Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 2

message: We would like to activate Wikiproject Anatomy. That's why I'd like to move Anatomical structures' list to Anatomy project. Comments? NCurse work 15:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I moved it, but my question is whether I should live the same list here or not? NCurse work 20:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I moved it to a new subpage on the Anatomy Project, by the way.  And I hope to devise a list of articles based on the Terminologia Anatomica, which will be a lot larger than the current list. --Mauvila 23:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anatomical structures' list 

message: Catamenial Pneumothorax. Cheers! - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I put the article into Medicine portal Things you can do box. Hope it will help. :) NCurse work 18:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article needs emergency surgery

message: I have plans with this project, I try to coordinate work because this project is not too active now. So:
* I made a stub-sorting page where I collected all medicine related stub categories, templates.
* I want to organize article lists in a subpage and communicate with other wikiprojects. For example, as a first step I moved anatomy related articles' list to Anatomy wikiproject. 
* I want to reorganize the main page of the project, showing tasks, other projects, subpages, etc...
If anybody has problems with these suggestions, please let me know. NCurse work 19:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New changes 

message: As you may know, Down syndrome is currently undergoing peer review.  One of the reviewers wondered why we were not using the format for clinical medicine for the article.  While researching that issue, I came here and was somewhat disappointed that there is virtually nothing in the project concerning Medical Genetics.  None of the numerical abnormalities is listed (other than the generic trisomy).  Neither is genetic counseling, in vitro fertilization, newborn screening, Cri du chat, etc.  There are some diseases with genetic origins (Tourette syndrome, cystic fibrosis, etc.) that are in the "Other diseases" box.
Unless there are objections, I will make a new box entitled "Medical Genetics", move the genetic diseases that are in "Other diseases" there, and fill it with the missing medical genetics articles.  Another possibility is that I create the box in the Biology Project under Genetics (with a subsection on Medical Genetics).
I am still struggling with the original issue of whether it is useful to have Down syndrome use the Clinical Medicine template, and if so, how best to do it.  If you have any suggestions, post them at Wikipedia:Peer review/Down syndrome/archive1 or Talk:Down syndrome.TedTalk/Contributions 19:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I plan to make a medical genetics wikiproject. I have 2 exams now, and then I start to work on it. Just give me one week. :) NCurse work 06:44, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, maybe it should consist of medical genetics, clinical genetics, genetics disorders. NCurse work 13:35, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I think medical genetics idea is a good one. When I return from vacation (currently in a cafe in Moscow!) I am planning on starting a portal for pediatrics. I've noticed that a lot of pediatric diseases (such as genetics) are not well represented here and I would love to set up a nice system! InvictaHOG 16:20, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Great! I hope it will become a good team. :) Have a nice time in Moscow! When I finish the first part of the basics of the project, I tell you. NCurse work 19:49, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you all please let me know when you're up and running, for the Tourette syndrome article?  Thanks !  Sandy 03:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course. Just a few days left. One exam to go... :) NCurse work 09:48, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Please list yourself as interested here. Then the work can begin... NCurse work 13:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you have comments on my work, don't hesitate. I'm interested in suggestions. NCurse work 18:38, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Medical Genetics 

message: This afd could do with some expert opinion from the wikiproject wikipedians Bwithh 01:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There was no consensus on deleting this page.  However, there is substantial disagreement between several editors and one editor about the usefulness of this page and what material to include as one contributor appeares to be speaking for a specific group (is a leader and spokesperson for that group: Advocates for Children in Therapy.  RalphLender 17:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: this issue seems to have been resolved for now. RalphLendertalk 17:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attachment Therapy afd needs expert insights

