Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Preclinical Medicine/Archive 1

message: From the main page:
Lots of random categories. The only subcategory of upper limb anatomy is...fingers. Articles are usually placed in just the anatomy category, and not more specific ones such as upper limb etc. I suggest that each article belongs in the anatomy category, then the regional anatomy category, and then the specific category, so for example, the thenar muscles in the hand, for example will belong in Category:anatomy, category: upper limb anatomy and then category:hand.
I suggest that individual articles on anatomy be categorized into two categories each - one for the specific region and another for the relevant organ system. For example, the thenar muscles in the hand would come under category:Hand and category:Muscular system or something like that. We do not need the thenar muscles to be in *all* the following categories of category:anatomy,upper limb, hand, muscular system. As :Category:Hand is already a subcategory of :Category:Upper limb anatomy which is a subcategory of :Category:Anatomy, it's unnecessary for thenar muscles to be listed individually in category:Anatomy. It just leads to a ridiculous number of articles in the parent category making it less useful. In fact, I encourage you to go through :Category:Anatomy and recategorize articles there to more relevant subcategories. Alex.tan 19:45, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
:good point. However, a lot of the articles follow a similar pattern, and even more don't and follow some other pattern. I would be happy to go along with your idea. What does everyone think? PhatRita 23:16, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: btw, in something like category: Head and neck, amongst others, there are several sub categories of subcategories. For example, Cent. Nerv. System is a subcat of head and neck, and cerebellum is a sub cat of CNS. What would people think of a limit for categories? PhatRita 11:51, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categories for anatomy 

message: Does anyone here ever hang out in IRC, in #wikipedia or elsewhere? I'd love to bounce some ideas off of people in real time. Maybe we could decide on something to tackle together. I'm having a hard time choosing exactly what to work on atm. Mr.Bip
:Don't really use IRC - too time consuming, esp at med school. I don't know if anyone else uses IRC around here. How about you starting an "ideas factory" section or similar on the main page?  PhatRita 14:12, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree that it would be useful to have real-time chat to discuss ideas with people, but personally I don't use IRC. Plus it has its own associated pitfalls - being here in Australia I doubt I'd be able to organise a time to speak to many which is convenient to both of us. An "ideas factory" sounds promising, what is it? -- Serephine / talk - 01:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: IRC, collaboration

message: hey all, I'm sorry I have not been updating stuff on the preclinical page. I have been away for the better part of the end of summer and now I have just got back to university. I will aim to get back into adding new stuff but am currently being plunged into the deep end with non stop pharm, micro and path lectures and practicals. Please would someone have a look at the head article and maybe help complete it with me - I have started the anatomy section but it is possible to go very deep into the subject. Also please feel free to carry on adding to the project, eg submit something for peer reviewing etc. PhatRita 10:27, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  lull of material 

message: The topic of "what makes blood enter the right atrium" came up at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science#Heart, and I think points out a deficiency in our articles on heart. blood circulation, and atrium. Perhaps someone with a better understanding and more recent exposure to physiology would like to have a go at expanding those articles? - Nunh-huh 19:51, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  circulatory physiology 

message: There's a AfD posted for George Yi.  The article looks like a hoax. Someone here may wish to comment on it. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Yi -- Ian ≡ talk 00:26, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article for deletion 

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. As I think I mentioned before at the Doctors' Mess, I have begun work to try to organize this at Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine. I don't know the best place for this, but since I'd like it 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 and inspiration come from Wikipedia:WikiProject Anti-war#List of pages covered by the projectand Wikipedia:WikiProject_Chemicals/Organization. Wikipedia:WikiProject Clinical medicine/top priority and Wikipedia:WikiProject Clinical medicine/categorizations will be useful in providing inspiration. I welcome any comments, suggestions, or assistance at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:37, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine]] 

message: It's a little odd that we have a whole WikiProject on Preclinical Medicine, but the encyclopedia itself doesn't seem to explain what that means.  Perhaps pre-clinical medicine and preclinical medicine could redirect to medicine, where discussion could be added to the "branches" section? -- Beland 10:38, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I myself was a little put off by this project as I'd never heard the term before. I think my degree is similar in that I study sciences applicable to the human body, such as biochemistry and anatomy - but it's called biomedical science. Perhaps this is just more multiple terminology. I think however, with the project on Wikipedia being called "Pre-Clinical Medicine" the encyclopaedia should know a little about it! Go right ahead Beland -- Serephine / talk - 01:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pre-clinical Medicine 

message: I just wrote metolazone. I'd appreciate if editors would take a look at it, leaving suggestions for improvement or revising it as they see fit. Thanks! — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:43, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Metolazone]]: peer review/feedback requested 

message: The article needs a lot of work- it's very fragmented (applied kinesiology and diagnostic kinesiology, which I'm assuming is something like Orthopedic assessment, none of which seem to have enough material or sources)... but where does it fit in? Here in my college Kinesiology is coded as Anatomy 5, so can we add it to Anatomy? --Eilu 14:08, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about [[Kinesiology]]? 

