lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Neural tube defect

message: At present, neural tube defect is a redirect to neural tube defects.  I propose to merge the two pages into neural tube defect, thus allowing the more flexible use of the singular or plural as needed in other pages. --Una Smith 20:32, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since neural tube defect is just a redirect, this operation is really just a page move, not a merge.  It just requires that an administrator move neural tube defects over the old redirect, so I'll go ahead and do that.  Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 00:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed merger

message: The sentence, "Importantly, a deficiency of folate itself does not cause neural tube defects." is jarringly at odds with the context and does not integrate well with either what precedes or follows.  Perhaps the whole paragraph needs a rewrite.  I do not have the technical background to do it.  Both the composition and the technical subject matter need to be clarified.  The intended meaning could be that folate deficiency does not produce NTD in all cases due to genetic variability, but the intended meaning could also be that other factors can produce NTD even in the presence of sufficient folate.  It is very much unclear. 7802mark (talk) 17:48, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem in section Cause, paragraph Folate Deficiency 

message: I believe there must be a link to Folate deficiency from this article because neural tube defects are associated with this condition. Why was my edit reverted? --CopperKettle 16:35, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: You made the wlink twice in the same paragraph in a section on folate deficiency. That is MOS:OL, as stated in the edit summary. I am restoring one wlink. --Zefr (talk) 16:47, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you! I think we could also add the "read further" link just under the section title, or something like that. I haven't been very active in Wikipedia for 10 years, so I don't recall how exactly this link is added. )) --CopperKettle 17:03, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why was my edit reverted? I wikified [[Folate deficiency]]
Talk:Neurocardiology

message: I just want to inform that I am currently doing extensive research on this topic for a neuroscience project. I will be adding chunks of information to your page within the next few weeks.  Please let me know if you have any feedback to offer.Lisa M Johnson (talk) 18:48, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikification Notes

message: 1. Quality of Information: 2
Comment: Very clear and concise information. Has at least 3 peer-reviewed sources from recent years.
2. Article size: 2
Comment: Exceeds 15,000 requirement
3. Readability: 2
4. Refs: 2
Comment: At least 10 references and follow wiki guidelines.
5. Links: 1
Comment: Links to other wiki pages but NO red links
6. Responsive to comments: 2
7. Formatting: 2
Comments: Follows guidelines for correct formatting and has class banner on talk page 
8. Writing: 1
Comments: Generally reads well. A couple of grammatical errors/sentence phrasing. In stress topic, change "your hypothalamus" to "The hypothalamus" in the second paragraph.
9. Used real name or has real name on User TALK page: 2
10. Outstanding?: 2
Comments: Great picture!
__________________________
Total:       18 out of 20
Jacob Johnson (talk) 03:48, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  BMED 4752: Peer Review 

message: _______________ 
1. Quality of Information: 1 
Some information don't appear very encyclopedic. 
2. Article size: 2 
3. Readability: 2 
4. Refs: 1 
Consider removing "How Your nervous System Gets Out of Sync" as a reference 
5. Links: 2 
6. Responsive to comments: 2 
7. Formatting: 2 
8. Writing: 0 
The writing doesn't seem to have a completely Neutral point of view; this is probably why the "needs attention from an expert in medicine" banner was added. In addition, some writing not suitable for wikipedia ("In a study relating to relationship of neurocardiology of arrhythmias and sudden cardiac death, they hypothesized...", "Doctors are trained for specifically one specialty and as a result not as knowledgeable about the others, even though they all related to the same thing, the human body.") 
9. Used real name or has real name on User TALK page: 2  
10. Outstanding?: 0 
Needs some more work done, especially on the writing part. 
_______________ 
Total:       14 out of 20
Sheng Jiang (talk) 17:20, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review
Talk:Neutral stimulus

message: Could an example of a neutral stimulus be beneficial in clarifying what a neutral stimulus is?  For example, explaining the use of a bell in Ivan Pavolov's classical conditioning experiments as a neutral stimulus could prove valuable, as it would allow readers to visualize a neutral stimulus in the context of an empirical study, rather than relying solely on theory.  Salehi.s (talk) 16:34, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:New chemical entity

message: Article does not say if there is any formality or registration of an NCE before or distinct from say an IND application in the USA. Is there any connection with INN allocation by the WHO ? - Rod57 (talk) 10:07, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  What makes an NCE 

message: Intro says NCE is "a drug that contains no active moiety that has been approved by the FDA " - shouldn't that be "a drug that contains any active moiety that has not been approved by the FDA " ? (Moiety seem to allow a drug to have 2 active moieties - one unapproved) - Rod57 (talk) 10:15, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suspect wording
Talk:Two Coins