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 proposed a number of new sub-types here.  Comments and additional ideas are welcome.  (Offers to help with the heavy lifting even moreso!)  Alai 09:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Recently, I started to create these stub types. Any help is welcomed. :)
* Template:Immunology-stub
* Template:Oncology-stub
* Template:Genetic-disorder-stub
* Template:Medical-equipment-stub
* Template:Surgery-stub
NCurse work 13:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  med-stub split proposal 

message: NEW TOPIC (sorry, i don't know how to do this exactly)   Can anyone provide help on psychiatric/psychological topics where there is considerable disagreement and an ongoing wrangle about the meaning of evidence-based treatment? I refer to Attachment Therapy and to Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy. A look at the histories of these topics will show intense disagreement and periodic POV claims when contradiction of certain contributors occurs. Attachment Therapy (use caps for both words) is especially sensitive because associated practices have been connected with child deaths and injuries. Thank you-- we have a mediator who is doing his best, but this requires specialized knowledge. Jean Mercer 15:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There was no consensus on deleting this page. However, there is substantial disagreement between several editors and one editor about the usefulness of this page and what material to include as one contributor appeares to be speaking for a specific group (is a leader and spokesperson for that group: Advocates for Children in Therapy.  Jean Mercer engaged in behavior that was self-promoting (putting her own reference in the listing).  RalphLender 17:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The only disagreement about Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy is that created by Mercer...and some by her colleague and fellow leader of Advocates for Children in Therapy, Sarner, who was banned from the Barrett article and "soft-banned" from the Bowlby article.  We see the same conflict now being repeated on the attachment therapy page and maybe moving to other pages. Your intervention would be helpful.  RalphLender 17:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

text: this issue seems to have been respolved at this time.  Several experts chimed in and the conflict seems to have ended.  RalphLendertalk 17:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Attachment therapy / Dyadic developmental psychotherapy 

message: Is there any consensus concerning citations to The Lancet, pre-1990?  The original volume numbers were non-standard, and Lancet retroactively changed them in 1990.  Specifically, which of these should be used (or, should a different format be used)?
#
#
#
Thanks. TedTalk/Contributions 17:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The fuller the information on the citation source the better, so using the template:cite journal as you have idealy have full date and volume number. However forcing date links is, I feel unnecessary with date=21 September 1974 is not ideal - either define date correctly using ISO yyyy-mm-dd or split as year and month parameters (later can take day after the month). I would tend favour the current volume numbering, as that is what current readers will search for or, if they have access to the Lancet site, read directly, so
 Either:
>
Or 
>#
David Ruben  Talk  21:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

text: One of my concerns is that PubMed uses the old volume numbering system.  As of right now, some of the Lancet references in Down syndrome use the PubMed listing, and some use the ScienceDirect listing (new Lancet volumes).  As for wikilinks, I probably should have included that. TedTalk/Contributions 15:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Regarding wikilinks, I normally include them if the journal or reference book has a Wikipedia article (see my current project, Drug-eluting stent). — Knowledge Seeker দ 19:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lancet citations in Wikipedia 

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: Just to inform everyone in this WikiProject, a Barnstar has been proposed in this link right here. Consensus has not been reached, and would really appreciate it if you could give us your opinions.--Ed 13:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Barnstar 

message: Please be aware that there is a lot of activity on WP with regards to POV-pushing about quackery, pseudoscience, and the like. Wikipedia:WikiProject Pseudoscience is set up to watch over pseudoscience articles in general, but does not function as a clearing-house for disputes; these would be best taken here. Recent controversies include something about the dental amalgam controversy, and some (I believe baseless) accusations that orthomolecular medicine is pseudoscience. Please help keep WP balanced by keeping an eye out on these and other related topics that draw attention from the "fringe" and "out there" crowds. In the case of orthomolecular medicine, we seem to be dealing with an overzelous debunker who seems to be more quacky than the purported quacks he is fighting off. linas 15:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pseudoscience 

message: The article on Orthomolecular medicine is currently embroiled in a very verbose, very contentious edit war. A helping hand from rational clear thinkers is needed. Caution: I am finding that a band of kooks and cranks are now attacking me on my own talk page; so getting involved may be hazardous for your nerves.  linas 15:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have a look. NCurse  work 15:36, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

