Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 129

Archive 125

←

Archive 127

Archive 128

Archive 129

Archive 130

Archive 131

→

Archive 135

Changing the Title of the Hodgkin's lymphoma Article

Micrograph showing Hodgkin lymphoma

The nomenclature for this disease has been officially changed to Hodgkin Lymphoma. This change is reflected in the trusted literature (such as WHO and American Association of Hematology). The talk section of the Hodgkin's Lymphoma Wikipedia page has large support for the change of the article title to 'Hodgkin Lymphoma' from the current Hodgkin's Lymphoma, which is outdated nomenclature. Jcamp2023 (talk) 16:44, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing this here @Jcamp2023:. Is this the thread with the evidence? Link to "Redirection" talk page conversation last edited and unresolved since 2014 and "Name" (summer 2019 talk page posting).JenOttawa (talk) 17:19, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, it should be renamed, I checked WHO ICD11, it's still named Hodgkin lymphoma (without the possessive form). I have made a technical request for a move (since I failed doing it myself because of Hodgkin lymphoma already existing...). --Signimu (talk) 18:11, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

When the move will be done, we'll have to rename all text instances of Hodgkin's lymphoma into Hodgkin lymphoma in the entry. --Signimu (talk) 18:12, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Support, see discussion at [1]. Also wondering if this should be done for most/all named conditions (e.g. Parkinson disease); is there already a project underway to do this? Myoglobin (talk) 18:45, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Ah yes, good question. When checking ICD11, it seems to be the case for Parkinson too, and I bet for all other diseases they use the same nomenclatura. That's going to be a lot of work if we do it manually, but I would suggest to at least do manually a few big ones such as Parkinson and Alzheimer, and we can see if we run into issues or if all goes fine, we can try to automate for the rest (but how to detect such entries? A regex search of titles containing "'s" and "(disease|lymphoma|???)" and part of the medical project?). --Signimu (talk) 19:04, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Move for Hodgkin lymphoma done, they are quite fast! And they renamed all instances in the entry! I didn't know they had such efficient tools The editor probably done it manually, we have such efficient editors So now onto the normalization of other titles? Should we do a RFC beforehand just to make sure we have a consensus on this? --Signimu (talk) 19:09, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

I carried out the move: there is a difference between Hodgkin lymphoma and other titles like Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease, Lou Gehrig's disease, etc. Possessives in many cases are used with the word "disease" ("Hodgkin's disease" refers to Hodgkin lymphoma), whereas "syndrome" typically doesn't. See List of eponymously named diseases. So I don't support a project to move more articles. -- Wikipedical (talk) 21:28, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

This should be handled one by one, and, although the overall trend is to drop apostrophes (and to choose non-eponymous names), it should not be pushed hard. This is one of those "minor" changes that sometimes surprise us by really, deeply mattering to other people. I recommend that if you get objections, you drop it and move on to the next candidate.

As for how things are named, it's not unusual for people to prefer the possessive when the condition is named after an affected person. That model yields "Down syndrome" (named after a physician) and "Lou Gehrig's disease" (named after a baseball player). WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:05, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

agree w/ WAID--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:39, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedical, thank you so much! To both: I agree we should be prudent. The original argument in the discussion for Hodgkin lymphoma (5 years ago) was that the possessive form was being dropped in standard classifications such as WHO ICD, and indeed in ICD11 I can't find a single occurrence of a possessive form, even for Lou Gehrig disease[2] (which is BTW considered there an alias of "Motor neuron disease"), same for "diseases" such as Parkinson and Alzheimer. So it seems the question is: should we consider that WHO ICD11 represents a consensus on the nomenclatura that we should follow (ie, they already did the work for us and we rely on them), or we do not necessarily and we do it case-by-case as you both seem to suggest? --Signimu (talk) 04:21, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

I think pronunciation is a more important factor than whether the name is for a physician or patient. Speaking out loud "Down's Syndrome" and either the "'s" is elided or the speaker really has to introduce a clear gap between the words. So "syndrome" is more likely to lose the possessive. Naming after a patient is extremely rare, so not really a clue to usage. Lou Gehrig's is very much a lay name for a disease that was already recognised and is mainly popular in the US among a certain generation. Another factor is whether the surname in question ends up being used without the disease/syndrome suffix. In that case, the possessive is universal: Down's, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's. (As an aside, we do this sort of thing in the UK with grocery stores. Sainsbury's is possessive and founded by a Mr Sainsbury. But Tesco's or ASDA's is very common in speech but technically wrong: there never was a Mr Tesco or Mrs Asda). Unless enforced by some committee, I think naming is most likely to be influenced by these usage factors, rather than by any complex argument, which can end up becoming a false etymology as folk try to reverse-engineer why a change occured. See Rebracketing for how this sort of thing happens to language. I don't support any enforcement of one style nor any one authority to follow. There may also be US/British English variant factors, which likely need to respect existing WP practice to stick with what we have. Our rules for naming also require us to pick article names that naturally are going to be used in referring articles.

I'm not convinced the change for Hodgkin's lymphoma was correct based on the arguments presented. Jcamp2023, please provide a source for the claim that the name has "officially changed". AFAIK there is no one official body for this disease or any other. Organisations like WHO are likely to prefer self-consistency, whereas Wikipedia has always permitted variety (see WP:ENGVAR). Nor do I see "large support for the change of the article title" on any talk page. All I see is discussions with a tiny handful of people. Wikipedical/Signimu I think you have been too hasty. The vast majority of links to the disease on Wikipedia use the possessive (though I accept that some may be a consequence of the writer following the style used for the existing article name). Considering that natural usage on WP is a significant guideline rule on article naming, I think we need strong evidence that most bodies worldwide use a certain form. There may be a good case for the change, but I don't think the evidence presented so far here is sufficient. Also I do think the name change should be discussed on the article talk page and this page be merely a post to project members informing them of the discussion -- that way future editors will see the discussion in the obvious place. -- Colin°^Talk 13:20, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I have been too bold indeed! But it's always reversible To try to further our thoughts, I have done some searches about this issue, here are my (unordered) findings:

• A google search for "Hodgkin syndrom" (with the quotes) yields 6M results, whereas "Hodgkin's syndrom" yields 3.8M results, so it seems the former is more common nowadays in the public sphere as well. Various public resources also use the former, we mentioned ICD11, there is also cancer.org[3] and UK's NHS[4].
• About the general issue of possessive forms: there is also some discussions at: Talk:List_of_eponymously_named_diseases#Apostrophe (providing some sources where institutions pledged to drop the possessive form), and the entry mentions that the possessive should be dropped for autoeponyms as well: List_of_eponymously_named_diseases#Autoeponym.
• There are a few studies on the prevalence of the possessive vs non-possessive forms in the literature: PMID 23646286, PMID 19272131. They all conclude that the usage is inconsistent, and call for a global normalization.
• This manual of scientific style guide[5] writes: "Possessive forms of diseases like Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and Tourette's are often favored in nontechnical contexts, but in science writing, such terms should not be written in the possessive form."
• Finally, this great review PMID 25515058 better clarifies the whole issue IMO: "There are various ways of depersonalizing an eponym: (a) derivatize it, such as adjectivally (Gauss’s distribution (actually attributable to de Moivre) becomes Gaussian); (b) give it a lower case initial (Blaise Pascal’s unit of pressure becomes a pascal); (c) drop the possessive (Henry Koplik’s spots become Koplik spots). Jean Nicot gives us nicotine (methods a and b), and Julius Petri’s dish becomes a petri dish (methods b and c). Depending on the extent of the change, we may forget that the term was ever eponymous. The examples in the table show that no consistent rules govern this. Some claim that displacement of possessive forms of [single name] diseases and syndromes by attributive ones (such as “Down” instead of “Down’s”) is increasingly common or will become so. The evidence does not support this. Although non-possessive forms have increased with time, so too have possessive forms; the non-possessive forms have come to dominate in a minority of cases (fig 1)." - BTW, Figure 1 shows that Parkinson's disease is more commen than the non-possessive, but Down syndrome has become more prevalent than the possessive form.

So given all this, and particularly the last source, the depersonalization of eponymous concepts is a general trend in science, but it takes time, so it's not surprising that we still use say Parkinson's disease, but not Gauss's distribution anymore. So if we think it's more important a title represents the least surprising term and not the most scientifically accepted one, then it's a case-by-case basis. --Signimu (talk) 15:14, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Google search result page numbers are not really reflective of usage among English writers or in reputable sources. The guideline pages on naming may already note that, and other suggestions. Actually that reminds me of another reason why the possessive may be being lost: it is easier to perform simple database searches without having to worry about punctuation (possessives, hyphenation, accents). Wrt the dropping of "Gauss's" consider also how you pronounce that and the nagging worry among English writers about possessive forms of words ending in "s". I think that unless a particular usage has become extremely widespread and international, then we may be better sticking to the ENGVAR rules that we just keep the status quo. English is gloriously inconsistent and so is Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not an authority that sets standards where there are none. For example American spelling dominates in many areas, but we don't force that upon all articles. -- Colin°^Talk 16:30, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes I agree WP does not set standards, but we should follow them. Google search is a rough but good indicator to have a first idea, and the papers above confirm more formally that some forms are preferred for specific terms, at least in the academic literature. We could reproduce the methodology by doing this for each eponymous disease in scholar databases, but that may be a little overkill Also for Gauss it was one example, but the same source gives the Koplik spots example, where pronunciation is clearly not a factor. Just in general, it's true that in other older scientific fields such as physics and mathematics, it's often the case that the eponymous forms are not used anymore (I actually did not even know there was an eponymous form for these). So that may hint at the future of similar forms in medical fields, but right now yes it should be case by case. --Signimu (talk) 16:57, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Signimu actually "Koplik's spots" -> "Koplik spots" is very much a pronunciation transformation. Whenever "s" appears at the end/start of a pair, one of them gets elided in casual speech. I think the BMJ author (who is a physician, not a linguist) makes a mistake with his section on depersonalisation. Many of the examples given did not begin with a more personalised form but started out that way. Pascal is an SI unit named after someone who died hundreds of years ago and did not invent that unit. All SI units are written a certain way: as a suffix in lowercase. We use the "-ian form (Gaussian, Euclidean, Newtonian, Darwinian) for some purposes and the possessive "Euclid's ..." "Darwin's ...." at other times. Possibly the former is more used for models sharing certain characteristics. The tables at the bottom of the paper indicates little pattern to the choice of attribution or trend over time. I agree with the author that the concept that a term is named after someone can be lost over time and therefore lose some of the features (upper case, apostrophe) but these are purely linguistic features arising from usage, not some committee sitting down to standardise things. The same thing occurs when we borough words from other languages -- the spelling may alter over time, accents lost, and the word appears to be native, not foreign. If Down's syndrome had been named after a Mr Short, nobody would have considered dropping the 's to produce "Short syndrome", which would appear to describe a problem with height. As the BMJ paper notes, the idea that the possessive form is disappearing is not supported by evidence (see this paper you cited earlier which accepts that there is no one standards body in charge of usage). Eponymous terms are still being created today (e.g. the author's own Aronson's sequence, and Godwin's law). -- Colin°^Talk 16:39, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree, there is no standard, but there are some usages. Your thoughts are interesting, maybe the author is making some mistakes, your point about Pascal is convincing (but I'm less convinced about Gaussian - we could also cite Fisher's test which transformed to fisherian hypothesis testing and then null hypothesis significance testing). But for Down syndrome, the paper clearly shows that the usage trend is overwhelmingly in favor of the non-possessive form, so that's one example of a drop of the possessive form, which is not the case for Parkinson's and disease nor the general case as the same figure shows (the possessive forms seem indeed to be the favored case, except for some instances like Down). So... should we consider by default that eponymous forms are more likely to be more common given this data, and then evaluate case-by-case the exceptions such as Down syndrome? --Signimu (talk) 18:25, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