message: when we get around to describing the plot, I gott know- what is supposed to have happened to the coin? is it left unclear? are we supposed to know who stole it/pulled a switcheroo? it was at some point after the daughter looked it up online. kzz* 02:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: the coin was switched when Tiffy is talking to the coin expert outside Adams ... American Coins ... Specialty (Where she goes to sell the coin). If you look closely after he says "I assume you know little of coins," he puts it back in the paper wrapper Tiffy was carrying it in, and then when he hands her the glove the next shot is of him wrapping up 'the coin' which is actually being palmed in his left hand; while he is saying, "it will take me some time to assemble..."
Hope this helps.
--Galaxyruin 09:13, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  coin switch
Talk:No-observed-adverse-effect level

message: The correct expansion of "NOAEL" is "No observed adverse effect level" (not "observable").  (See <http://sis.nlm.nih.gov/enviro/iupacglossary/glossaryn.html>  We know what we _have_ observed; we don't know what _might_ be observable.
How can the article title be corrected?
HScrimgeour (talk) 14:10, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terminology 
Talk:Periodic limb movement disorder

message: Why are the refs messed up on this page - I added a reference, but it does not appear as a reference at the bottom (which is in a bullet list format)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.62.226.103 (talk) 16:40, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  

message: To a large extent this article seems to be copied from:  It will have to be deleted unless someone is prepared to completely re-write it.
Invertzoo (talk) 00:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Extensive copying

message: Is the section on "Jimmy Legs" really appropriate?  It's unreferenced and unscholarly and probable non-notable.  Any thoughts?? WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 21:36, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jimmy Legs 

message: The acronym PLMD is defined in the first sentence of the article. However, in the Diagnosis section, we have the phrase "PLMD is diagnosed by first finding PLMS on a PSG", and PLMS is not defined or linked anywhere in the article, despite being used several more times after that first occurrence. This is confusing, especially since at times it seems to be used interchangeably with PLMD. Can someone please define PLMS and make sure it's being used correctly every time? — CWesling (talk) 20:11, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  PLMS is not defined 

message: I would like to see an entry describing the unfamiliarity of most family physicians and indeed many if not most neurologists with this disorder. Very few of these doctors have a clear understanding of RLS/PLMD and, especially among older doctors, there is an attitude of genuine skepticism. It is essential that the patient learn the knowledge level and attitude of the doctor he has selected to provide treatment. For the most severe cases, a trip to a facility such as the Mayo Clinic or the Cleveland Clinic is probably warranted. Ultimately, it is up to afflicted persons to educate themselves about the disorder and to investigate the best source of quality treatment. USAFSS60 (talk) 15:49, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi USAFSS60! If you have good, secondary sources - and please also check WP:MEDRS - than please be bold and write a section about it! With friendly regards, Lova Falk talk 08:47, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Availability and Quality of Treatment
Talk:Anomic aphasia

message: Term not used in article. 81.159.93.150 (talk) 17:31, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why does "logamnesia" redirect here? 

message: What is the reverse condition called, where words are legible but letters arent? There's a person who can read and write just fine in multiple languages, including reading text with typos, and you wouldn't know there was anything wrong with them unless you ask them to reproduce random sequences of characters. By just saying 'wrong' at every incorrect try, it can take up to an hour for them to get it right. --Zom-B (talk) 09:54, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverse?
Talk:Parallel novel

message: We really have to connect this to fanfic somehow. They're essentially the same thing. DS (talk) 18:20, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: By definition, not at all the same thing. This refers to the many works written and published by actual authors rather than fans. Within Wikipedia there's considerable overlapping and imprecise designations, whether in categories, lists, or pages. Unfortunately, the WikiProject Novels is inactive as of this writing. -- 09:28, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Also 

message: Pastiche or Sequel would be the pages to consider merging 'parallel novel' to if it was considered for merging.--Darrelljon (talk) 15:40, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Pastiche is not acceptable. Consider movies (assuming we are discussing more than just novels). A movie like The Life of Brian does not attempt to imitate serious films about Jesus. It alludes to the story of Jesus and mirrors it, but is a completely different story presented in a very different way. If you want a play instead of a movie, try Puffs, which alludes to the Harry Potter stories, but does not in any way attempt to mimic the books or the movies. It is a parallel story presented in a completely different manner. So, it is not the style being alluded to. It is the original story content. The style is completely different. 97.82.165.112 (talk) 17:53, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal
Talk:Sebastiano Serlio

message: An interesting blog entry about vanishing area puzzles claiming that Serlio was the first to describe them in print. violet/riga [talk] 08:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vanishing area puzzles 

message: The separate article on Serlio's "Tutte l'opere" is shorter than the account of the same work in Serlio's article. Any additional content from it should be included in Serlio's article and a redirect substituted. Alternatively a summary of the account of the "Tutte l'opere" could be kept here while the separate article would be expanded.--Johnsoniensis (talk) 15:48, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Klbrain (talk) 07:47, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal
Talk:Hyperosmolar hyperglycemic state

