Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 1

message: As discussed at Wikipedia talk:Medicine Collaboration of the Week#Systematic coverage of topics, it would be nice to have a place we can identify articles that need work, even though they may not be selected for the Collaboration. I'm going to try to begin to organize it, though I'm not entirely certain how. I don't know if this will stay here or what its final home will be, but since intend to include both clinical and pre-clinical topics, it didn't make sense to place it at either one, nor does it really fit at WP:MCOTW either. The design comes from Wikipedia:WikiProject Anti-war#List of pages covered by the project. — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:10, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: All right, there are just too many articles to deal with in this fashion. I am now thinking that something like the lists at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Chemicals/Organization would be more feasible, although it require the assistance and discussion of others to generate the lists. We could have the 50 most imporant diseases, anatomical parts, medicines, topics about medicine (like residency), medical specialties, preclinical fields, biochemical molecules, pathogenic organisms, and so on. I have to ponder this overnight. — Knowledge Seeker দ 08:03, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I started creating the lists I thought were most important, and threw a couple entries on each one. The topics are biased towards internal medicine, since that's my specialty and it seems that the participants on WP:MCOTW tend to tackle articles in that field too. Physicians and others with expertise in other areas are free to add topics relating to their fields (for instance, a table on surgical procedures such as laparoscopic cholecystectomy, pneumonectomy, and so on). Please feel free to add items to the lists, or modify/remove my suggestions—I put them up mainly to give a feel for the direction I intended for each list, but of course that is open to debate as well. Once we get a better idea what items will be on the lists, we can start rating articles. I especially would like to ensure that topics commonly linked to from medical or other articles (such as fever) are well-written. Wikipedia:WikiProject Clinical medicine/top priority and Wikipedia:WikiProject Clinical medicine/categorizations will be useful in providing inspiration. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:24, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Thank you both for embracing this project and for your suggestions. InvictaHOG, I think that is a great idea; one shorter list could have topics like arthritis, cardiovascular disease, infection, and so on, and another would have the more specific diseases. Wouterstomp, thanks for all that work you put in adding those diseases—that'll really help! I do think that we should limit it to 50, though; part of the purpose of this project, like the purpose of the Collaboration, is to help us prioritize/find direction—a sea of links can be overwhelming. How about this: we'll keep one list of just 50, and then have a secondary list with all the rest. I don't mind trying to prune it down to 50—it's a lot easier than trying to think of which ones to add, so you've really helped out. I only fear that it'd reflect my biases, so feel free to switch around any of my selections; I'm not the dictator here. — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:13, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: misc

message: #Would it make any sense to change the navigation template, Template:WPCM navigation, to put Wikipedia:WikiProject Clinical medicine and Wikipedia:WikiProject Preclinical Medicine under the parent Project of Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine? Edwardian 23:59, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent comments, Edwardian. The template change might not be a bad idea. I hesitate to make any change like that because I don't want to step on anyone's toes by creating a WikiProject that "governs" another—I don't intend this project to control or limit the clinical and pre-clinical projects in any way, but it has a different scope. I think the change is fine if others agree, as long as it's clear that this project shouldn't really affect the way the "child" projects conduct their business. The participants list sounds great; I'll work on setting that up maybe tomorrow. I'll move MCOTW here as well. Finally, moving the articles sounds fine to me; even if all don't have a category list, we can keep some miscellaneous articles at the end. — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:37, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ugh...there are way too many pages linking to the old MCOTW page. I tried updating all the important ones, but if anyone so desires, he can go through and update the other links =) otherwise I'll get to it later. — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:48, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I moved a lot of article from Wikipedia:WikiProject Clinical medicine/top priority to here. Perhaps someone else can finish off the twenty or so there that remain. Edwardian 07:22, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've merged all the articles in Wikipedia:WikiProject Clinical medicine/top priority to Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine. There's nothing of importance left there, so I'm going to redirect the former to the latter. Hope this won't be a problem for anyone. Edwardian 04:02, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Reorganization?