This argument feels like it's moved toward whether names "should" be this or that, and I think it's more important to focus on what they "are". It is true that most of the major medicine-related style guides currently prefer non-possessive eponyms (this has a list including the edition numbers for several that formally recommend the non-possessive). It is true that various patient groups prefer the non-possessive. It is true that there is a general trend this direction, with "Down syndrome" becoming more prevalent than the possessive a couple of decades ago, although the possessive still seems more common for Alzheimer's. It is true that some of the rationales given do not strike everyone as reasonable or rational. It is also true that there is a general trend away from eponyms, so that we have gone from "Lou Gherig's" to "ALS", and in such cases it probably doesn't matter whether "Lou Gherig" was an intermediary stop on the journey.

But despite all those truths, it seems to me that what matters here at the English Wikipedia is not the general idea, or the advice of a particular style book. What matters on here at the English Wikipedia is the individual situation at the individual article about the individual subject. Or, in other words, please consider not having a general chat about this, but picking one specific article that you think has a less-than-perfect title (if any exist, in your opinion), and proposing a move on its (i.e., not this) talk page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:09, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, agreed. I'd just like to add that I think the culprit of the issue is in fact to "know what they are" (the names), as apart from doing a systematic literature review, I can't see any other consistent method :-/ That's why given the sources above, who did this job, it seems reasonable to me to assume that eponymous names are still prevalent, unless a source is given showing it's not for some instance (such as Down syndrome -> someone's interested into proposing a renaming? ). Signimu (talk) 19:28, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

I expect that article will someday get moved to the non-eponymous name of Trisomy 21. ;-) (The French Wikipedia article is already using that name.) But that will likely be many years, maybe decades, from now. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:25, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, what I was alarmed about was that an editor (who has not made any other posts to Wikipedia before or since) could propose a name change, make a couple of completely false claims (officially changed, talk page large support for the change) and within hours the page was moved. Also, it does not appear that anyone has followed through with the name change to fix the usage on Wikipedia articles. Even supposing there was consensus support for the change, Wikipedia still 99% refers to it with the possessive form. If this project supports the name change, then it should get its finger out and get editing. I was also alarmed that that discussion quickly moved onto radically changing other article titles, perhaps to confirm to ICD. It is clear that ICD is out of step with current usage. For example, ICD use "Parkinson disease" but our own article correctly uses "Parkinson's disease" which (according to the chart on the BMJ paper) is hugely more commonly used than the non-possessive.

I think we need to be clear on this project that Wikipedia article titles have their own guideline page and this project cannot overrule that or anoint one medical body as a standard to follow. Our fundamental guideline on variant spellings is to not switch spellings or waste our time debating the merits of one vs another, but just to accept the spellings we currently have. I'd rather actually we didn't go seek out names to change, because renaming is a disruptive activity, and just let any name change occur because some editors active on an article subject realise that the current article name is no longer used. And specifically, the "'s" debate is IMO a classic example of inventing a false rationale for linguistic change, and over emphasising one unrepresentative example (Down's). -- Colin°^Talk 17:45, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

For heaven's sake, extended discussion like this should be at the article talk page, with just a notice here. Johnbod (talk) 18:00, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Sorry Johnbod, but since this discussion quickly veered towards the more global question of a systematic renaming of eponymous medical conditions, I think it makes sense we discuss it here since it would have a big impact on lots of articles Colin, although eponymous names may be more prevalent, non-eponymous forms are representative of a significant subset of conditions, according to the same article PMID 25515058: "Fig 1 Bottom panel: possessive form is overtaken by non-possessive form, exemplified by Down’s syndrome (similar patterns for Chagas’ disease, Hodgkin’s disease/lymphoma, and Munchausen’s syndrome)", so it looks like "Hodgkin lymphoma" is supported if we consider that a title needs to follow the most common usage (but note the source only mentions a similar trend, without showing a figure). Since I'm the one responsible for the (too quick) renaming, I'll take care of fixing all wikilinks and mentions on WP, but I prefer to wait a bit more if the renaming is agreed on, else it would only cause more things to revert Signimu (talk) 19:06, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes I agree that discussing a name change of a specific article should have occurred on the article talk page and recruited editors there. I'm not really discussing eponymous vs non-eponymous, but about possessive. The article shows data for Parkinson's as an example where the possessive form is vastly outstripping the non-possessive form in the literature, and he shows data for Down's/Down/Trisomy21 as an example of the opposite (and where the non-eponymous Trisomy 21 just isn't being adopted). Wrt the other diseases, the author merely claims a similar pattern, but does not present evidence. Does he have it and is it as clear? It can be argued whether "titles of papers in pubmed" is representative of language use by the general population, which is Wikipedia's readership. It is interesting that he notes nine additional examples of possessive popularity (Alzheimer’s disease, Behçet’s disease, Bowen’s disease, Crohn’s disease, Cushing’s syndrome, Darier’s disease, Graves’ disease, Hashimoto’s disease/thyroiditis, Paget’s disease (of bone)) but only three for non-possessive (Chagas’ disease, Hodgkin’s disease/lymphoma, and Munchausen’s syndrome). And three of the four non-possessive forms can be explained as examples of eliding a silent (or missing, in the case of Chagas') possessive "s". Wrt "Hodgkin lymphoma" I reckon the linguistic driver for that change is "Non-Hodgkin lymphoma" which makes no grammatical sense written in the possessive form. Therefore we see the word "Hodgkin" being demoted to just an adjective with Hodgkin and non-Hodgkin variants discussed by the literature. -- Colin°^Talk 08:14, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Colin, sorry, I meant to be talking about possessive vs non-possessive forms of eponymous condition names. Yes as I said the author does not provide data to support that the non-possessive form of Hodgkin lymphoma is more prevalent, only mentions it, and in any case it would only pertain to the academic literature, but do we have any evidence that the possessive form is more prevalent by the wide public? The same question can be posed for other conditions. I don't care much what form is chosen for any condition, but since we have data on at least the academic literature usages, if we stick with another form, we have to back this choice with a source IMO. Signimu (talk) 10:20, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Signimu, although the author doesn't supply data, he does indicate his methods: titles on PubMed. We can do this. Hodgkin's Lymphoma vs Hodgkin Lymphoma. Also Hodkin's vs Hodkin. You can see that although there are more overall results for the possessive form, the "Results by year" chart shows that the non-possessive form has become popular this century and has now overtaken. This is of course just for journal titles, where there may be influence of manual-of-style or of wishing to be easily found with a simple database search. I think I'm satisfied that the non-possessive form has overtaken the possessive for Hodgkin, though need to exercise caution and there is little evidence that other diseases are following this practice. -- Colin°^Talk 16:11, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Colin, thank you very much! I never paid attention to this graphing feature of pubmed, thanks for the tip! Signimu (talk) 16:30, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Exercise thing

I hear that something called Low-intensity steady state (or something similar?) is one of the new exercise trends. Does anyone know if this is described on Wikipedia, perhaps under a different name or as a section in an existing article? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:50, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

It's definitely a thing for us ultra-endurance athletes, though not a new thing. Covered at Long slow distance mostly (with, from a quick look, some dodgy sourcing). Alexbrn (talk) 19:03, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Low-intensity steady state (LISS) is not explicitly about long slow distance. QuackGuru (talk) 19:21, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Seems like this term also includes low to moderate intensity exercising[6]. In other words, the opposite of HIIT. For these, there are lots of studies on metabolic syndromes, such as NAFLD#Lifestyle and Management of obesity#Exercise. For these pathological cases, vigorous/high intensity training is more recommended, but anyway exercise alone does not work if not combined with a whole lifestyle change including diet. So if such a wikipedia entry is created, it could reuse a lot of references. --Signimu (talk) 08:02, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm thinking that what's recommended for an individual probably depends on a lot more than what's most effective for the average clinical trial participant. If you can't walk across a room, then you're probably not a good candidate for high-intensity exercise. (My own POV is that getting any exercise is the most important part, no matter what it is. Two minutes of gentle walking is better than zero minutes of anything.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:52, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, of course I agree, doing some exercise is better than doing none But it's still interesting I think that research studied the effects of low intensity vs high intensity already, although one could say these studies are just stating the obvious (that high intensity produces more results), but at least we now know it's safe even for morbidly obese individuals Signimu (talk) 18:59, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

For sourcing, a mainstream view can be found coming from the NHS.[7] I tend to think of "Low-intensity steady state" as something more in the realm of sports science, where faddism and sketchy science is the rule. Alexbrn (talk) 19:06, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Alex, thanks for that link. I'm not sure they've got everything quite right (if dancing prevents people from singing, then musical theater's got a problem). But I'm now very curious about the sentence "Vigorous activity is not recommended for previously inactive women." Is going from nothing to vigorous exercise recommended for previously inactive men and children, but just not women? All women, or only those of us who have reached a certain age? And what are the expected consequences? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:53, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

That does indeed seem odd. Alexbrn (talk) 08:06, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Funny that inactive women are the only exception, when it's ok for pregnant women. Signimu (talk) 09:46, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Funding technical work

Have proposed a pilot project were by WPMEDF would fund technical work related to medicine. Wondering peoples thoughts here Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:49, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:06, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Assistance requested