message: Hyperosmolar Hyperglycemic State (HHS) - or Hyperosmolar Hyperglycaemic State for all of us not in America - is the current term for this condition. 
http://www.emedicine.com/emerg/TOPIC264.HTM has the information if you want a link.
Maybe this should be updated?
Slaanesh17 (talk) 10:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name 

message: I have now moved this article to the current name for this condition. This reflects a change in nomenclature for more than a decade, and while HONK sounds catchy we wouldn't want to use obsolete terminology.
This is the recent guideline published by NHS Diabetes and the JBDS. Would be worth including. JFW | T@lk 14:00, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change of name
Talk:Nasal breathing

message: The result of the AFD was no concensus and it's clear that the topic is notable enough to be somewhere (and not deleted).  Several editors !voted keep but none made comments specific to maintaining a dedicated article an equal number made more the more specific recommendation to merge and breathing seems the most likely candidate.  Any issue with completing this merge?--RadioFan (talk) 15:26, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Since nasal breathing is apparently just normal breathing, as opposed to abnormal mouth breathing, yes merge to breathing. Lesion (talk) 22:09, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: agree Rathfelder (talk) 21:21, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: There is the Mouth breathing article.  It would make sense to merge with that since nasal breathing is contrasted with mouth breathing.  They probably should both be merged to Breathing though under a section on Nasal vs mouth breathing. Jimp 14:41, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge
Talk:Olecranon bursitis

message: Iruntoomuch (talk) 04:19, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

message: The following corrections should be made to the article to improve its content. 
There should be more and more reliable references. The external links are the only references listed, and there are only two. Moreover, although the UK’s National Health Service may be a valid and reliable reference, eOrthropod is not. It is a website, not a professional medical source that is reliable. In addition, the UKNHS link is broken and needs to be repaired to work. The claims made have no supporting references. Even if the information is correct, there is no way to verify claims with reliable sources, as there are none listed. It is essential to writing anything that sources are cited or it is plagiarism, whether or not that was the intent of the writer.
Epidemiology was not addressed or included. Some sort of reference to etiology would be a valuable addition to this article.
The symptoms section should not be formatted this way. These are not even bullets; and, although bullets may be appropriate format in certain situations, it would be better suited in paragraph/sentence format. 
The following are positive points of this article.
“Treatments” section of this article was well-developed. In addition, proper terminology was used.
The introduction is effective in giving an overview while using correct terminology. 
Although it would be helpful to explicitly state such, the risk factors were nicely integrated into the causes section.
NHearn (talk) 05:10, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer review, May 10, 2012
Talk:On-call room

message: This page is a dictionary definition (something which Wikipedia is not).  It explains the meaning, etymology and usage examples of a phrase.  I can't find any encyclopedic content on this page.  Nothing here rises past what I would expect to read in a truly great unabridged dictionary.  The definitions and usage discussions belong over in Wiktionary where folks with the right skills, interests and lexical tools can more easily sort out the meanings and origins.
Options to fix the page here include:
# Expand the page with encyclopedic content - that is, content that goes well beyond the merely lexical.
# Redirect the page to a more general page.
# Replace the current contents with a soft-redirect to Wiktionary (usually done using the  template).
Pending a better answer, I'm implementing option 3 for now.  Rossami (talk) 18:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expand, merge or redirect
Talk:Opioid replacement therapy

message: "...and the risk of fatality climbs 2900% in the first six weeks of discontinuing maintenance[citation needed]..." is almost certainly a claim which has to be removed. An increased risk is plausible, but 29:1 would be widely known, if it was generally true. "..., including vastly reduced drug tolerance" - what?! methadone etc. was (hopefiully) given at appropriate doses, so where does the tolerance come from? Has someone confused agonists like methadone or buprenorphine with antagonists like naltrexone? "In the patients that do achieve lasting (longer than six months) abstinence from opioids, over 40% become addicted to alcohol and/or benzodiazepine drugs,[citation needed]" That is wrong. Patients present with these problems already at admission to treatment, but the claim here suggest that they become alcohol addicted or benzodiazepne addited only after 6 months of abstinence from opiates/opioids.--132.252.254.217 (talk) 13:01, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is this? 

message: While I think that the former paragraph on Russia may have constituted undue weight on the subject, I think it is an important case study proving the effectiveness of ORT in managing Opioid dependence. Just stating that Russia denies access, or doesn't allow ORT obscures the fact that they cut off access to these programs to people in annexed Crimea, which led to documented deaths. Just wanted to solicit feedback and general thoughts before re-adding this paragraph.
Bpmcneilly (talk) 17:54, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Russian Annexation of Crimea and ORT
Talk:Opisthorchis viverrini

message: Other free images: http://www.parasitesandvectors.com/content/2/1/10/figure/F1 http://www.parasitesandvectors.com/content/2/1/10/figure/F2 --Snek01 (talk) 23:39, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  images
Talk:Organ Care System

