aims to provide a new mechanism for ensuring the accuracy of Wikipedia's biomedical content. We started it as a way of bridging the Wikipedia-academia gap. It is also part of a WikiJournal User Group with other WikiJournals under development. The journal is still starting out and not yet well known, so we are advertising ourselves to WikiProjects that might be interested.

Engaging Wikipedians

• Original articles on topics that don't yet have a Wikipedia page, or only a stub/start
• Wikipedia articles that you are willing to see through external peer review (either solo or as in a group, process analogous to GA / FA review)
• Image articles, based around an important medical image or summary diagram

Engaging non-Wikipedians

We hope that an academic journal format may also encourage non-Wikipedians to contribute who would otherwise not. Therefore, please consider:

• Printing off the advertisement poster and distribute in tearooms & noticeboards at your place of work
• Emailing around the pdf through contact networks or mailing lists (suggested wording)

If you want to know more, we recently published an editorial describing how the journal developed. Alternatively, check out the journal's About or Discussion pages.

Additionally, the WikiJournal of Science is just starting up under a similar model and looking for contributors. Firstly it is seeking editors to guide submissions through external academic peer review and format accepted articles. It is also encouraging submission of articles in the same format as Wiki.J.Med. If you're interested, please come and discuss the project on the journal's talk page, or the general discussion page for the WikiJournal User group.
T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 10:33, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Upcoming "420 collaboration"

You are invited to participate in the upcoming "420 collaboration", which is being held from Saturday, April 15 to Sunday, April 30, and especially on April 20, 2017! The purpose of the collaboration, which is being organized by WikiProject Cannabis, is to create and improve cannabis-related content at Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects in a variety of fields, including: culture, health, hemp, history, medicine, politics, and religion. For more information about this campaign, and to learn how you can help improve Wikipedia, please visit the "420 collaboration" page.

---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:43, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

A lot of nerve

Hey, I noticed there are a lot of article concerning "nerves", "nerve fibers" and "fibers". These article have a lot of overlap.

After the comment of Tryptofish, I propose

• merge sensory receptors to sensory neuron
• merge nerve fiber to nerve
• rename afferent nerve fiber to afferent nerve
• rename efferent nerve fiber to efferent nerve
• leave association fiber, commissural fiber alone
• delete neural pathway
• create fiber tract

and maybe merge/redirect projection fiber to the new fiber tract.

What do you think?

List of articles:

axon

• axon
• nerve fiber
• afferent nerve fiber
• efferent nerve fiber
• sensory nerve
• sensory neuron
• sensory receptors

bundle of axons

• nerve
• neural pathway
• association fiber
• commissural fiber
• projection fiber

--VeniVidiVicipedia (talk) 12:55, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

I love your section title! To answer your question about projections within the brain, they are typically called either "projections" or "tracts", or white matter, but not "nerves". I support your proposal to merge nerve fiber into nerve. They really are the same overlapping topic. But I would prefer to treat the other merge proposal differently.

I'd rename/move afferent nerve fiber to afferent nerve, and efferent nerve fiber to efferent nerve in the interest of pagename consistency. And I would merge and redirect sensory receptors into sensory neuron, because they are really the same thing.

I think two pages on your list are the most problematic. Projection fiber does not really constitute a standalone topic, and should probably just be merged into central nervous system. And neural pathway is rather awful: where on earth does the term "neural face" come from? And why list the dopamine pathways but not the other neurotransmitter pathways? Aside from a massive revision, I'm really unsure what else to do with it. Maybe it can stand as a page, or maybe it should be merged somewhere (?), but I don't have any good ideas.

But I would leave the other pages as they are. Neurons are individual cells whereas nerves are large groups of neurons, so it is appropriate to have separate pages for each. And afferent, efferent, association, and commissural are each separate and individual subtypes, each of which should be a topic on its own. We wouldn't simply merge hippocampus and amygdala into brain, and these likewise should remain separate. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:34, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Good feedback!

Is a sensory nerve the same thing as an afferent nerve?