Not sure this is the place for this, if not, perhaps someone can point me to a better forum. There are two articles on two psychiatric researchers that recently had some negative coverage (accusing them of scientific misconduct) that are being extensively edited by a rather new editor and I am not sure about some of the sourcing and such. However, this is not directly my area, so perhaps all is fine. The articles are Ronald Grossarth-Maticek and Hans Eysenck. Thanks! --Randykitty (talk) 17:10, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

@Randykitty: the folks over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography might be better placed to help. Little pob (talk) 18:49, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Will do, but there's also medical info being inserted, which people here may be better placed to handle. --Randykitty (talk) 19:22, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Vascular tumor

Please see Vascular tumor where an expert is needed. Thanks, Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:07, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

• It has been suggested that Vascular tissue neoplasm be merged into this article--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:45, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Draft:List of drug prices

New draft article launched today. QuackGuru (talk) 18:24, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

See "Onasemnogene abeparvovec is priced at US$2.125 million for a one-time treatment as of 2019.[3]" Over 2 million. Wow. QuackGuru (talk) 01:56, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

NEJM Quick Take as an example of proliferating video culture

In light of prior discussions of videowiki, and perhaps not news to you all (sorry if I missed earlier discussion), I found this video on antiplatelet treatment after PCI interesting, as an example of the NEJM's increasing investment (behind a paywall, generally) in videos to convey information. — soupvector (talk) 23:48, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Nice video. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:15, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I plan on using videowiki when I find time to learn how to use it properly Although it would be nice if it had features to produce slightly more elaborate videos like NEJM (eg, partial reveal of an image at various timepoints) --Signimu (talk) 14:39, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

It's not too difficult to do partial reveal simply by using a sequence of images that contain the partial reveal. — soupvector (talk) 05:28, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Yeah but since we have to upload these files on wiki commons, that would mean that for an average of 5 partial reveals per image, you would look at multiplying all used files by 5 times! So not only this would needlessly increase the storage space, it's also very time consuming for the editor. And our first goal is to edit textual infos, if something is hard to do with video wiki, it usually won't be done (and I thought also the purpose was to make a tool to do video very easily for wikipedians ). But that said, I'm sure it would be easy to do for someone with javascript skills, an idea would be to do something based on imagemaps but then with javascript to hide/reveal dynamically instead of the linking purpose, this could easily and elegantly allow to do partial reveals --Signimu (talk) 08:03, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

More tools to allow us to do cool stuff easier will be built over time. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:34, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Ah that's awesome to hear! But let me clarify that I already love Videowiki, I will certainly use it as it is now, I favor strongly adding introductory videos in entries as shown in NAFLD --Signimu (talk) 10:40, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

The least resource-hungry method of doing simple animations like a partial reveal is by using an animated gif. It also avoids the problem that client-side JavaScript is normally not usable on mobile devices (and that's over half of our readership). I haven't tried it, so maybe somebody can check that Videowiki handles animated gifs properly. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 15:18, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes it handles animated gifs well. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:29, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Ah, great idea! The only downside is that it lowers the color palette, so for schema it's ok but for real pictures it may be visible. About Javascript, normally all modern mobile browser support javascript, and furthermore if it's using HTML5 canvas for example with simple functions, I expect it would work great on a lot of devices, but maybe not very old ones (but then animated gifs may also have issues). --Signimu (talk) 10:29, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

But the great advantage is that gifs are already supported according to Doc James and plus they allow more complex animations A nice example can be seen on Homeostasis[8] --Signimu (talk) 10:34, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Let me just remind (again) everyone here that Wikipedia is not YouTube. Specifically, Wikipedia is collaboratively edited, and its collaborative editing tools deal with text. The fancy animations in that NEJM video require

• graphic design software ideally offering a variety of template designs around a common look-and-feel
• software to easily synchronise the animation of such designs along with a soundtrack narration
• a library of clip art for such images conforming to a consistent style (arteries, nerves, syringes, tablets, patients, doctors, etc)
• a large body of people enthusiastically collaborating to use such tools and develop media that is constantly improving with daily edits

We have none of these and Videowiki offers none of these. The Homeostasis animated gif might have got someone excited on the internet last century but is pretty awful by modern standards. And it was developed by one person in their only ever edit to Wikipedia. The file history on Commons shows that nobody collaborated with this person to improve the animated image. For example, the GIF shows a smooth sinusoidal wave and where the only factors appear to be insulin and glucagon. In fact blood sugar is affected by what, when and how much we eat and drink and the pancreas reacts to the rise/fall in blood sugar levels that occurs as we digest the food or fall in blood sugar levels when we go hungry. The Blood sugar level article shows that glucose generally spikes rather than following any perfect sinusoidal wave. So there is much that a collaborative medical project could do to create a better animation of blood sugar level mechanisms in the body, and we clearly have no tools nor talent nor any desire to do that over the three years the gif has existed.

VideoWiki does not create engaging animated cartoon videos all by itself, nor has it inspired any community to do so. A handful of VideoWiki videos were created by a handful of people back in May/June this year. Nobody has created any more videos nor has anyone (beyond a test edit) engaged in improving those videos. In terms of what makes Wikipedia great and what Wikipedia is, Videowiki is a failure. -- Colin°^Talk 18:26, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

• More video more experiments At wikiconference:2019 many external partners, including people at universities, libraries, nonprofit knowledge organizations, and our increasingly encroaching corporate interlopers were all talking about more video in Wikipedia. As more organizations external to Wikipedia invest more of their operating budget in video, I predict more video content coming to Wikipedia. Any discussion or precedent about video in Wikipedia which happens now is useful. Just as Wikidata has invited data contributions at scale, far beyond the organic growth of Wikipedia the prose text, so I also expect that when video comes to Wikipedia that also will come at scale. I have been impressed with the magic of TikTok's video editing features, and I think the video innovations in year 2017 are as much of a technological milestone as any of the other completely reorienting cultural interventions as have been appearing several times a year for the past generation. I am supportive of anyone's efforts to do experimentation in the usual way with video in Wikipedia articles. TikTok'rs say "OK boomer" when people criticize their videos. That phrase is a great response to anyone who advocates lack of response to rapidly changing technology which has the weight of industry behind it. I do not want risky or disruptive experimentation in Wikipedia we should have as many controlled pilots as our community can discuss. I do not expect Wikipedia to be at the forefront of video but I definitely expect Wikipedia in readiness to follow the trailblazers. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:44, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Blueraspberry for the info! Colin, I feel like these arguments can be made for any Wikipedia article, and foremost for pictures. Hence, I strongly disagree with Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not YouTube, as much as I would with an essay that would be titled "Wikipedia is not Flickr". Nobody to my knowledge suggested that Wikipedia becomes a video-centric platform, but simply to complement it with videos where appropriate. Hence, I agree that complementing an article with a video must be on the ground of added value, but I disagree with the aforementioned essay that videos summarizing entries don't have any value, they do, the value conciseness, which provides a low literacy entry door (or a quick overview for those who don't have time). And I think you're too quick to call Videowiki a failure, most Wikipedia articles are dormant for years, if time was a factor, Wikipedia would be dead since a long time What Videowiki needs is more exposure, I for one did not know it existed until very recently, and I will surely use it. --Signimu (talk) 08:27, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

generally agree w/ Signimu--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:38, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Queen's University- Student editing initiative

Medical students at Queen's will begin to improve 16 medical articles over the next two weeks. This work will span from November 11 to November 25th (approx). I will be doing my best to support and moderate the content they are adding as we go (progressing from their sandboxes to article talk pages to improving the articles live). Each group of students are being supported (content-wise) by faculty member experts who will be primed on what sources are acceptable to use as evidence in WP and taught how to edit Wikipedia and help students in their sandboxes. I encourage the ProjectMed community to give these students a warm welcome and have some patience while they are learning. The group is excited to be contributing. Hopefully, we will be able to work together to improve the evidence that is shared in these 16 articles and give the students (and faculty) a positive experience on Wikipedia that so that some of them may stick around and help us with our efforts. If you have any questions or suggestions please do not hesitate to let me know. Here are some links with more information, including the class this and dashboard (WikiEdu Dashboard coming soon).Thank you!
Article List:

• Lightning injury
• Bipolar I Disorder
• Caffeine
• Hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer
• Alpha-thalassemia
• Concussion
• Central retinal artery occlusion
• Merkel cell carcinoma
• Noonan syndrome
• Giant cell arteritis
• Polypharmacy
• Actinic keratosis
• Measles
• Hodgkin’s lymphoma
• Cannabis use disorder
• Delirium

JenOttawa (talk) 03:08, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

JenOttawa thank you for posting--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:28, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Welcome! I am an instructor working with the Wiki Education platform as well. My students are working on peer reviews currently. My experience has been positive so far and I look foward to seeing your students' work go live! UWM.AP.Endo (talk) 16:44, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for touching base, @UWM.AP.Endo:. I am interested in learning more about your course. We are working from this project page. It would be great to compare notes and learn from you as well. Thank you again. JenOttawa (talk) 16:54, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I am seeing zero edits as of Nov 6th[9] User:UWM.AP.Endo what are the students peer reviewing? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:43, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi, User:Doc James. That link is not my course page - my group is working over here, and they are currently working in their sandboxes. UWM.AP.Endo (talk) 04:21, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

The Queen's Students will be posting their proposed changes on the article talk pages by Nov 18th and editing the articles live Nov 25th (approx). I have created the following talk page guide for students to follow that includes excellent resources from WikiEdu. Please do not hesitate to reach out with suggestions. I will be monitoring all talk pages and articles daily. JenOttawa (talk) 16:05, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

will watch/give any suggestion on Alpha-thalassemia article--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:41, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! The positive and helpful comments from the community of medical editors has been very helpful! JenOttawa (talk) 02:39, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Health effects of Fitbit

A discussion regarding if these should be mentioned in the article is here Talk:Fitbit#Effects. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:43, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:28, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Dementia risk perception is in the news

See https://apnews.com/651cea6469de44778d212454b933977f on doi:10.1001/jamaneurol.2019.3946. As with anything in the news, we might see some edits around it. Presumably someone is already on Twitter schooling the authors about the inverse relationship between self-reporting poor health and living long enough to develop an age-related dementia. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:14, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the info! I think it's time Alzheimer's gets recognized as a type 3 diabetes (or more generally as a metabolic syndrome), I may have a try after reviewing the literature, as I think this info would be better presented in context. --Signimu (talk) 08:34, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

It's probably best to start kicking around the idea of type 3 diabetes with a section on the Alzheimer's disease page discussing this hypothesis, which has been kicking around for a couple of decades but hasn't caught on with most of the Alzheimer's disease community. Klbrain (talk) 11:25, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Have not seen any major medical sources calling it "type 3 diabetes". This name has been floating around in the lay press for decades. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:32, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

We have an article at Type 3 diabetes. It appears to only get linked in lists and (especially) navboxes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:59, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you everyone I came to hear about the "type 3 diabetes" by reading reviews on metabolic syndrome and related diseases, and I was particularly convinced by the arguments (but I can't find the exact source that mentioned it, it was not my focus at the time ). It's the first time I really look into Alzheimer's disease, I tried to do a preliminary review of the literature, I'll try to summarize as succinctly as I can with some the best sources I've found (not all, there are more).