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: move the page to Organ Care System per the discussion below. Editorial issues related to content can be handled separately.  Dekimasuよ! 04:09, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Organ care system →  – This article is writen like an advert for the named product, mentioning it but providing no critical info about it. Changing it to an article about all such products (including the mentioned Paragonix product) makes more sense. Still needs refs about how exactly those systems work. 71.230.16.111 (talk) 09:03, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

text: As the article is currently written, it does appear to be about the product, so I would propose moving to the capitalized version Organ Care System. Bensci54 (talk) 15:37, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 26 December 2023
Talk:Orthostatic intolerance

message: I'm getting the feeling that Orthostatic Intolerance should be a sub-section of the Orthostatic Hypotension article if they are not in fact the same thing / should be merged. The difference needs to be clarified.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.243.5.110 (talk) 22:56, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: note

message: What is Orthostatic Intolerance 72.197.132.247 (talk) 02:22, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is Orthostatic Intolerance 

message: The notable case section is very odd and it is unclear what makes this case notable.  It certainly does not deserve an entire section and appears to have been written by a fan.  One could argue for the inclusion of a list of notable people with orthostatic intolerance, but even that seems unhelpful.
As pointed out by others, the organization of this subject needs to be clearer.  The causes section would be a good place to do this.  This might be a good place to mention dysautonomia of various kinds (including POTS and orthostatic hypotension).  
It's not entirely clear to me whether orthostatic intolerance is a symptom or also a condition.  I imagine this is a common question and might be addressed in the same section. 173.66.197.48 (talk) 18:33, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major Issues 

message: The symptoms lists Hyperpnea, and so does the citation, but then goes on to further state "such as difficulty breathing or swallowing".
By all accounts, difficulty breathing is Hypopnea, not Hyperpnea. Hyperpnea is an increased airflow, not an obstructive airflow, that's Hypopnea. So either the citation is wrong and had a typo (possible) or the editor got mixed up (also possible) 65.94.136.115 (talk) 21:01, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a terrible source. That section should be updated to reference one of the reviews we already have. HotSection (talk) 00:55, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Symptoms error?
Talk:Ortner's syndrome

message: Hi, my name is ! I am a current 4th year medical student and am taking part in a WikiEdu course set up by my school. I have chosen Ortner's syndrome as my topic as it interests me in my quest to learn more about cardiology and to add to my knowledge as a future internal medicine resident. Another name for Ortner's syndrome is Cardiovocal.
My plan is to explore the anatomy of the region, the causes of the disease, the symptoms and how it presents, how to diagnose it, and current treatments. I plan to add images to aid in the understanding of the topic and explore how to use Wiki Commons.
Hey Applebutterfly! I am a fellow student in the WikiProject course and am assigned your article to peer review. Great job on your additions to this article. It looks really different now! I don't have any major edits to suggest besides maybe pursuing adding a diagnosis/diagnostic workup section. It could possibly just entail the common diagnostic workup involved when Ortner's is part of the differential or just elaborating the diagnostic workup in the cases you have described. Also, potentially adding an epidemiology section with information could be helpful, if that information does exist in the literature. You could reorganize the lead to potentially move and expand on the sentence about mitral stenosis to the first paragraph as it's more relevant and introduces the potential pathophys behind Ortner's. Finally, if there was imaging involved in the cases described that demonstrate the compression well, you could try to incorporate that into this page as well. Overall, good job!
Thanks! --PerpetuallyTachy (talk) 04:27, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing plans for Ortner's Syndrome page
Talk:Otolithic membrane

message: Assignment not submitted before 11:59:00 UTC Nov 18 grading most recent 11/20
# Quality of the information: 2 Good time range of sources, In-depth explanations 
# Article size: 1  Late(16,641 bytes)
# Readability: 1  Use simpler language "quiescent" is not a term most readers would know. Overall the article was accessible to most readers, however data directly from papers was a little more difficult to understand. 
# References: 1  More citations in the Evolution section would be helpful. The article heavily relies on source #1. Citations from other additional sources for the same information would strengthen the article.
# Links: 2  Link afferent
# Responsive to Comments: 2 no comments so no need for response
# Formatting: 2  Organization for this article was very strong
# Writing: 2
# Used Real Name: 2
# Is Outstanding in some way: 1 Good article but not outstanding
Total: (16/20 - penalty for being late)
Jsiemer3 (talk) 20:43, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Talk:Entertaining Mr Sloane (film)

message: There now seems to be a good WP:RS source for this detail - an interview in The Guardian by Karin Andreasson on 12 February 2015. I suggest it's added in the Production section. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:41, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:   1959 Pontiac Parisienne  