text: As one of the supposed "kooks and cranks" Linas is complaining about, let me state for the record that I would be very happy if knowledgeable medical personnel assist in editing [[orthomolecular medicine|], which until last week, had been entirely under the control of fervent alternative-medicine supporters.  The problem on Linas's talk page came when he burst onto the page and threatened a bunch of skeptics with "bans and blocks" because he disagreed with their edits citing mainstream medical sources.   I hope he and User:Fyslee patch up their differences, because the two should really be on the same side on most issues if Linas is really a rational skeptic. I certainly consider myself one, and I'm really befuddled why Linas is taking the topsy-turvy position that I'm on the side of kooks and cranks.  -- Cri du canard 23:22, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plea for help: [[Orthomolecular medicine]] 

message: The article Transfersome concerns an example of medical nanotechnology. It is currently up for deletion, and a rewrite for readability by any editors interested in medical research or nanotechnology would help. Plus comments at the deletion debate would be good as well. Carcharoth 16:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Any nanomedicine experts out there? 

message: One editor has claimed on Talk:Mifepristone that the Mifeprex product label found on the FDA site(PDF) is not copyrighted. I asked for further information and didn't get any, so I am coming here to see if anyone knows about the copyright status of these labels. It would make sense that if it was a government job, then the work would be in the public domain like most US government work. However, if Danco labs is the creator of the label, the copyright might be a stickier issue. Text from the label was "plagarized" into the article, and I changed the text to be cited quotations. Anyway, any information will help.--Andrew c 01:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you seen this page? Maybe you can ask the people at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Drugs?--Steven Fruitsmaak | Talk 15:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seeking help regarding copyright of product label 

message: Hi everybody! (...)
We at the Work via WikiProjects team for Wikipedia 1.0 would like you to identify the "key articles" from your project that should be included in a small CD release due to their importance, regardless of quality. We will use that information to assess which articles should be nominated for Version 0.5 and later versions.  Hopefully it will help you identify which articles are the most important for the project to work on. As well, please add to your Medicine WikiProject article table any articles of high quality. If you are interested in developing a worklist such as this one for your WikiProject, or having a bot generate a worklist automatically for you, please contact us.  Please feel free to post your suggestions right here on your projects talk page.  Thanks! --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 13:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've begun editing the list of key medicine articles for W1.0. Review is much welcomed. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 13:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll have a proper look. Please give me at least one day. :) NCurse  work 20:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Key articles for Wikipedia 1.0 

message: I'm having a bit of trouble telling if Globus hystericus and Globus Pharyngis are the same condition. The former is an article I created after hearing the term on Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? when I saw it had none and the latter is one I just recently found. I'm not into medicine or anything so if someone could straighten those out that'd be great.--SeizureDog 20:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it's the same.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 23:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusion on some articles 

message: Could somebody take a look at the article Intubation please? I removed the content under the headings "Side effects", "Recovery" and "Controversy", for various reasons (see Talk:Intubation). The original editor has reinstated these (albeit with very slightly altered wording), however I'm still not happy. Before I inadvertently start an edit war, I'd quite like others' opinions to make sure I'm not totally off-base.. --John24601 19:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments re: Intubation article 

message: Maybe we should consider changing to articles assessment. With a bot (like in medical genetics project), we could have a list of our assessed articles. I create all needed templates and categories if you agree... NCurse  work 09:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article assessment 

message: At WP:FAR, we are slowly but surely getting through the list of featured articles with no inline citations, and few inline citations (Wikipedia:Featured articles with citation problems).  Contributors here might be able to work on the medical articles before they come under review, since inline citations are now required for FA status.  
* Action potential
* Chagas disease
* Lesch-Nyhan syndrome  Sandy 19:24, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured articles lacking citations 