There are quite some serious reviews calling to name Alzheimer, or at least its sporadic late-onset variant (the most common one), a "type 3 diabetes", since at least 2005 and several others since then. Here is a notable excerpt that reflects the general sentiment: "The role of insulin resistance is so central to AD risk that some researchers have referred to AD as “type- 3 diabetes” or “diabetes of the brain” (Steen et al., 2005)." Epidemiology: links with metabolic syndromes such as type 2 diabetes or obesity, and Alzheimer, are well established (see for a meta-analysis and several reviews above mention other studies). But it seems, at least on pubmed, that since the 2010s, the term "brain insulin resistance" has more success in adoption, with an upward trend (about 160 studies[10], vs about 90 for "type 3 diabetes"[11]). The equivalence is explicited by Folch2018. A Nature review claims to introduce the term, but there are publications using this term before[12], and others after.. Several reviews propose to repurpose type 2 diabetes drugs for Alzheimer, but so far there is no evidence of effectiveness (here for IGF-1), which is not surprising if Alzheimer is NOT type 2 diabetes (bodily insulin resistance) but a brain insulin resistance: there may be overlap, but they may happen independently. (Personal note: other metabolic dysfunction diseases such as NAFLD also have no beneficial effect of diabetic drugs once the disease is there). Also, insulin is not assessed properly in most studies on Alzheimer, hence why progress may be slow. Indeed, brain insulin resistance mechanism was elusive until 2013, as before it was thought that the brain was insensitive to insulin. Now the most commonly accepted hypothesis in brain insulin resistance studies is that Alzheimer is NOT type 2 diabetes, but may share metabolic dysfunction pathways. Brain biometals imbalance may cause/interact with the metabolism (and cause a metabolic syndrome).

Preliminary studies here on, not to add to the article, but interesting to have some perspective: Even APOE4, the major genetic marker for Alzheimer, was recently demonstrated to interrupt brain insulin signaling in animals. So it seems that even the biggest genetic factor for AD interacts with brain insulin signaling. In humans, there is good recent preliminary evidence that metabolic dysfunction, including insulin, precedes Alzheimer. (Could we use this last ref? It's a primary study, but on 7700 brains, that's crazy!). Less pertinent but connected, there is some preliminary evidence that diet can induce Alzheimer features, and it's different from genetically induced Alzheimer (reminds of metabolic syndrome diseases...) Interestingly, there is a preliminary link with NAFLD in animals.

So from that, I think we could update the Alzheimer article, to mention this hypothesis along with others (currently there is not even a single mention of insulin or hyperinsulinemia!). IMO, "type 3 alzheimer" instantly evoked metabolic syndromes for me and the idea that it is a long-developing illness that can be worsened by bad lifestyle practices, and that's why I personally think it's an appropriate name, so I was not surprised when I read in WAID's source that "research has shown that regular exercise, a good diet, limiting alcohol and not smoking make dementia less likely. Supplements have not been shown to help. We really haven’t done a good job of getting the word out that there really are things you can do to lower your risk". I still need to find the guidelines confirming what the authors said, so that's next on my todo list. About the type 3 diabetes, yes I saw it after posting here, but it's a stub that likely should be integrated in Alzheimer's disease as one of the hypotheses, along with the updated sources I listed above. What do you guys think? --Signimu (talk) 20:59, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

PS: it's not to say that AD is caused solely by insulin, we don't know at this point (so my previous statement that AD should be recognized as such is indeed "too soon"), and surely AD is a complex multifactor disease, but it seems well established now that insulin signalling disruption is a key component of AD. (Maybe I should have started my "summary" by writing that :-p) --Signimu (talk) 21:04, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

References

WP:CITEWATCH#ScopeMed

Detection have been added for citations to the predatory ScopeMed publisher. They can be found at WP:CITEWATCH#ScopeMed, help cleaning those up would be appreciated. Currently there are 41 such references on Wikipedia. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:09, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

thanks, Im certain editors here will work to clean up these retracted articles--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:09, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

You can easily find them with this search. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:53, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Postbiotic

I found this article - Postbiotic - while looking at the list of articles needing assessment. I am a bit concerned about the article's use of primary sources. Some review papers are cited, e.g. [13], [14], [15], but in other places, primary sources like these [16] [17] are used to support claims like "postbiotics play a role in general health and well-being and for improving host immune function like that of probiotics". Hoping an experienced editor can take a look at this. Thanks, SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 14:35, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

left note[18] w/ editor who created article--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:34, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Long-acting reversible contraception

Hi anyone...I reverted one edit on this but saw there is also a previous edit that looks unusual using phrases like "If you". I wasn't sure how to tidy it... Whispyhistory (talk) 09:47, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

User:Whispyhistory thanks. Lots of all caps content. Poorly referenced. Gah Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:30, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Thx...felt a little bold reverting that massive edit. Also feel guilty leaving gaps of missing citations. Might tackle it in future. Whispyhistory (talk) 14:34, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

You should never worry about reverting unverifiable conspiracy theory stuff about how IUDs get "sneaked" into women. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:57, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Paying for high quality dermatology images

We are looking at a partnership with Cochrane, were Cochrane will provide a stipend for high quality skin disease related images under an open license. The images will need to come with stuff like a biopsy with histopathology to verify that they are what is claimed.

Well we within the Wikimedia movement do not pay for content, I am just verifying that we are okay with accepting content that others may have paid for? Images will go on Commons. No guarantee that we will use them in Wikipedia of course.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:56, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Notified the wider community.[19] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:16, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

• It's not obvious what you mean by "we within the Wikimedia movement do not pay for content" - but there's vast quantities of stuff used on Wikipedia that someone got paid to make (for instance, everything with the PD-US-gov tag, which many of us have contributed to paying for). If the owner makes it CC-BY, how/why they became the owner shouldn't matter. Someone paying for something and licensing it CC-BY isn't different than them creating it and licensing it CC-BY, as far as re-use goes. WilyD 16:41, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
• This seems like any sort of archival donation. There have been hundreds of media archive collections brought into Wikimedia Commons through partnerships. Cochrane and Wikipedia have already been collaborating since about 2013. This seems like a routine media exchange from an established partner for the purpose of doing routine wiki curation. I guess what is unusual about this is that either Cochrane or Wikipedia might suggest sorts of images which are needed, and Cochrane would financially sponsor the creation of those images. Normally in Wikipedia we take whatever is free and available, but if Wikipedia can actually identify what the public needs and what does not already exist as free media, then I can see how that information would be useful to Cochrane also. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:56, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
• There are people at Featured Pictures and Commons that sell rights to their images by withdrawing either higher resolution, RAW files or the ability to escape CC-BY-SA. I don't see a problem with it, as long as the decision to use those images is made by volunteers on the basis that they are the best available illustrate the subject matter. (FPC is one way those decisions get made.) (For the record, my objections against paid editing in general are editorial independence and alignment of incentives. Neither of these is valid.) MER-C 17:01, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
• So long as someone is willing to properly license high-quality educationally useful images, I don't think we care about much else. GMG^talk 17:02, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
• Concerns about money and open source content are twofold: that involving monetary concerns in content creation will affect the choice of content or the creative process itself; and that it will hinder open-sourcing of content, as high quality providers will now see a market for paid content. As long as the needs are dictated by the community rather than the donor, the first shouldn't be an issue (and its good that it was brought to the wider community's attention, as should any future arrangement of this sort). The second is harder to predict, but I think in the current climate is unlikely. All in all, I support the initiative. François Robere (talk) 20:03, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
• looking at it as a donation, why not?...seems like a good idea...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:23, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
• As long as it is under a license acceptable for Commons, the fact that the content was paid for or not is irrelevant IMHO. --Signimu (talk) 14:02, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree with all of the above. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:31, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Could we ask them to particularly, or even exclusively, focus on pictures involving darker skin? There is a serious shortage of such images, and it's not just us. Derm textbooks have a serious shortage of these images. We need a large volume of images on "medium brown" and "very dark" skin much more than we need any extra "pale white skin" images (although I'd like to have dozens of images, in every skin tone, for every skin condition). The formal confirmation will also be much more valuable for images of darker skin. We'll also want them to publicly confirm that informed consent was obtained (because otherwise someone will complain later, and we'll lose time dealing with the dispute). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:52, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

+1 to WhatamIdoing, but I would not say exclusively, high-res images are always valuable, but we are indeed lacking dark skin ones. --Signimu (talk) 19:55, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes that is the plan. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:20, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

This came up in IRL discussion a couple of weeks ago, but it would be helpful if there was a way to catalog skin tone in structured data on Commons, so that we could just run some kind of insert computer magic and tell exactly how representative our image usage on human-related topics is. Like...if you had a structured data element that gave you the "dropper" tool from image editing programs, and you could select the portion of the image containing "skin". We could then use the hex for the color selected to do all kinds of fancy analysis I'm sure. GMG^talk 18:36, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

User:Keegan (WMF), what do you recommend for helpful magic on Commons? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:24, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

I am currently working on a collaboration to get diagrams of medical conditions with people who are East Indian uploaded to commons. We have a number here.