Maybe it is an idea to create an article about the "supertype" of association fiber and commissural fiber, called fiber tract. Just like nerve is the supertype of efferent nerve and so. The name fiber tract would be the best in my opinion because the words "fiber", "fiber tract" and "tract" are used in the articles and in the literature.

I'm curious why projection fiber does not constitute a standalone topic compared to the other two? Another possibility for projection fiber is to merge and redirect this article with the (possible new) fiber tract article.

I have online access to the one reference of neural pathway. Neural pathway, neural tract and neural face are mentioned nowhere in the book. So now the page has zero references, that's not a lot. A quick google keeps coming back to the wikipedia page. If no one can find a reliable source deletion seems to be the best option.

I've updated my first post.

The hippocampus, amygdala analogy doesn't really count, since they are both components not subtypes. =P — Preceding unsigned comment added by VeniVidiVicipedia (talk • contribs) 10:39, November 23, 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, come to think of it, afferent nerves are pretty much by definition sensory. As for projection fibers, they make up fiber tracts within the brain (as distinguished from local circuits within a single brain region) as well as axonal projections of peripheral nerves. On the other hand, commissural and associative are specific subtypes with specific functions. (Hippocampus and amygdala are certainly components of the brain, and the tracts are components too, but I was thinking of them as subtypes of (gray matter) brain regions within the brain. Or think of all of these things as specific examples.) Beyond that, I'd very much like to see if other editors in addition to the two of us have any ideas about these issues. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:30, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree, in the meantime I have proposed deletion for the neural pathway article.--VeniVidiVicipedia (talk) 09:33, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I see that an IP contested the PROD. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:15, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Yup I saw it too. I do not really understand the reasoning behind the contest. The availability of "many thousands of reliable sources via simple Google Scholar and Google Books searches" doesn't change the fact that I can't find them in a reasonable amount of time. In the meantime I created Tract (neuroanatomy). Maybe I will look into how merging two article works.VeniVidiVicipedia (talk) 21:26, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, they don't need a good reason to contest at PROD. It's probably not worth the effort to take it to WP:AfD. Merging and redirecting is indeed the best option. Basically, you can just move any worthwhile content (if any) into the target page, and make the other page a redirect to the target page. There is also a process for discussion first, if you don't want to just go ahead with it. Anyway: Wikipedia:Merging. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:03, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Deleting is actually not the right action anyway. If it is deleted, then a search for "neural pathway" will come up empty. Since this is a commonly used term, it is much better to turn it into a redirect than simply to delete it. Looie496 (talk) 14:43, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

I've started with making some of the discussed changes. So far I've merged Nerve fiber into Nerve, redirect Afferent nerve fiber to Afferent nerve and redirect Efferent nerve fiber to Efferent nerve. The next logical step is to fix the articles starting with the word sensory. As a start I made the proposal to merge Sensory receptor into Sensory neuron. Input is welcome! =] VeniVidiVicipedia (talk) 19:27, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Are afferent nerve and sensory nerve about the same thing?

And efferent nerve and motor nerve?

If so, should they be merged? And in what direction? (a/e)fferent or sensory/motor?)

Do these nerves even exist? I found this comment that says there's really no such thing.

What do you think? VENIVIDIVICIPEDIA^talk 14:13, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Afferent and sensory are indeed the same thing. I would use sensory nerve as the merge target, because I think it is the more likely topic for readers to search for.

But with efferents, it's another story. Efferent nerves include both motor nerves and the efferent nerves of the autonomic nervous system, two entirely different categories. (Sort of like voluntary versus involuntary, although that's not a precise distinction.) That talk comment you linked to was saying that within a single efferent nerve, there can be axons of both motor and autonomic neurons (thus, supposedly, "pure" nerve types might not exist). I'd want to double-check sources as to whether that is actually true, as I'm unsure and a little skeptical. But the nerves of both efferent types most definitely do exist. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:23, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that! =] VENIVIDIVICIPEDIA^talk 10:07, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't cover projection neurons in any neuron articles

• Neuron lists only sensory neurons, motor neurons, and interneurons as classifications of neurons in the lead. It doesn't include the phrase "projection neuron" anywhere in the article.
• Interneuron states that there are only three classes of neurons: sensory, motor, and interneurons.
• Projection neuron incorrectly redirects to interneuron without covering what a "projection neuron" is in that article.