message: Hi. If you still have work to do tagging talk pages and assessing articles, my AWB plugin might be of interest to you.
The plugin has two main modes of operation:
*Tagging talk pages, great for high-speed tagging
*Assessments mode, for reviewing articles (pictured)
As of the current version, WikiProjects with simple "generic" templates are supported by the plugin without the need for any special programatic support by me. I've had a look at your project's template and you seem to qualify.
For more information see:
*About the plugin
*About support for "generic" WikiProject templates
*User guide
*About AWB (AutoWikiBrowser)
Hope that helps. If you have any questions or find any bugs please let me know on the plugin's talk page. --Kingboyk 14:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Tagging talk pages and assessing articles

message: Psychosis is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy 22:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Psychosis]]

message: I've put this article up for DYK, hoping that it will have the same fate as Robinow syndrome did... I'm inviting everyone to improve this article!--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 20:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Tree of Hippocrates]] is a DYK candidate 

message: We should focus on article assessment. We are part of WikiProjects participating in Wikipedia 1.0 assessments, and we have the Template:WPMED, so I'll start with the first tables of Article rating. Anyone else wants to join? :) NCurse  work 21:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assessment 

message: Tuberculosis is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy 15:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Tuberculosis is beginning to improve, with effort from User:TimVickers;  if others can lend a hand with the issues raised in the Featured article review, the featured status might be salvageable.  (Psychosis has now moved to FARC, and you can vote to Keep or Remove its featured status.) Sandy 03:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Tuberculosis]]

message: Hi,
for those interested, NCurse is up for adminship, voice your opinion here.
--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 20:41, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RFA 

message: I'm a part of the Psychology WikiProject, and I'm trying to decide whether or not psychiatry-related issues should be included in our project. Even though psychiatry is a medical field, it overlaps quite a bit with the field of psychology. Most psychiatry articles (such as those related to mental illnesses) could easily fall under both categories, but I'm not sure whether or not articles specifically about psychiatry (such as the psychiatry article itself) should also be covered by our project. I would like to see what members of this project think about it. —Cswrye 17:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that projects should be rigid or as well-defined. Obviously there's a great deal of overlap in real life with psychologists, psychiatrists, and general doctors all treating the same diseases - sometimes in much the same way. I certainly think that psychiatry is within the scope of WP:MED, though there's not really an active psychiatrist/psychologist that I can think of working under the project. I think that, as long some members of Wikiproject Psychology feels compelled to address some psychiatric articles (even the article psychiatry itself), then by all means they should be supported by the project. Also, we should cross-post any articles which we feel might be of interest to each group (such as the schizophrenia and psychosis articles which are featured but under review). InvictaHOG 18:33, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not a project member (because I'm a layperson), but the Psychology Project has been so uninvolved in some of the overlapping articles as to be invisible.  It would be great if they would help out more, and help develop and maintain article to the guidelines at WP:MEDMOS.  Sandy 19:15, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that there can be overlap among projects, so psychiatry articles can legitimately fall under both WikiProjects. Unless anyone objects, I'll go ahead and include them in the list of psychology articles. By including them in the project, maybe we can get more of the psychology people involved in them. —Cswrye 21:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What/where is this list of psychology articles?  Sandy 21:54, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can find it at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Psychology articles by quality. —Cswrye 02:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks:  that's a troubled list.  Four of the top five don't meet current FA standards, and AS recently barely squeaked by FARC.  Those articles really could benefit from some sustained attention. Sandy 06:00, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overlap with Psychology WikiProject 