There are also a number of videos that may be uploaded. Have not got to them yet in part as we have a few people here who take a very negative person on video. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:49, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Provided that the media is released under an appropriately open license, it doesn't matter if someone was paid to release it under that license. We care only what the license is, not how it came to be that way. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:40, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

User:Seraphimblade that does not appear to be everyone's position here which is why we are having this discussion. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:50, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

It is Commons' position, and since that's presumably where they would be going, that's what matters. They explicitly chose to opt out of the requirements for disclosure of paid editing, and they're happy to have commercially produced images donated as long as they end up under a free license. They do not object to content that was paid for. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:34, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Just making sure we have had a discussion here as there have previously been complaints by some regarding insufficient opportunities for people to weight in on projects Wiki Project Med Foundations is working on with outside organizations. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:33, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

List of mobile phone prices

I think a list of prices for mobile phones might be workable if enough sources were found. Some of these phones are very expensive. QuackGuru (talk) 14:12, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Are people taking these as a medical treatment? --RexxS (talk) 17:07, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

People are accessing medical content using their mobile phone. QuackGuru (talk) 03:53, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

It's true that WP:Other stuff exists all over the English Wikipedia, e.g., the inclusion of the manufacturer suggested retail price in places such as iPhone#History and availability. However, the price of mobile phones is not relevant to this particular group of editors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:51, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

See "Mobile phones have shown some promise in modifying health behaviour, such as smoking cessation and alcohol intake, to such an extent that their use is being increasingly considered in healthcare interventions.7,8"[20]

The mobile phone is used in healthcare interventions. Not sure which article this content would be appropriate. QuackGuru (talk) 23:53, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't believe there is a single person in the whole world who bought a mobile phone in order to make healthcare interventions. They will already have one and can use the relevant apps, or they won't. The price of the phone is completely irrelevant to our medical and health content. --RexxS (talk) 03:37, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Predatory cleanup, help needed!

Please see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Help cleaning up 'remainder' of predatory journals cited on Wikipedia and help cleanup citations to predatory sources on Wikipedia. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:14, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Access to all medical articles in an Alphabetical/Advancement order

Hi my name is Sami My team and I are currently building a medical social website that aims to give free and reliable medical knowledge to students, patients, physicians and any curious mind. Wikipedia has been one of the first inspiration for this project since the beginning and that's why we are asking for help in this talk toady

We need an access to all the reliable Medical sciences's related articles on wikipedia, from a bacteria subspecie to the latest drug made on the market, our goal is to have access to every single Bit of medical information on the web (wikipedia included) to give it back to an enlightened and curious audience. We know regrouping all the data is hard but for now we have access to WHO and Mayoclinic, combined with wikipedia that could be a solid start for our project.

We also need a way to differentiate the articles written for professionals and those written to educate the general population. Is there a way we can find out how advanced a article is on wikipedia?

Finally we need to sort the information by alphabetical order to make the research experience simpler

Thank you for your support and if my message is unclear or you would like to know more about the project feel free to let me know

User:Theaderal it is complicated. We have some stats for medical articles here.[21] How did you get permission to us Mayo? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:59, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Sami. When you asked this question a month ago, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 128 #Access to reliable medical information, I gave you pointers to Category:Health and Index of health articles. Did you have problems following those links? --RexxS (talk) 15:41, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

And if you can't traverse the category by yourself, in https://download.kiwix.org/zim/wikipedia/ one can also find several medicine-focused openZIM dumps such as https://download.kiwix.org/zim/wikipedia/wikipedia_en_medicine_nopic_2019-10.zim , from which you can extract both titles and content all nicely packaged. Kiwix can be used to get a preview of the content without need of command-line manipulation. Nemo 16:22, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi RexxS sorry for to bother for that again i lost the links and couldn't find the last talk in the archives thank's again for helping! Do you know Anything about a rating system of wikipedia articles? Also are you interested by the idea or are you just a very helpfull person ?

Hi (talk The Aderal Project Doesn't aims to monopolize or steal data from other website, Rather than absorbing all the net's scientific data we redirect data from reliable website such as mayo that will be quoted and sourced. We also have Medline and plan to add Wikipedia and Frontier Content. We also rely mostly on members to publish, share and edit content. See it as A Medical encyclopaedic research engine mixed with Social network. If you have more information about copyright infringement or anything that could make this project sabotage itself feel free to let us know thank you this project can only be brought to it's final form by the vision and help of potential members so thanks again User:Theaderal 18:41 26 November UTC+2 ~26~11~2019~ .

With respect to copyright, you are free to use Wikipedia content as long as you attribute and indicate that it is under an open license. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:01, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Dysthymia

Based on recent editing, there appears to be some thought that dysthymia should instead use the term persistent depressive disorder. I don't know if there is consensus in the medical community (in general or here at Wikipedia) that term "dysthymia" is outdated, but if so I suggest WP:RM. Deli nk (talk) 17:11, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

The last consensus on a similar case was that this should be discussed on a case-by-case basis on the article's talk page directly As a hint, it's possible to use pubmed to track the number of citations per year: for dysthymia[22], for persistent depressive disorder[23]. Seems like dysthymia is still largely more popular there by 2 orders of magnitude, so a move would seem to me to be way too premature. --Signimu (talk) 00:00, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned medical articles

Hi guys, I thought this PetScan query of orphaned articles tagged as medical stubs might be of interest to some of you. There are about 960 of them at the time of this post, by default organized from smallest to longest (total size in bytes, not readable prose length).

If you have some spare time, please take a look and see if anything can or should be a) de-orphaned by linking to something, b) merged into something else, or c) nominated for deletion. In the case of b) or c) I'm happy to take care of the actual work, I just don't know enough to sort out what's notable or not when it comes to medical topics. No need to ping me if you reply here, I have this page watchlisted. Cheers, and hopefully happy hunting. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:00, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

PMC thank you for post--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:47, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Spinal disc desiccation

Do we have an article or section on spinal disc desiccation? Redirecting that term and disc desiccation to the relevant place would be a good idea if so. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 19:33, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Looks[24][25] like it's a cause of degenerative disc disease. Little pob (talk) 17:52, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

With no alternatives proposed after a week; I have created the redirects. Little pob (talk) 13:06, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Paramilitary deletion discussion

Paramilitary activity usually results in victims requiring help from a range of medical experts (depending on the acute injuries and required aftercare) and/or mental health professionals; so the following deletion discussion may be of interest to some folk here: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Queerly Bohemian/Userboxes/FreedomFighters.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 16:40, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

seems to be stretching the scope of this project(commented)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:52, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Piracetam

• Piracetam (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Got an IP doggedly adding and re-adding primary research. Could use eyes. Alexbrn (talk) 06:49, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Might be worth leaving a short human-written message on the IP's talk page. Sometimes they ignore templates but respond to that. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:07, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, tried to ping them from Talk:Piracetam but - technical question - can IPs be pinged? Alexbrn (talk) 07:10, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't think they can be, actually. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:27, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

O well, they seem oblivious anyway, and the unreliable content continues to pile up ... Alexbrn (talk) 08:12, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Actually, like any other editor, they get a notification when a message is posted on their talk page. If they fail to respond and continue to reinsert primary research, a short block will likely attract their attention. --RexxS (talk) 18:47, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Well, it's continuing. As an aside, this is an example of Wikipedia at its most frustrating: the amount of multiple editors' time this incident has wasted is depressing to consider. Alexbrn (talk) 05:54, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

IP blocked for a week and content restored to last good version. --RexxS (talk) 16:22, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Right so, now it appears we have a new account recruited to give us the Truth™ about piracetam. Currently our article is referring to "A questionable 2001 Cochrane review which was highly limited ..."[26]. Is there an admin in the house who could maybe semi this article? Alexbrn (talk) 13:50, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

 Done--semi'ed 1 week. DMacks (talk) 13:52, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

And the meat/sockpuppet indefed. There really should be no need to waste further valuable editor time on these disruptions. RBI. --RexxS (talk) 16:35, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, both of you.

Piracetam#Efficacy has a surprising number of sources that aren't even from the current decade, which will technically end in a couple of weeks. This is well beyond the 5-year standard for areas of active research (which this particular drug may or may not be, although I'm pretty sure that we can do better than papers from 2001 and 2005). Is anyone interested in updating it? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:42, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

There's not a lot of recent MEDRS (that I could find, anyway). I added PMID 28786085 which is from 2017 ... Alexbrn (talk) 16:51, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Permission to Move to Mainspace (with your assistance)

At the beginning of this term I asked for all of your permission to once again be part of the WikiEd initiative and have my students edit pages (as groups) devoted to notable figures from the History of Psychology (which is the course I am teaching). The students went through all the training modules, created their pages in sandboxes with each team member focused on one aspect of "What makes for a good Wikipedia article?" (e.g., Neutrality of tone, etc). They then peer-reviewed the work of six other groups, while their work was also reviewed by six groups. The feedback was used to revise their articles which now reside within their "Captain's" sandboxes.

As per the agreed upon rules we have not transferred these articles yet to mainspace. Rather, we agreed to wait until some of you looked at the articles to confirm they are "good to go". Thus, below is a list of the handles for the Captain's sandboxes. If any of you have the time could you take a look and do your editor thing ... leaving any comments on their Captains' talk page and, most importantly, letting them know if you believe the article is ready for mainspace. I've instructed them to wait for such a statement before transferring it.

From my perspective it felt like everything went well, and I am very hopeful you will find these articles a great addition to Wikipedia. Obviously if you find them lacking I will ask my students to respond directly to all comments. I very much appreciate your time and, once again, your willingness to allow me another go at this.

Here are the relevant sandboxes along with the historical figure they represent ...

History of Psychology Article Edits

Sandox Handle		Historical Figure
Ozolf		William M. Biddle
Mmilto1		Edna Heidbreder
Skinners Boxer		William John crozier
Icey_cy98		Jennifer Eberhardt
Graduate Scholar		Hermine Hug-Hellmuth
Roommyy		Charles Lasegue
Fruitfulmind		Robert Zajonc
Shamwow786		Simon Gandevia
yikes99		Adrian Furnham
Arimas99		Charles E. Osgood
DetheaDu		Naomi Weisstein
Saiedray		Nalini Ambady
WanyingFeng		Virgilio Enriquez
AncientAnkles		Muzafer Sherif
BellaGB		Miriam Polster
AChanster		Max Friedrich Meyer
RawanHedefa		Joyce Brothers
Alisanforever		Charles Henry Thompson
Perrywoof		Helen Thompson Woolley
Mandoo Dumpling		Eleanor Gibson
Halloween2019		Kurt Koffka
sike-ology		Joseph Delboeuf

SteveJoordens (talk) 14:41, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi SteveJoordens, thanks for doing this. Would you be willing to provide links to the sandboxes to make the process easier? I was going to do this myself, but I ran into some problems - e.g. User:Mmilto1 and User:Icey_cy98 aren't registered. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 17:22, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Here are the students enrolled in Joordens' course. And here are the articles:

• Hermine Hug-Hellmuth
• Joseph Delboeuf
• Miriam Polster
• Muzafer Sherif
• Jennifer Lynn Eberhardt
• Helen Woolley
• Naomi Weisstein
• William John Crozier
• William W. Biddle
• Edna Frances Heidbreder
• Virgilio Enriquez
• Robert Zajonc
• Joyce Diane Brothers
• Adrian Furnham
• Kurt Koffka
• Max Friedrich Meyer
• Ernest-Charles Lasègue
• Robert Zajonc
• Simon Gandevia
• Nalini Ambady
• Charles Egerton Osgood
• Charles Henry Thompson
• Eleanor Jack Gibson

Note: I just laid my eyes on these articles for the first time but I plan on putting in some work to fix formatting/layout issues. I'll also drop a line to Women in Red, as several of these would interest them. Any help fixing content issues would be appreciated. Elysia (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:14, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Elysia. A discussion on these articles and some challenges in integrating them has started at wt:Women in Red#Incoming_batch_of_biographies_from_Wiki_Education.