message: Glad you brought up the topic of priority articles. These are my priority articles. I'm going to update them on my user page instead of here. Feel free to check them out if you want a different perspective. 
To be meaningful, the list needs to embrace three concepts: 
1) Traditional western medicine 2) Actual world-wide health care usage 3) Future world-wide trends. 
Challenging, yes. But if you twist your mind the right way, it’s doable. Below is the way that works for me.--FloNight 08:52, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Priority List 

message: Hi, just thought I'd ask here. From Wikipedia:Neglected articles I saw Fossa navicularis, and while I checked that the article is correct, I have a hard time believing that can ever be more than a dicdef. I have two anatomy textbooks in front of me and neither had anything more to add than was in the article. I'm fairly sure it was added solely for the sophmoric humor value, but should it be merged somewhere, expanded, or just sent to afd? Thanks - Taxman Talk 23:44, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Many anatomy terms are like this. I envision that each will have a nice image and a description of pathology associated with it. This article can be expanded in that way and should probably stay a stub until someone adds information about strictures, etc. Just my opinion, of course! InvictaHOG 18:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inclusion criteria 

message: Having had a bit of a wikibreak, great to see above discussions re formation and merging of 'to do list' of articles.  I've had a go at the red-'stub' flagged Menorrhagia, and whilst I have greatly expanded the topic, I'm unclear whether it now counts as blue-'good'.  The yellow-'needs exp/org/NPOV' suggests only just better than a stub, and I take mild offense :-) at the thought that it needs further significant expansion.  The white-'needs opinion' is apparently if the 'article has not yet been classified' - however, I would appreciate the comments & input of others...  Some guidence please anyone, and I'll happily try updating the list without messing it up :-)  David Rubentalk 17:37, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey now, you forgot about the orange which is little better than a stub; the yellow is beyond that. Nevertheless, I think Menorrhagia is "good" and have so upgraded it. — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: 'Article Alert Status' classificiation

message: I think the Wikipedia:Userboxes are rather silly, and yet they're strangely amusing as well. On a whim, I created  which you may place on your user page if you so desire. It will automatically place you in :Category:Physician Wikipedians as well. — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: And now there's  as well. Enjoy! — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:16, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Then, of course, there's  --Mattopaedia 01:26, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

text: How about one for WikiProject:Medicine itself? --Eilu 03:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

text: User MPH or User CHES, anyone? Museumfreak 14:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Userboxes 

message: Hi there; I'm a registered Dietician/Dietitian, and i've started a project, WikiProject Nutrition (and dietetics) but unfortunately, few people are joining because of the lack of knowledge of it. If i'd be able to merge the project into yours, then i'd be ecstatic as this sis just something i'd love to contribute to. Anyway, thank you for reading!
The magical Spum-dandy 16:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, I'd certainly consider nutrition to be part of the broad field of medicine. It's fine with me to merge, although I don't know how you intend any technical details to occur. You may prefer WP:CLINMED, since this is more of an umbrella project for that and the preclinical medicine group. — Knowledge Seeker দ 01:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikiproject Nutrition 

message: I have added a peer review request for Keratoconus to Template:MCOTWannounce. If anyone would like to contribute to the peer review, it would be very welcome! BillC 00:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Peer review/Keratoconus/archive1]] 

message: Fetal alcohol spectrum disorder needs to be checked. I doubt that the article presents a neutral point of view:
the statement that "small amounts of alcohol during pregnancy might not pose a risk to the fetus" has disappeared. 
the article also lists links like this  --Melaen 22:12, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt anyone is actively following this page, but I followed it because of the Wikilink. There has been a major revamp of the Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder article, which may be interesting to this group. It would be nice to have it listed or ranked by this project group, but I don't know how to do that yet. Thanks.MLHarris 20:01, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder|Fetal alcohol spectrum disorder]] 

message: I think it needs work; sources need to be cited and more internal links added. Should I append this to  "Medicine Topics" in the project page? --Eilu 03:31, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Physical therapy]] 

message: Hi, I'm a member of the Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team, which is looking to identify quality articles in Wikipedia for future publication on CD or paper. We recently began assessing using these criteria, and we are looking for A-class, B-class, and Good articles, with no POV or copyright problems. Can you recommend any suitable articles? Please post your suggestions here. Cheers, Shanel 20:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I've updated your list, and the edit summary says it all. Congratulations, you're the most productive WikiProject in Wikipedia, on basis of listed featured and A-Class articles. I'll try to keep your WikiProject table up to date, but please feel free to update it as you assess articles. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 07:20, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! I'm sorry I've been pretty busy in real life, and have been neglecting medicine articles in lieu of another major undertaking on Wikipedia right now, but I do intend to try to get more articles up to speed. — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:40, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Articles for the Wikipedia 1.0 project