message: Invitation to an excellent beginning: Announcing the birth of Wikipedia:WikiProject Ophthalmology!! Its up and running as part of the medicine project! I hereby invite everybody interested in Vision and Eye care to contribute to the long awaited wikiproject on Ophthalmology. Many thanks to AED for getting this project page working and sorting out the details. For a start, we need a shortcut to point to this page. Here's a readymade  manual of style for starting Ophthalmology articles. For the past 4 months, I have been working to add articles, relevant info and clinical images to the current sections of Ophthalmology - am currently looking to get some more input and requests, so that we can get cracking - to get some really good articles, raise them to featured status and turn the project Ophthalmology into a resource which is one of the best in whole of Wikipedia! Cheers!!! EyeMD 05:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Congratulations.  I'm wondering why your layout doesn't follow WP:LAYOUT and WP:MEDMOS?  You have:
*References
*Footnotes
*See also
*External links
Rather than:
*See also
*Footnotes
*References
*Further reading
*External links
Sandy 12:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done as suggested, thanks. EyeMD 07:45, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Ophthalmology]] announcement 

message: The Medical genetics project used our article rating system. There, I asked a bot to generate a list for us (assessment project) and now we have an automaticaly updated list, and every unassessed articles are tagged with our templates. I suggest the same here. I make every step required just I need some support votes. :) NCurse  work 12:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've requested a bot help on the assessment work. I'll create a subpage for our old-fashioned article rating and THE article rating page will consist of this list and this statistics. NCurse  work 06:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I would gladly be of help, but please explain in some more detail what needs to be done.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 14:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

text: How to help? Just remove categories that are covered by other medicine-related projects. NCurse  work 14:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And how do we know that? Some WP are very inactive...--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 15:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In my opinion, we should start with the sure categories. Don't care about the risky ones now, because Betacommand will help us anytime we need. So after the sure ones, we can ask him to finish up with the rest. So two options left: 
# removing the cats that are not our part
# creating a list for the sure ones
NCurse  work 15:24, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article rating 

message: I'm not sure this is precisely the right place, but if there's anyone up on their psychoactive pharmaceuticals (I can't even say that three times fast), could they possibly have a look at User:Alai/Psychoactives, and confirm (or deny) if these all appropriate to be restubbed from  to .  All are categorised as hypnotics, sedatives, opioids, stimulants, anxiolytics, antidepressants, antipsychotics, psychoactive drugs, alkyl nitrites, mu-opioid agonists, semisynthetic opioids, psychedelics, dissociatives, deliriants, or mood stabilizers (i.e., immediate subcategories of .  Alai 05:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pharmaceuticals and psychoactives 

message: I'd like to nominate the melanoma article in FAC. What do you think? I've added a new genetics section. It could be improved. I'd like to get some feedback. Thank you in advance. NCurse  work 17:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been busy with houseguests:  I will look at it as soon as I get a free moment.  Sandy 21:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I had a look.  I strongly believe the layout at WP:MEDMOS is the best for an encyclopedia, and that it should be followed.  Too many Fair Use images.  External links needs to be pruned.  Can PMIDs or URLs be provided for all references/notes?  There are still rather broad patches of text that aren't referenced.  68.199.231.122 23:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Melanome FAC? 

message: Dear colleagues! 
Would you please be so kind to have a look at this Article. A german Doktor (Dr. Risse) removed nearly the complete article by contributions of his german webside wich is an advertisment for his company. Please regard the links, wich are placed by a german IP . See also the discussion in de:Kieferorthopädie. 
Sincerely Yours -- Andreas Werle 17:35, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Orthodontics]] 

message: I've been involved in a very tedious debate at Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy. It makes claims concerning therapeutic efficacy and evidential basis using a very limited number of credible sources. The vast majority of the references are self-published books,  books published in publishing farms, or totally unrelated works. Moreover, members from the APSAC task-force on Attachment Therapy have very recently cast strong doubt on such assertions in Child Maltreatment. http://cmx.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/11/4/381. They even called for a noted proponent of the therapy to remove such claims from his website. The APSAC is a highly credible association as far as I can tell. 
Furthermore, claims such as these can be found spread across wikipedia in articles such as Child abuse. This form of therapy has about two peer-reviewed studies to its name (same researcher) and is practiced at about one clinic (associated to the researcher who published the studies). It is the same group of editors that have spread these assertions throughout the psychotherapy related articles. 
This is way out of my expertise and I was hoping that someone with more knowledge than I have could address these things. Thanks! shotwell 19:23, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy]] 

message: Page now nominated as a FAC. Comments and suggestions are welcome on the review page. Thank you. TimVickers 00:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So sorry not to have commented on time: I've been traveling.  I'll catch up on it when I can.  Sandy (Talk) 16:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Influenza]] 