Among others, this ref states that there are four basic classifications of neurons: motor neurons, sensory neurons, projection neurons, and interneurons. I realize that some sources lump interneurons and projection neurons together (e.g., [14]), but this convention isn't uniformly applied in practice (e.g., [15]).

Based upon my understanding:

1. Motor neurons project from the CNS → PNS or CNS → muscle, conveying motor commands from the CNS
2. Sensory neurons project from the PNS → CNS, and transduce a signal from a sensory stimulus into a neural/neurochemical signal that conveys sensory information
3. Interneurons project locally within the nervous system, conveying some form of information between neurons located in close proximity within the PNS or CNS
4. Projection neurons project into a different region within the nervous system, conveying some form of information between neurons located in distinct nervous system regions or structures within the brain; they constitute a huge proportion of neurons within the CNS.

With that said, shouldn't projection neuron be an independent article that covers this topic and lists cell types like striatal medium spiny neurons? Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 20:43, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

There's a lot in your question, but I'll just focus on projection neuron being a redirect to interneuron. Yikes! They are indeed opposites! I just changed the target to projection fiber as at least a temporary fix, but there certainly would be nothing wrong with instead making it an independent page as you propose. (Medium spinys are projection neurons, but they are far from the best examples. Cells in the substantia nigra, locus coeruleus, and dorsal raphe, as well as pyramidal cells in the cortex, are better examples.) --Tryptofish (talk) 00:32, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't think that projection neuron should be a separate article at this moment. There seem to be several attributes on which neurons can be classified: connection, structure, location, direction, neurotransmitter, discharge pattern, etc... Every classification gives rise to several classes. When every class gets its own article there will be a lot of duplication of information and many overlapping articles.

I think it is best to first search for review articles discussing neuron nomenclature and classification, since as you said this is not uniformly applied at the moment. This information than can be discussed in neuron. And only consider splitting of a section into an article when it reaches considerable size and quality. VeniVidiVicipedia (talk) 09:23, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Maybe it is an idea that instead of making lists of neurons in each class, to make a table/list article instead, e.g. List of neurons in the human body. This could provide a better overview and allow people to sort on any classification they like. VeniVidiVicipedia (talk) 09:23, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Those are good points. Perhaps it would be best to have some material on projection neurons within the neuron page, and re-target the redirect for projection neuron to the appropriate section of neuron. However, I have very low enthusiasm for the "list of neurons" page being created, because it would become pretty much impossible to decide what to include or not include, and it could potentially be infinitely long – after all, there are a lot of neurons in the human body! (If there isn't a category, however, such a category would be fine.) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:32, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Tried to find some review papers. So far I found a relevant review paper with lots of references to lots of classifications. Also found a less relevant one that I find interesting. Also found this paper, which seems the most promising to me to be used as a source, it discusses the current nomenclature of classes of neurons and their development. VeniVidiVicipedia (talk) 14:36, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, 1 and 3 look like good reliable sources to me. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:05, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

The third source says the following (most info is from ): neuron classification in the neocortex is far for complete/finished.

Cortical projection neurons. PNs are excitatory, glutamatergic neurons that connect the cerebral cortex to the entirety of its distal intracortical, subcortical, and subcerebral targets. 70-80% of neurons in cortex. Current (broad) classification:

• intracortical PNs. in all layers but predominantly in the upper layer II/III.
  • associative PN = PNs that project their axons either to targets in the same hemisphere or to different layers of the same area or column.
  • commisural PNs (CoPNs) = project their axons to targets located in the opposite hemisphere.
    • Callosal PNs (CPNs) = CoPN that connects through the corpus callosum.
• corticofugal PNs (CFuPNs). primarily in deep layers send axons to distal targets outside of the cortex.
  • corticothalamic PNs (CThPNs) = heterogeneous population of PNs located in layer VI that project to different nuclei of the thalamus to modulate incoming sensory information.
  • subcerebral PNs (ScPNs). in layer Vb cross multiple areas and project their axons to distinct targets below the brain.
    • corticopontine PNs = to the pons and other nuclei of the brainstem
    • corticotectal PNs (CTPNs) = to the superior colliculus
    • corticospinal motor neurons (CSMNs) = to the spinal cord
• Some classes of PNs send axons to multiple targets and do not easily fit into any of the classes described above.