Thank you all for your help with this!! I have one question from my students ... well two really, but one that's more challenging. We were instructed to build our articles in sandboxes rather than to edit them on mainspace. Now, when you guys tell me students its OK to move to mainspace, they're not sure how. There are good instructions for this in contexts where there is not an existing stub, but in many of the cases there IS an existing stub. Obviously I told me students that if there is a stub, any information there should be included in their article so nothing is lost. But what then is the process? Do they delete the stub and then act as if it were a new article? Thank you for any information!

SteveJoordens (talk) 15:10, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello, SteveJoordens, and Thank you for asking this question now, rather than later! You have just saved us some work.

The answer is "it's complicated". So first of all, if there is no existing article, the correct answer is to just WP:MOVE the page. This is the easy situation.

Now, if a page already exists, I can think of three possible situations that you might want to consider. They are:

1. There's an old article, I (one person) wrote a new article (not even one sentence in my new article was written by another human; typo-fixing, formatting, and ref-adding doesn't count), and now I want to put my article where the old one was, to completely replace it.
   • The easiest approach is to have the sole author of the content do this. Open my article (in an editing window) and copy the contents. Open the old article (in the same kind of editing window). Select everything and blank it. Paste in the new contents. Any normal edit summary (like "Expand article" or "Copyedit") is appropriate. Click the big blue button. You're done. (Well, then you'll want to check to see if the page lost its categories, and re-add them if necessary.)
     • Pro tip: If you copy and paste using the visual editor, then the categories will be preserved in the old article. If you copy and paste in (any) wikitext editor, then don't blank quite everything in the old article. Leave all the categories and similar codes at the bottom of the page where they are.
2. There's an old article, we (multiple people) wrote a new article, and now we want to put my article where the old one was, to completely replace it.
   • Easiest do-it-yourself approach: This is almost the same as the single-author copying, but there's an important step about what the Help:Edit summary needs to say. The process starts the same: someone (anyone) opens our article in an editing window and copies the contents. Then open the old article (in the same kind of editing window) and paste in the contents. Now you need to get the important edit summary in place. The edit summary should say something like "This text originally contributed by User:Example, User:Example, and User:Example in November 2019". You need to have a full list of the names of anyone who has made a copyrightable contribution to the text. You can also (optionally) add the template {{Copied}} to the talk page to provide more information. There is more information at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.
   • Another option: If the old article hasn't been edited recently (i.e., since the students started their work), then you can request a WP:HISTMERGE. This solves all the attribution- and copyright-related problems neatly and permanently, but it requires an admin to do it for you.
3. There's an old article, and now we want to replace only part of the old article with our new content (or ad our new content without changing any of the old content).
   • This is a normal WP:MERGE process. It's very similar to the above, except that you're not doing wholesale replacement of the old content. Copy and paste the parts that you care about, and leave the other bits alone.

I know this sounds complicated, but if you take it stepwise, you'll get there. Remember, if you get this wrong, it's not the end of the world. Just ask for help when you need it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:30, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, the procedure has been discussed at WT:Women in Red and I suggest that we keep the discussion in one place. I think Elysia (Wiki Ed) made it clear there that option 3, the WP:MERGE process, is her expectation. People pointed out that it's very dispiriting to the original writers of an article if someone comes in and wholesale replaces everything they've created. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 17:21, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Assuming the original articles were relatively well-developed and written by a single person who is still active, then I can understand that perspective. When they're not – well, Wikipedia:MERCILESS editing is something any experienced editor should expect. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:26, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

SteveJoordens, we encourage students to follow the process outlined in our training for moving work out of the sandbox. The training outlines two possibilities: creating a new article and editing an existing article. It is important that students follow the instructions, especially using the edit summary to link to their sandbox. Elysia (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:10, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

National Council for Human Resource in Health in India

I've updated the National Council for Human Resource in Health in India article to reflect recent developments. However, I'm still not sure I've got all this straight, since the reporting is quite confusing on this issue. Can someone with knowledge of medical regulation in India please check this, and the other related articles on this subject, as the whole issue seems to be in flux? -- The Anome (talk) 10:51, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

looks ok but needs a couple of references[27]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:26, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

ICD11

Continuing the discussion from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Archive_128#ICD11

The issue is foundation layer of ICD and it's derivation (called linearization) for Mortality and Morbidity Statistics. WHO and user community is in my view trying to even figure out (for future) what what code should be best used in real life. People are used to the linearization codes. But v11 is revolutionary in many ways. I would argue that that should be a new WD property called ICD11-foundation-identifier. In a way, this property is semantically superior to the derivation product (current ID, that is the linearization). Related link https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P7329 EncycloABC (talk) 18:29, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

interesting idea--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:50, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

The advantage of the foundation layer is poly-hierarchy and post-coordination. That is also the reason why the MMS code redirects to the foundation ID. To encourage folks treat the terminology as much as possibly on foundation level. 5B81. But, note that I am advocating for using both hormoniously. (not to totally drop the ball on MMS codes. I also think that the conversion from foundation code to MMS should be in Wikidata and not inside a Lua script. It is a cleaner solution semantically. (it may be slower computationally; so be it).EncycloABC (talk) 14:23, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Agree it's better to have the foundation layer IDs on WD for the default lookup for the {{ICD11}} template. (I'm assuming that this could be done by a bot, as this was how many of the ICD-10-CM codes have been added to WD.)

However, as {{medical resources}} (correctly) allows local override, the lookup table used in the Lua script in the ICD-11 template shouldn't be uncoupled. Just used as a backup for when the WD property is empty. Pinging RexxS to ask if that's even possible? Little pob (talk) 10:01, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

@Little pob: yes, that's possible. However, from a programming point of view, it's neither efficient nor desirable to create a Wikidata property to hold a value that can be looked up from an existing value. There's a database principle that you store a key value in one place, not multiple times, because of the issues created by transcription errors, typos, and (in our case) vandalism. Each Wikidata property should be independent of every other one. --RexxS (talk) 14:19, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Long medical lists

Are there any very long lists with wikilinked entries within this WikiProject's purview (i.e., lists with thousands of wikilinked entries)?

I wrote an algorithm to detect mistargeted links in a list with 11500 bluelinks and it worked really well to identify links that needed to be retargeted (i.e., links to pages that were unrelated to the nominal topic of the list page) as well as a number of pages (~200) that needed to be converted to DABs, which WT:WikiProject Disambiguation is helping to fix. I literally only need to rewrite 2 lines of code to detect similar links in a different list. There are currently no other tools that are designed for this purpose. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 07:28, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Sounds useful. Long lists I know of include lists associated with List of ICD-9 codes and ICD-10 chapters. List of medical abbreviations also has some long sublists, as well as Lists of diseases and List of physicians. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 11:13, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

We also have List of skin conditions User:Seppi333 Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:57, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Hmm. The ICD pages would be a bit of a pain in the ass to do as a whole since I'd need to specify a different set of word tokens for each page and some of them are fairly short. What I might do is just process the longer ones that don't include many non-list-entry-related links (e.g., links to anatomy articles instead of a disorder).

The medical abbreviation and physician lists have too many links of varying types on the page for this algorithm to work well for classifying. Lists of diseases appears to be a list of article section links. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 16:47, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

List of skin conditions

I chose to do this one first since it was the largest list mentioned above and as far as I can tell, it only included 1 link per bulleted line on the list entry itself. That last part is important because I have no other way of separating the links for the list entries from the surrounding explanatory text than by extracting all the bulleted lines.

I reprogrammed my original algorithm since there were 20 false negatives in the gene lists when I used that version on it. They arose from gene-related terms that were used in the body of the target article as well as gene-related terms that were used in {{redirect}}, {{redirect2}}, etc., {{about}}, and {{for}} hatnotes. I figure it's better to have false positives that can be quickly reviewed than false negatives that're never found, so I revised it to report pages that didn't contain any of the inputted words in the lead and as well as pages that contained those words in the aforementioned hatnotes if they were found in the article lead.

I ran the upgraded algorithm on List of skin conditions (technically, User:Seppi333/List sandbox to avoid the mass of links in the navboxes and whatnot; I used a different regex-based algorithm to extract those entries), which has 2364 bullets and slightly more links than that. I specified these word tokens to search for in the linked articles: ['skin', 'condition', 'disease', 'disorder', 'diseases', 'disorders', 'conditions', 'dermal', 'dermatitis', 'acne', 'cutaneous', 'subcutaneous', 'medical', 'symptoms'].

Given the number and type of tokens I specified, there's a very high chance that the page is either (1) about a non-medical topic or (2) a very short medical stub if it were flagged and none of those hatnotes were found; there's also a chance that it's a medical article with a poorly written lead though. These articles correspond to the cases below marked as i=0, j=0 (what these values reflect is explained in the collapse tab). A number of the linked pages contained redirect/for/about hatnotes with the word tokens in the template parameters (i>0, j>0); it's possible that some of them may be mistargeted, but it's a lot less likely than the former case.