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 00:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project directory 

message: I posed several questions at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Medicine-related articles).  Sandy (Talk) 16:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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) 21:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: MEDMOS proposal

message: In right auricular appendix, Grey's anatomy states "It projects from the upper and front part of the sinus forward and toward the left side, overlapping the root of the aorta." What does the term "sinus" refer to here? The coronary sinus, the sinus node, or general the interior of the right atrium? Thanks, AxelBoldt 03:10, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's the third one, the Sinus venosus.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 19:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, that seems right. AxelBoldt 02:05, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sinus and right auricula 

message: New stub category for symptoms needs support here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Proposals/2006/October#Cat:Symptom.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 19:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Symptom stub 

message: Hello, I've just put my lung transplantation article online. I still need to learn how to properly cite references, and I intend to do that in the future. In the meantime, I would appreciate some expert contributions to it. Another thing: is there some sort of template to be placed on its talk page? It's taken me quite some time to write this article (and the related lung allocation score and ventilation/perfusion scan articles), and I hope that it shows! Thanks for any feedback. --Kyoko 19:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I've just put my [[lung transplantation]] article online 

message: Hi. I have no specific competence in medicine but I'm working on the backlog of uncategorized articles and I happened to notice that :Category:Diseases is a bit of a mess. I think it would be a very worthwhile task for this project to create a good system of subcategories and clean all of this up. For instance, I wanted to categorize Myelophthisis. Hmmm... So where does this go? The best I could do is the top level category of diseases. If you see a finer cat for this one, please add it of course, but generally speaking I think it would be worthwhile to shoot for a "no disease left-behind" objective: the disease category would simply be the parent of finer categories and any article in it would just be waiting for a finer classification, like :Category:Writers, :Category:Actors or :Category:Lists. Pascal.Tesson 21:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categorization project 

message: I've created a new box for the announcements (Collaboration Dashboard). Comments are welcome. NCurse  work 22:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New announce box 

message: Cross posted to WP:RS, WP:OR and Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine. 
There is a dispute going on at Talk:Depo Provera#Disadvantages and side effects WP:NOR violations. One user found primary sources, reliable journal articles, that said depo provera may do certain negative things. Another user is disputing this, citing original research. The argument, I guess, is that the 1st user is interpreting the source, and drawing conclusions not published anywhere else. The studies only dealt with rats (not humans), and there is nothing in the patient drug information (or any other way to verify the claims outside of the studies in question). The logic goes that making a connection that a study dealing with rats may effect the use of this drug in humans as a contraception is original research.  Furthermore, it may be pushing a POV that this drug is unsafe by mentioning these studies (that are not verified outside of the individual study, and not mentioned in patient drug information). I feel like I am repeating myself, sorry. The counter argument is that a) citing primary sources is a good thing b) the claims are cited and verifiable and reliable, fulfilling almost every wikipedia criteria for inclusion. So I guess there are two issues. Is using the information in this  manner original research? And is it giving undue weight to a minority view by citing obscure studies like this? Sorry if I am missing anything or misrepresenting a side. Please direct comments to Talk:Depo Provera#Disadvantages and side effects WP:NOR violations. Thanks!--Andrew c 03:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Policy dispute regarding primary sources and OR (requested comment) 

message: I've reorganized the whole page and changed to the assessment work. Any comment is welcome. And please help assessing article, because there are 1000 unassessed at the moment. I asked Betacommand to tag these categories. NCurse  work 08:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reorganizing the article rating page