A few lessons can be learned from these molecular studies. First, the laminar coordinates of a neuron do not fully define its class-specific identity. Second, molecular profiling suggests the presence of a higher degree of heterogeneity within PN subtypes than is apparent from their long-distance connectivity.

Cortical interneurons. (just started reading it.) Cortical INs make local connections within the cortex that may span multiple layers. 20-30% of neurons in cortex. very diverse -> classification still work in progress. Traditional (broad) classification:

• spiny pyramidal and stellate cells
• aspiny (or sparsely spiny) nonpyramidal cells

An interesting additional source about interneuron cell types: .

So far I think it is best to have as less articles about neuron classes as possible. Since as said earlier the classification is at best incomplete. VeniVidiVicipedia (talk) 17:19, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

References

Prefrontal cortex

I ran into this problem while trying to find a redirect target for prelimbic cortex. This journal article, this textbook, and the Neurolex mPFC entry indicate that the "prelimbic cortex" or "prelimbic area" is part of the medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC). The textbook also indicates that the prelimbic cortex is contained within Brodmann area 32.

• The current PFC article lead states that the PFC encompasses six Brodmann areas: 9, 10, 11, 12, 46, and 47.
  • The current "Subdivisions" section of the PFC article – Prefrontal cortex § Subdivisions – lists eight Brodmann areas that are part of the PFC: 8, 9, 10, 11, 44, 45, 46, and 47 (area 12 is missing?).
• The textbook linked above (PFC substructures are covered on pages 22-24) indicates that the PFC contains all or part of fourteen Brodmann areas: 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 24, 25, 32, 44, 45, 46, 47.

Should the PFC article be revised to include these other regions, or is there a reason why only a subset of these areas is listed in the PFC article? If it stays as is, where should prelimbic cortex redirect? Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 16:21, 6 March 2017 (UTC) ---- edited 16:36, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I checked the sources, and yes, the prelimbic cortex is area 32, and 32 is within the prefrontal cortex. So I suggest: (1) prelimbic cortex should redirect to Brodmann area 32, which would be more precise than targeting it to the prefrontal page, and (2) it would be fine to expand prefrontal cortex to include more Brodmann areas. I suspect that the only reason so many areas are left out of the page is that they were overlooked, but they can certainly be added subsequently. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:20, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I was thinking about redirecting it to Brodmann area 32; however, I figured the PFC would be a better target because it's probably more likely (based upon page view statistics) that a subsection on the prelimbic cortex would be expanded by other editors if it were located in that article than if it were located in Brodmann area 32. If you think the Brodmann area would be a better redirect target, I'll go ahead and redirect it there though.

Per your suggestion, I've revised the lead of the PFC article and added maintenance tags to the appropriate sections. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 03:52, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

It's not a big deal for me either way, about targeting 32 versus PFC, but the way that I see it is that it specifically is area 32, whereas it's only a part of PFC. But you could also use a "prelimbic cortex redirects here, for the more [general/specific] brain region, see..." hatnote in either case. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:44, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

I've added the redirect hatnote and created the redirect. I'll add content on the prelimbic cortex to both of those article within the next day or two. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 01:55, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Extension of 'Topic Page' review articles from PLOS Computational Biology to PLOS Genetics

framelss

The journal group PLOS is extending its 'Topic Page' review format that was spearheaded by PLOS Computational Biology to also include PLOS Genetics. In this format, accepted articles are dual-published both in the journal, and as Wikipedia pages (see Wikipedia category).