Based upon the pagenames in the links, I'm assuming that most of the 88 entries below do not have targeting issues. NB: the algorithm doesn't process the targeted section in the event one was linked, only the lead; having manually checked all of the ones below that include a section target myself, one of those appears mistargeted (#72 - nothing mentioned in the section) and two of those have broken section anchors (#33, #87). Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 16:47, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

88 linked entries

There's 1 link on the following lines if the page was a direct link and 2 if the article linked to a redirect page. The index i is the number of distinct word tokens that were found in the lead (including hatnotes) and the index j is the number of distinct word tokens found in the lead's hatnotes. i=0, j>0 isn't possible and all articles where i>0, j=0 are classified as correctly targeted. I would suggest focusing on the articles marked i=0, j=0. It's probably safe to ignore all the i>0, j>0 entries because every one of them has a higher i value than j value, which implies there's more medical terms in the lead as a whole than in the hatnote alone (i.e., they're likely just false-positives). Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 16:47, 4 December 2019 (UTC) en:Aberrant basal cell carcinoma → en:Basal-cell carcinoma; i=6, j=2 en:Accessory nail of the fifth toe; i=0, j=0 en:Acne vulgaris → en:Acne; i=10, j=4 en:Acute necrotizing ulcerative gingivitis; i=5, j=1 en:Acute paronychia → en:Paronychia; i=5, j=1 en:Albright's hereditary osteodystrophy; i=4, j=1 en:Angelman syndrome; i=6, j=2 en:Aponeurotic fibroma; i=0, j=0 en:Basal cell carcinoma → en:Basal-cell carcinoma; i=6, j=2 en:Blepharophyma; i=0, j=0 en:Bombardier beetle burn → en:Bombardier beetle; i=0, j=0 en:Bristleworm sting → en:Polychaete; i=0, j=0 en:Bubonic plague; i=5, j=1 en:Buffalopox; i=0, j=0 en:Callus; i=4, j=1 en:Candidal paronychia → en:Paronychia; i=5, j=1 en:Canthaxanthin; i=0, j=0 en:Cellulitis; i=9, j=1 en:Childhood systemic lupus erythematosus → en:Systemic lupus erythematosus; i=6, j=1 en:Chronic paronychia → en:Paronychia; i=5, j=1 en:Cicatricial basal cell carcinoma → en:Basal-cell carcinoma; i=6, j=2 en:Cretinism → en:Congenital iodine deficiency syndrome; i=3, j=2 en:Cutis laxa; i=6, j=2 en:Cystic basal cell carcinoma → en:Basal-cell carcinoma; i=6, j=2 en:Drug-induced nail changes; i=0, j=0 en:Drug-induced pigmentation; i=0, j=0 en:Echinococcosis; i=6, j=1 en:Eosinophilia–myalgia syndrome; i=4, j=1 en:Erythema migrans; i=5, j=1 en:Eumycetoma; i=4, j=1 en:Extramammary Paget's disease; i=5, j=2 en:Fibroepithelioma → en:Basal-cell carcinoma; i=6, j=2 en:Fibroepithelioma of Pinkus → en:Basal-cell carcinoma#Classification; i=6, j=2 en:Fibromatosis colli; i=0, j=0 en:Folliculosebaceous-apocrine hamartoma; i=0, j=0 en:Frostbite; i=4, j=2 en:Furunculosis → en:Boil; i=4, j=2 en:Gamasoidosis; i=7, j=1 en:Genital leiomyoma; i=0, j=0 en:Granuloma inguinale; i=6, j=1 en:Hand-foot-and-mouth disease → en:Hand, foot, and mouth disease; i=4, j=2 en:Hook nail; i=0, j=0 en:Infiltrative basal cell carcinoma → en:Basal-cell carcinoma; i=6, j=2 en:Levamisole-induced vasculitis; i=0, j=0 en:Linea alba (cheek); i=0, j=0 en:Linea nigra; i=0, j=0 en:Loaiasis → en:Loa loa filariasis; i=7, j=1 en:Lymphogranuloma venereum; i=6, j=1 en:McCune–Albright syndrome; i=6, j=1 en:Metophyma; i=0, j=0 en:Micronodular basal cell carcinoma → en:Basal-cell carcinoma; i=6, j=2 en:Mucocutaneous leishmaniasis → en:Leishmaniasis; i=7, j=1 en:Mycobacterium haemophilum infection → en:Mycobacterium haemophilum; i=0, j=0 en:Nagayama's spots; i=0, j=0 en:Neurofibromatosis type 1 → en:Neurofibromatosis type I; i=7, j=2 en:Nodular basal cell carcinoma → en:Basal-cell carcinoma; i=6, j=2 en:Norwegian scabies → en:Scabies#Crusted scabies; i=9, j=1 en:Omphalomesenteric duct cyst; i=0, j=0 en:Onychoptosis defluvium; i=0, j=0 en:Otophyma; i=0, j=0 en:Paget's disease of the breast; i=6, j=2 en:Pediculosis pubis; i=4, j=1 en:Pigmented basal cell carcinoma → en:Basal-cell carcinoma; i=6, j=2 en:Plague (disease); i=4, j=1 en:Plasmacytosis; i=6, j=1 en:Polypoid basal cell carcinoma → en:Basal-cell carcinoma; i=6, j=2 en:Pore-like basal cell carcinoma → en:Basal-cell carcinoma; i=6, j=2 en:Portuguese man-of-war dermatitis → en:Portuguese man o' war#Venom; i=0, j=0 en:Premature greying of hair; i=0, j=0 en:Pruritic papular eruption of HIV disease; i=0, j=0 en:Pyogenic paronychia → en:Paronychia; i=5, j=1 en:Reduviid bite → en:Reduviidae#Feeding; i=0, j=0 en:Rodent ulcer → en:Basal-cell carcinoma; i=6, j=2 en:Rubella; i=5, j=1 en:Scabies; i=9, j=1 en:Scleroderma; i=6, j=1 en:Segmental neurofibromatosis → en:Neurofibromatosis type I; i=7, j=2 en:Superficial basal cell carcinoma → en:Basal-cell carcinoma; i=6, j=2 en:Systemic lupus erythematosus; i=6, j=1 en:Thermal burn; i=0, j=0 en:Tinea pedis → en:Athlete's foot; i=6, j=1 en:Trichomoniasis; i=5, j=1 en:Umbilical granuloma; i=0, j=0 en:Visceral leishmaniasis; i=6, j=1 en:Visceral schistosomiasis → en:Schistosomiasis; i=5, j=1 en:Vitamin B6 deficiency → en:Vitamin B6#Deficiency; i=0, j=0 en:Vitamin B6 excess → en:Vitamin B6#Side effects; i=0, j=0 en:West Nile virus infection → en:West Nile fever; i=4, j=1

Updating wikipedia knowledge ecosystem image

Following up on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 118#Updating wikipedia knowledge ecosystem image

I've finally got around to updating the File:Wikipedia_publishing_interactions_2016.svg image. I've made two different versions of essentially the same info. I think I've fit the majority of the major WP:MED collaborations and projects in. Any ideas and feedback welcomed! T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 01:10, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

very clear and informative[28]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:55, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Awesome, great work!!! It's very useful! Just a quick question: why in the first schema are some arrows duplicated? (eg, "Wikimedia chapters" has two arrows). Also, I did not understand at first the "Translators" -> "Other language Wikipedias" arrow, I thought the arrow was missing (because there are multiple overlapping arrows here). Maybe making such arrow with a different thickness would also help in following visually the path? --Signimu (talk) 08:32, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

@Signimu: Opps, that duplicated arrow was a copy-paste error (fixed now)! Thank you. Good idea with having the arrow from translators without borders a slightly different width for clarity. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 11:51, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Also, a question for everyone: are there any medical schools that should be mentioned by name (have been doing it the longest / most extensively)? T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 11:51, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

UCSF School of Medicine is one of our longest collaborators. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:29, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai and Wikipedia:Touro have future planned activities and have been active for years. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:48, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Great, thanks! I'll add tonight. I was originally hoping to add Scholia, but Wikicite overall feels to have stalled (with SourceMD offline) so I thin kit's best to wait before pointing people towards something with an unfinished dataset. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 05:00, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Yeah these are really nice. Minor suggestions for the first pic, both arguable, take'em or leave'em:

• You could remove "in English" from bottom-centre, and change top-middle to "English Wikipedia", given that some of the partners and affiliates are specific to the English Wikipedia.
• You could decapitalise the second words of "Wikimedia Affiliates" and "Outside Partners", as they're general descriptive terms, not formal titles.

Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 06:40, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Sorry E&E, looks like I caused you to introduce a typo: Wikimedia affiliates at top left. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 21:55, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Ha, thanks for noticing! fixed now. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 01:59, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

This looks great so far. @Evolution and evolvability: I have one small question: You wrote "500 Million Page Views Per Day". Is this figure meant to be focused on Medicine? If so, would a medical viewership make sense? Thank you for improving this. It is a great way to introduce how medical content is created/edited on Wikipedia in presentations!JenOttawa (talk)

@JenOttawa: Good point - I should specify that it's medical readership. I can't remember the source for that figure, so I'll have to track that down (should have included the source in the commons page). Was it one of your papers Doc James? T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 02:51, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Evolution and evolvability we have English pageviews for medical content here.[29] In the 150 to 200 million a month range. There is at least that number of pageviews a month in other languages so likely around 400 million medical pageviews a month across all languages. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:07, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Brilliant, thank you! The 500M pageviews per day value was for all WP articles, not just medicine. I'll update the image and commons page to specify the medical number, since that's more relevant. Sadly the Wikistats tool can't separate by Wikiproject. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 03:29, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

@Evolution and evolvability and Doc James: The 10 million views a day across all languages is a good one as well from 2015. Not as recent as the stat that James just shared though. Nice to see how important it is for us to be here improving content that is viewed this frequently. Thank you again for your work on this figure!JenOttawa (talk) 21:20, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

References

MDPI back into PubMed?