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 20:15, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Articles for the Wikipedia 1.0 project

message: The present organization of categories is especially confusing with respect to the relationship between humans and other animals. :Category:Anatomy currently says "Anatomy is the study of the structure and organization of the human body", which contradicts the description at Anatomy; and then, why are :Category:Human anatomy and :Category:Animal anatomy subcategories? The scope of the latter is itself unclear and causes confusion, as evidenced at Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance)#Veterinary Stubs. Help! Melchoir 23:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for pointing this out, I'll keep a lookout for this discrepancy when editing. I think many people forget about other animals when writing preclinical articles as the general body of information in universities and textbooks tend to focus on humans. This idea is especially relevant to the current discussion on human embryology, we'd love your 2 cents over at Talk:Human_embryogenesis -- Serephine / talk - 02:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Animal/human anatomy categories 

message: I noticed when adding in information for some articles (serous membrane) a reference to the embryological origin of these stuctures would be useful. Adding these in I noticed many of my Wikilinks went nowhere, terms like trilaminar embryo didn't exist on Wikipedia! I poddled along and created a stub for this particular entry but I see a greater need for a general overview of human embryogenesis. Those interested should look over at the discussion page Talk:Human_embryogenesis -- Serephine / talk - 09:03, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Embryology, again 

message: Would anyone object if I changed the page layout to reflect the simpler layout of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Viruses page? The existing navigation bar would be incorporated into it, not replaced -- Serephine ♠ talk - 10:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds sensible to me... Nmg20 18:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Update complete! -- Serephine ♠ talk - 07:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New page layout 

message: Hi guys, when I get time to do so, I will do some expansion of CpG island. This jumped out at me because I need clarification about it the other day so I thought i may as well improve my studies and wikipedia at the same time. Viridae 07:42, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: CpG island

message: I started this project here. Please leave comments, help to create correct guidelines. Thanks. NCurse work 16:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Medical Genetics WikiProject 

message: I've been working pretty extensively on these three (related) articles. I don't know if it's really a preclinical issue, but any thoughts / further work / checks to revert vandalism / etc would be good. Nmg20 11:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the POV template is inevitable in articles where people will work themselves into a lather about the key issue - in this case, the passive smoking "debate"... ;-) Anyway - I'd be delighted to work on it with you. Nmg20 14:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In days, I'll let you know how much I could work on it. :) NCurse work 15:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Lung Cancer]], [[Passive Smoking]], [[Smoking Ban]] 

message: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Medicine-related articles): I've proposed this as a Manual of Style guideline to writing medical articles, please comment on that talk page!--Steven Fruitsmaak | Talk 12:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfQ guideline: Manual of Style (Medicine-related articles) 

message: ...is a featured article candidate, if you wish you can comment here.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 13:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wondered whether I should list it in Medicine WikiProject's news box or not... NCurse  work 19:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure why not.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 23:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Enzyme]]... 

message: Check out the Wikiversity School of Medicine!--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 23:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikiversity School of Medicine 

message: I've initiated a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Participants that I would like to merge the participants list on Wikipedia:WikiProject Preclinical Medicine/Participants to Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Participants. Please comment there. -AED 22:35, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Participants

message: Hi,
for those interested, NCurse is up for adminship, voice your opinion here.
--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 20:43, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RFA 

message: Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory.  This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you.  B2T2 00:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project directory 

message: I tripped over the article titled Fascia adherens while doing some Wikihousekeeping.  It needs SERIOUS work.  There are 3 problems I see with it:
#It is a one sentance article.  I stubified it, but it has so little information, it is hard to categorize beyond "anatomy"
#Any non-expert would find the article esoteric and useless.  Expansion may help.
#The particular doodly-bit described in the article seems, from my own limited knowledge of anatomy, a non notable doodly-bit.  It may be better served if the article were merged with a larger subject, but the article in question has so little information, I could not even begin to find an article to merge it to.
Just wanted to give you guys a heads-up... --Jayron32 04:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expand or merge article [[Fascia adherens]] 

message: The Manual of Style (Medicine-related articles) is entering a critical stage: I'm informing people to visit the page, make corrections where possible, and then state there support or disagreements on the talk page, so we can see if there is consensus to turn this proposed guideline into a consensus-supported guideline.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 21:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:MEDMOS]] needs YOU! 

message: Hi there. I'd value any input on this article. Thank you. TimVickers 03:07, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Article is now a FAC, its candidacy page is here TimVickers 17:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Peer review/Bacteria/archive1|Peer review of bacteria]]

message: Beginning cross-post.
:See Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team#Stablepedia. If you wish to comment, please comment there. ★TWO YEARS OF MESSEDROCKER★ 03:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stablepedia 

message: Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention.  Badbilltucker 18:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia Day Awards 

message: Gray's is awful.  Please find better anatomy images. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.205.92.132 (talk • contribs) 
:If you have a better idea, don't hesitate to tell us! NCurse  work 09:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Better anatomy images 

message: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (medicine-related articles) is a proposed guideline discussed and developed over recent months.  Please visit the talk page to indicate whether you support or oppose Manual of Style (medicine-related articles) becoming a guideline.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:MEDMOS]] 

message: As this WikiProject has been inactive for over one year, Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine, the parent of Preclinical Medicine, would like to absorb this project.  Most of the intended scope, stated at Wikipedia:WikiProject Preclinical Medicine#Scope, is already covered by other projects:
* Anatomy → Anatomy, Biology, & Medicine
* Physiology → Biology & Medicine
* Cellular and molecular → Biology, Cell Signaling, Chemistry, Medical genetics, Medicine, Metabolic Pathways, Microbiology, & Molecular and Cellular Biology
There are only 9 articles tagged with the template () and 6 more articles tagged with the expansion template ().  WikiProject Medicine will assume oversight of these articles.  If anyone has any comments, please raise them here or at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#WikiProject Preclinical Medicine.  --Scott Alter 03:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Given the lack of activity on this page, the merge is really a no-brainer. Go for it, Scott. JFW | T@lk 06:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. Nmg20 (talk) 15:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger with WikiProject Medicine