message: I've had a good look around but haven't found where to put this or if it's already there...
All these medical entries are pretty good, but people can be easily influenced so you/we must add to the template for any medicine/diseaso/disorder a disclaimer stating something like 'A qualified physician should be consulted if you believe you have this condition/ before using this medicine'
I have in mind HD for example, where someone at risk may read the article, and believe they have all the facts, but really need to seek professional advice ( well until the info is perfect that is ;) )
Leevanjackson 22:43, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know if this is what you are looking for, but Wikipedia:General disclaimer, which is linked to at the bottom of each page, says "If you need specific advice (for example, medical, legal, financial, or risk management) please seek a professional who is licensed or knowledgeable in that area.  See Wikipedia:Risk disclaimer, Wikipedia:Medical disclaimer, and Wikipedia:Legal disclaimer for specific disclaimers", and Wikipedia:Medical disclaimer spells it out in a bit more detail. — Knowledge Seeker দ 01:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disclaimer in template 

message: I'm not sure if this is the right place to put this, but I have a request for the members of this project.  I recently wrote the article Michael Woodruff which I am trying to bring up to Featured Article Status.  It is currently undergoing a peer review that need s more input.  I would especially like input from people with a medical perspective, so if some of you could look it over and participate in the review, that would be fantastic.  Thanks! Cool3 20:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Request

message: The article Robinow syndrome is brand new, and I would like to get it to Did you know within the allotted time frame of five days since its creation. Before I list it, however, I was wondering if some of the people at this Wikiproject could give the article a quick glance. It's a relatively bare bones article, but it's better than nothing. I'd hate to stick inaccuracies on the front page, however. Thanks! — Rebelguys2 talk 03:56, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Robinow syndrome]]

message: Would anyone here have the expertise to be able to merge Pelvic floor and Pelvic diaphragm? Thanks. Carcharoth 21:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Merged to Pelvic floor.  Still needs improvement, though....  Rewster 21:42, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's great. Thanks. Hopefully someone down the line will improve it later... Carcharoth 11:16, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging two anatomy articles 

message: Could the members of this project please weigh in on Category talk:Deaths by throat cancer?  Also, what is the status of the requested merge between throat cancer and head and neck cancer? Thank you.  —Viriditas | Talk 00:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Category:Deaths by throat cancer

message: Could someone competent in chemotherapy have a look at Zosuquidar trihydrochloride? Thearticle appear to be a very poor translation from advertizing in another language. Despite my clean-up, it could use someone's attention. Circeus 18:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  request for specialist attention 

message: Anyone want to take a look at Clinical Surveillance, which I just finished substantially rewriting? Museumfreak 14:51, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Clinical Surveillance: request for attention

message: I want to start a public health category improvement drive, as it's pretty bad -- not many articles in the category and taxonomy doesn't reflect major fields of PH.  Anyone want to join me? Museumfreak 14:51, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Public Health Category Improvement Drive

message: Hi. There has been a discussion on the appropriate spelling of orthopaedic vs orthopedic to use.  I requested a move from Orthopedic surgery to Orthopaedic surgery, which was closed in favor of moving, but a view has been expressed that it was closed wrongly.   There are other places where the spelling ought to be consistent with the article, e.g. :Category:Orthopedics.  I think it would be good to have more people's views so as to form a consensus on the prefered spelling.  If you are interested, please could you visit Talk:orthopaedic surgery and have your say.  Many thanks.  Arbitrary username 13:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling of orthopaedic / orthopedic 

message: Where can I find the list of coordinators? Anyway I'd like to be one of them. NCurse work 10:26, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Congratulations, you're a coordinator! Seriously, if you'd like to make changes on wikipedia, just do it! You don't need a special title or somesuch to contribute. It's always nice to get feedback before making major changes, of course... InvictaHOG 15:48, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is one place where some coordination could actually be useful: the medicine collaboration of the week. So if you would volunteer to do that, keep it up-to-date, selecting the new collaboration and cleaning up old nominations, that would be nice. Other than that, just like InvictaHOG says, just be bold and make changes where you think they are needed. --WS 17:13, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

text:  The problem with the MCOTW is that not a lot happens to articles while they are MCOTW! It's hard to move on when not much has happened to benefit the current article. We need contributors there more than we need coordinators... InvictaHOG 18:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, thanks. :) I have some plans... NCurse work 17:45, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

text: A coordinator's work is to collect contributors, find them and ask them to join. I'll start it after my pathology exam. :) NCurse work 09:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coordinator? 

message: The pathology specialities seem to have not made it onto your list. I would add them myself but I've got a feeling I would make a messs of your purty table :-) Ianmc 22:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added it now. --WS 23:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pahology Playing Cinderella Speciality Once Again