Suitable topics must either currently lack a Wikipedia page, or have only stub/start class contents. If you you would like to submit such a review article, see these guidelines. If you have any recommendations for topics to be commissioned, feel free to let any of the involved editors know: T Shafee (PLOS Gen), D Mietchen (PLOS Comp Biol).
T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 12:38, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/Marquette University/Neurobiology (Spring 2017)

Just a heads up that students have created new versions of articles in sandboxes and there is some plan to move them to mainspace soon. Some existing articles are stubs; some have significant content. Jytdog (talk) 20:56, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

User edit check

Can someone here check this user's edits to make sure they aren't trying to add sneaky vandalism or other misinformation. Sakuura Cartelet ^Talk 02:28, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

RfC on the WP:ANDOR guideline

Hi, all. Opinions are needed on the following: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#RfC: Should the WP:ANDOR guideline be softened to begin with "Avoid unless" wording or similar?. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:44, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Recategorizing all medicine and biology articles using the more specific MeSH hierarchy

I would like to have your opinion regarding this idea here. --Brainist (talk) 21:31, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Neuralink debate

I am currently engaged in a discussion with another editor on Talk:Neuralink#Musk's timeframes about whether these edits violate WP:CRYSTAL and/or WP:UNDUE. A third opinion would be much appreciated. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 22:15, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Citation overkill proposal at WP:Citation overkill talk page

Opinions are needed on the following: Wikipedia talk:Citation overkill#Citations. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:32, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Popular pages report

We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Neuroscience/Archive 5/Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of WikiProject Neuroscience.

We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:

• The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
• The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
• The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).

We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of WikiProject Neuroscience, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.

Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

WP:Citation overkill RfC

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Citation overkill#Should this essay be changed to encourage more citations?. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:21, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

You are Invited

You are invited to coment, ask questions and draft Free will changes at talk:free will in the light of new empirical evidence.

Enjoy the day, Damir Ibrisimovic (talk) 04:54, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Facto Post – Issue 1 – 14 June 2017

Issue 1 – 14 June 2017

Facto Post – Issue 1 – 14 June 2017 Editorial This newsletter starts with the motto "common endeavour for 21st century content". To unpack that slogan somewhat, we are particularly interested in the new, post-Wikidata collection of techniques that are flourishing under the Wikimedia collaborative umbrella. To linked data, SPARQL queries and WikiCite, add gamified participation, text mining and new holding areas, with bots, tech and humans working harmoniously. Scientists, librarians and Wikimedians are coming together and providing a more unified view of an emerging area. Further integration of both its community and its technical aspects can be anticipated. While Wikipedia will remain the discursive heart of Wikimedia, data-rich and semantic content will support it. We'll aim to be both broad and selective in our coverage. This publication Facto Post (the very opposite of retroactive) and call to action are brought to you monthly by ContentMine. Links Engaging with Data blogposts around WikiFactMine Carly Strasser talks to Open Science Radio Thoughtful WikiCite blogs including discussion of data models on Wikidata: {{Hatnote}}, Wikicite 2017, and the 7 features Wikidata needs most Katie Mika, Ernst Mayr Library, The role of librarians in Wikidata and Wikicite Fact mining in the digital humanities: Andrew Gray, Introducing: Six Degrees on Wikidata A predecessor: Project X newsletter archive Editor Charles Matthews. Please leave feedback for him. If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Opted-out of message delivery to your user talk page. Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:33, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Neurobiological effects of physical exercise

I don't know if anyone is interested in writing about this topic, but I think that I probably need some help updating this article given the massive deluge of secondary medical sources that have been published on this topic since I last updated this article in June 2016. I linked a highly filtered pubmed search list of roughly 75 reviews and meta analyses on this topic in the following talk page section: Talk:Neurobiological effects of physical exercise#New review. To date, I've only been interested in covering documented effects in humans in that article, so I've largely ignored findings from reviews that of animal studies with limited exception, such as when it expands upon more limited evidence from human studies (in particular, the addiction section covers some findings from animal literature which has been fully consistent with what has been documented in reviews of the much more limited clinical studies with human addicts).