I just came across this study on PubMed: PMID 28758964, which I found a little weird after reading the abstract, and in fact I then saw it was from MDPI, a predatory publisher listed in WP:CRAPWATCH. I thought MDPI was delisted from PubMed? Since when were they relisted? Should we consider MDPI OK now that it is relisted? --Signimu (talk) 15:12, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

PubMed is essentially just a search engine, MDPI has always been there (and worse). Alexbrn (talk) 15:19, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Pubmed is not selective. You're thinking of MEDLINE. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:21, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

yes MEDLINE is different[30]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:36, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

It seems there are MDPI journals even in MEDLINE: [31]. I tried to find a setting to filter those kind of predatory journals on pubmed but it seems either it's too selective (filtering also Nature papers) or not enough (showing MDPI journals accepted by MEDLINE). So I think I'll just continue to open my eyes and watch out by myself --Signimu (talk) 15:38, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

MDPI is also a cut above Omics. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:49, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Although originally on Beall's list, MDPI was removed by Beall after a successful appeal. Not a particularly good publisher, but apparently not directly predatory either. --Randykitty (talk) 15:55, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, best avoided. Alexbrn (talk) 15:59, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

OK, thank you all for the precisions --Signimu (talk) 16:57, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

MDPI has higher standards than shady publishers like Elsevier. Nemo 16:18, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous. You may disagree with Elsevier's commercial policies, but their journals are generally rigorously edited by competent people with high professional standards (with the huge number of journals they publish, the occasional problem is to be expected - and Elsevier has a track record of addressing any problems as soon as they become apparent). Same goes for SpringerNature, Wiley, Sage, and Taylor & Francis/Routledge. MDPI is in a very different (lower) class. --Randykitty (talk) 16:41, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

No, it's not ridiculous. See also https://danbrockington.com/2019/12/04/an-open-letter-to-mdpi-publishing/ from another self-proclaimed MDPI sceptic. As soon as you look closely enough to their publication processes it's pretty clear that they're superior to the mess that Elsevier has due to the fact of being a legacy publisher with heavy baggage. Also compare https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5826185/ for some data on how legacy publishers tend to publish the worst crap. It's not about disagreeing with the policies and it has nothing to do with the integrity of the individuals involved, it's just the natural consequence of how the financial incentives of everyone involved tend to work. Nemo 13:03, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Agree with Randykitty that it's ridiculous. MDPI is pretty much unusable on Wikipedia because it is disreputable with regard to its intellectual content. Elsevier has its problems, and also has in its stable some unusable journals (e.g. Homeopathy (journal)) but unlike MDPI, content in its journals is not automatically suspect and will usually qualify as WP:RS for the purpose of satisfying our WP:VERIFIABILITY requirements. Alexbrn (talk)

And what evidence is this based on? Nemo 13:25, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Elsevier has problems at the level of individual journals. MDPI has problems at the institutional level. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:29, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Predatory source at Composition of electronic cigarette aerosol

One of the images is sourced to doi:10.23937/2378-3516/1410035 a predatory journal. I don't know how to tackle this to bring the article in line with WP:MEDRS. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:37, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

@Headbomb: Which image? -- The Anome (talk) 11:14, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

@The Anome: the one referenced/backed up by doi:10.23937/2378-3516/1410035 (just search for that doi), current reference 71. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:17, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

I've removed the images from the article. We're not under any obligation to include them, so removing them shouldn't be a big deal. -- The Anome (talk) 11:37, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

The images are useful. This is abnormal behavior to delete useful images. QuackGuru (talk) 13:25, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

The authors are knowns experts. See "Lucinda England1, Joseph G. Lisko2 and R. Steven Pappas2* 1Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Office of Smoking and Health, USA 2Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Tobacco and Volatiles Branch, USA"[32] People working at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are reliable experts. QuackGuru (talk) 13:53, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Indeed consideration of the content and authors must prevail on the reputation of the venue. The claim here seems rather innocuous, we could use that image even if it came from a sensationalist and very unreliable journal like the NEJM. ;-)

Are there concerns that the image may be fabricated or otherwise irregular? If so it's ok to remove, otherwise one may find a replacement from other articles of the same author or other articles, but I didn't quickly spot any. Nemo 14:15, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

I think the issue here is not that there is anything wrong with either the images or the experts that created them, but that the images are credited in the article to an allegedly predatory journal that might not meet WP:MEDRS. If they were simply credited as being by their author (who has presumably released them already under an appropriate licence*), presumably that should be OK. (*Actually, if these were to be works by US federal government employees created as part of their work, they would be in the public domain, but they should still be credited, of course, for their works.) -- The Anome (talk) 14:31, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Update: I've now removed the cite, and credited the images directly to their authors, which I hope resolves the issue. -- The Anome (talk) 16:33, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

You have now violated copyright law. The wording for the caption was copied. Removing the black box causes a breach of copyright. QuackGuru (talk) 17:05, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't think so. CDC employees' professional work is exempt from the Copyright Act - a standard CDC statement: "I was an employee of the US Federal Government when this work was conducted and prepared for publication; therefore, it is not protected by the Copyright Act, and copyright ownership cannot be transferred." See section VII.A in this CDC policy document, for example. — soupvector (talk) 04:52, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

I was wondering whether importing freely licensed (or public domain) text without WP:INTEXT attribution (i.e., as if Wikipedia editors had written those captions themselves) falls afoul of the current Wikipedia:Plagiarism rules. I don't know the answer, but perhaps someone like User:CBM, User:Prototime, or User:PBS could tell us. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:10, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

See "Although the content of a publication authored by federal employees may not be copyrighted, some publications (e.g., journals) may copyright the format in which the information is published. This copyright on format may inhibit CDC’s ability to freely copy the published information."[33]

If the content was in the public domain there still needs to be a full citation with the PD notice and a link to the journal. Removing the full citation and replacing it with only the names of the authors caused a verification problem. The current format is licensed under CC BY 4.0. QuackGuru (talk) 11:40, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

To the best of my understanding, there is no copyright violation, since this material is apparently already in the public domain, and our moral obligation to that authors to identify them is carried out by our crediting them in the linked text.

In any case, the image pages on Commons contain all the information required by the CC-BY-4.0 license, one click away from the article itself. If we required in-text citation of every single image transcluded from Commons, we'd have to delete most of the images on Wikipedia. @QuackGuru:, are you really advocating for this position?

At this point, I'd suggest just removing the images might be the best option, as they now seem to have become little more than a life-support system for the cite. -- The Anome (talk) 12:18, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

In order to verity the text a citation is needed. The name of the authors are not a citation. QuackGuru (talk) 13:03, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

I've found another place online where the journal article can be found, and linked to that instead of the possibly predatory journal. The article does appear to be compatibly licensed under CC-by 4.0— Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:57, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Just a comment on "People working at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are reliable experts" by QuackGuru. While this appeal to authority appears reasonable at a glance, let us not forget that Andrew Wakefield was a fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons, senior lecturer and honorary consultant in experimental gastroenterology at the Royal Free Hospital School of Medicine in London, and the son of a neurologist and a general practitioner. It is quite feasible, is it not, that perhaps one or two of the 10,899 employees of the CDC are entertaining unreliable thoughts, at this very moment! -- Colin°^Talk 21:46, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

• I've restored the DOI. The issue was not that we are giving a 'problematic DOI', it's that we are citing a crap source to begin with. Removing a DOI to replace it with a ResearchGate link is lipstick on a pig. If the source and these images are deemed acceptable, then nothing much needs to be done except perhaps add a comment next to the citation that even though International Journal of Respiratory and Pulmonary Medicine/ClinMed are generally unreliable, this is an exception. This could also be shoved on the image information instead if this doesn't require an in-article cite, but the location of that information is really a side-issue and not the crux of the matter. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:50, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

The article in general could probably use a good WP:MEDRS review. Several Frontiers journals are cited. Mostly for routine information, but it would be good to double-check if extraordinary claims are made, or if other unreliable sources are cited in general. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:57, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Could we back up and think about what the overall goal is here? Is it to "fix" a bot-generated list? Is it to get good content into articles, and we think that might be wrong? Is it to protect Wikipedia's reputation? What's our real goal here, in the simplest and least misunderstandable words possible? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:00, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

The goal is to have high-quality medical content that is acceptably sourced. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:57, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Off topic

I would like you to prove it. If the goal is to have high-quality medical content that is acceptably sourced then we should start with the worse article on the topic. The pod mod article looks more like an advert. I think it is not fit to stay in mainspace. QuackGuru (talk) 20:37, 5 December 2019 (UTC) Looking at the first sentence you (QuackGuru) just wrote, the tone doesn't seem very collaborative. — soupvector (talk) 21:49, 5 December 2019 (UTC) @QuackGuru: WP:SOFIXIT. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:15, 5 December 2019 (UTC) I did fix it and I got reverted. If you blank this article it would be an improvement. I suggest to remove it from mainspace. It is garbage. Almost every sentence is a policy violation. The goal appears to be trying to delete alleged predatory journals rather than improve the overall e-cig articles. If that is the case it is time for editors to move on. QuackGuru (talk) 02:32, 6 December 2019 (UTC) Removing citation to predatory journals is an improvement in 99.9%+ of cases. There may be cornercases where they are acceptable. This could be one. I raise the issue to WP:MED, and it's up to WP:MED and others to decide on how to best tackle this. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:40, 6 December 2019 (UTC) It seems you have admitted your purpose. It is not about overall improving this topic area. It is about focusing on alleged predatory journals. Images are not subject to MEDRS, yet you tagged two images. This was going too far. QuackGuru (talk) 12:49, 6 December 2019 (UTC) You are purposefully being an uncollaborative dick here. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:56, 6 December 2019 (UTC) According to who images must meet MEDRS? Extremeness behavior gets editors banned. QuackGuru (talk) 13:03, 6 December 2019 (UTC) Yes, raising concerns about predatory sources and whether or not things are WP:MEDRS-compliant is ban worthy. Please, take me to WP:ANI over this, I'm in complete suspense about how it's going to be resolved. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:11, 6 December 2019 (UTC) QuackGuru, if you want to delete Pod mod, then you know where AfD is. You will also remember ANI, where your last attempt to delete it single-handed ended up. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:19, 6 December 2019 (UTC) See Ray R, (September 2018). “Pod Mods Are A Big Problem”. Rupert Case Management. Retrieved on 12 May 2019. What is this business website doing in the article? QuackGuru (talk) 13:29, 6 December 2019 (UTC) See WP:STAYONTOPIC and WP:WAX. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:34, 6 December 2019 (UTC) Adverts in mainspace are against policy. QuackGuru (talk) 13:39, 6 December 2019 (UTC) Do you have a point here, or is this just your usual distraction techniques of flapping about trivia? The Rupert source (which you were happily organising the cites to back here) seems to simply be recirculating the NEJM from Sept 2018, which is already cited. Now if you really object to the Rupert cite (I can see that) there's a rather obvious fix to that. Which you can do easily, it does not require deleting the article, it does not require this waste of time and space here. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:43, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System

This article needs review, particularly the assertion in the lede that there are doctors calling for an unvaccinated control group in the United States. That seems like quite a fringe view to me. BD2412 T 12:58, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't think this is saying that doctors are calling for an unvaccinated control group (though there are anti-vaccine people who espouse this nonsensical trope). I have updated the source to a better source and trimmed some of the weasel wording. I think it's better now. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 19:19, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

TylerDurden8823, the "no unvaccinated control group" canard is a well-known antivax trope. It's also unsupported in the cited source, so I removed it. In fact there is a voluntary control group (children of antivaxers) so we do know that they have the same rates of everything except... preventable diseases. Guy (help!) 15:04, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

JzG, I'm not sure why you're directing that comment at me. I'm well aware of the trope. It just didn't seem to me that was necessarily what was actually being implied in the text. Therefore, I disagreed with BD. I would direct further comments to the OP going forward. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 19:10, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Thoughts here

• Talk:Botulism#Prescribing_information Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:14, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:16, 6 December 2019 (UTC)