Anyway, I figured I'd just post this here in the event anyone is interested in working on the article. For a primer on the topic, this recent review of human studies – "The Effects of Acute Exercise on Mood, Cognition, Neurophysiology, and Neurochemical Pathways: A Review" – covers a lot of what is currently covered in the article on molecular neurobiology and cognition. That review doesn't go into much detail on exercise-induced structural neuroplasticity or clinical effects in individuals with various central nervous system disorders though.

Further reviews/primers that document findings from specific age groups:

• this review covers exercise-induced structural neuroplasticity in children and older adults (60+ yrs)
• this review covers exercise-induced neuroplasticity and exercise-induced effects on cognition in individuals between 18-60 years old

FWIW, I intend take this article through several rounds of FAC until it gets promoted to FA status at some point in the future; however, it still needs a lot of work to comprehensively document all the accumulating research findings on this topic. The rate at which primary clinical research, reviews, systematic reviews, and meta analyses are being published on this topic also seems to be increasing. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 06:05, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

It's not something that I want to take on at this time, but thanks for posting here. I have a few suggestions, after a quick look at the page. One is that you should also post about this at WT:MED, if you have not already done so. (You'll need to make the page very MEDRS-compliant, especially for FAC.) The other is that "neurobiological" in the title seems wrong to me. At first, I thought that maybe "neurological" would be more to the point (after all, the page is not about exercise effects in Aplysia, for example). But the page really seems to be about "cognitive" effects. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:24, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Most of the article deals with topics in molecular neuroscience. I think it's really just the lead that focuses on cognition, although I suppose you have a point when you consider that the cognitive effects are ultimately brought about by the molecular and cellular mechanisms discussed in the article. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 01:32, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Although it's true that most of the effects are mediated at the molecular/cellular level (for that matter, what isn't?), it really is cognition that is the output. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:36, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

List of neuroscientists format

List of neuroscientists is being upgraded to a fancier page format. There's a discussion at the bottom half of Talk:List of neuroscientists#New format?, where it would be helpful to have more editors taking a look and giving their preferences. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:36, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

RfC regarding the WP:Lead guideline -- the first sentence

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section#Request for comment on parenthetical information in first sentence. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:33, 2 July 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!} 03:32, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Facto Post – Issue 3 – 11 August 2017

Issue 3 – 11 August 2017

Facto Post – Issue 3 – 11 August 2017 Wikimania report Interviewed by Facto Post at the hackathon, Lydia Pintscher of Wikidata said that the most significant recent development is that Wikidata now accounts for one third of Wikimedia edits. And the essential growth of human editing. Internet-In-A-Box Impressive development work on Internet-in-a-Box featured in the WikiMedFoundation annual conference on Thursday. Hardware is Raspberry Pi, running Linux and the Kiwix browser. It can operate as a wifi hotspot and support a local intranet in parts of the world lacking phone signal. The medical use case is for those delivering care, who have smartphones but have to function in clinics in just such areas with few reference resources. Wikipedia medical content can be served to their phones, and power supplied by standard lithium battery packages. Yesterday Katherine Maher unveiled the draft Wikimedia 2030 strategy, featuring a picturesque metaphor, "roads, bridges and villages". Here "bridges" could do with illustration. Perhaps it stands for engineering round or over the obstacles to progress down the obvious highways. Internet-in-a-Box would then do fine as an example. "Bridging the gap" explains a take on that same metaphor, with its human component. If you are at Wikimania, come talk to WikiFactMine at its stall in the Community Village, just by the 3D-printed display for Bassel Khartabil; come hear T Arrow talk at 3 pm today in Drummond West, Level 3. Link Plaudit for the Medical Wikipedia app, content that is loaded into Internet-In-A-Box with other material, such as per-country documentation. Editor Charles Matthews. Please leave feedback for him. If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Opted-out of message delivery to your user talk page. Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:55, 12 August 2017 (UTC)