Talk:Referred itch

message: Why does the article just randomly start using the term "mitempfindung" in place of the one in the title of the article, without explaining what "mitempfindung" means or where it comes from? I mean yeah, you can find it waaaaay down there in the History section, but why should you need to read that to understand what's being said in the introductory paragraphs of the article? 24.183.229.59 (talk) 04:19, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: What the heck

message: I edited the second sentence, added by someone else, to make it grammatical; but is there any evidence for its truth?  In perusing the two linked sources, I didn't see any support for the sentence.
The sentence reads:
"Referred itch" may also refer to the phenomenon in which one feels an itch on one part of the body, but upon attempting to scratch it comes to experience it in a different location, although the scratch on the original part of the body feels like it is successfully targeting the itch.
- SI, Feb. 21, 2007
: Even in its edited form I don't think the sentence adds anything to the article, and should be removed. Alf Boggis 10:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am one of the original writers of this page. Edits and comments are very welcome as this page in a rough form. Throughout the next 3 weeks it will go through major changes in hopes to attain good article status. Regarding this sentence, I agree it seems unnecessary. Gleasoda (talk) 06:41, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: I

message: I have made some general comments for the whole class at User talk:NeuroJoe/BI481 Spring 2011. Please look at them since some are applyable to this article. See some examples below:
*The Wikipedia manual of style for medicine articles (See WP:MEDMOS) has a proposal of organization into sections for different kind of articles (i.e: recommended sections for an article on a disease, or in an anatomy article, etc.). Following such proposals will make articles consistent with other wikipedia articles, and will also help you to organize them without forgetting important data. Being this article a syndrome it should follow sections for diseases.
*In this sense some changes should be: moving history to the end of the article, changing prevalence title to epidemiology, combining neurobiology and mechanisms into a pathophisiology section, eliminating the concussions section...
*A "conclussion" section is great for an essay, but not really suitable for an encyclopedia. It would better be integrated in article or eliminated if present.
*There are very few links in the article
*Inline citations in wikipedia go after and not before the full stop of the sentence, there is no space between the full stop and the ref, and after the ref goes a space before the next sentence. A correct example would be "Hello world, I feel great today.[1]  Today is sunny."-
*have you heard of Diberri's template? It is a tool that makes formatting of references in wikipedia really easy (and nicer and more error-free than hand formatting). You search for an article in pubmed (although it also works with isbn numbers and other kind of data), copy the pubmed id, paste it into the tool, check the "add ref tag" and copy and paste the result to the article. For example the pmid for the article "Eye movements in a familial vestibulocerebellar disorder" is 8355816  (See ). I have copied the number into the diberris tool, ticked the add ref tag box, and pasted the result into the vestibulocerebellar syndrome as an example. While not mandatory it might be a good idea than you used this themplate.
*Citing several times the same reference: When the same reference is cited several times it should appear only once in the references section. See an example on how to do it: before, difference, after. (In this case I only fixed one as an example).
More to come as I have time.--Garrondo (talk) 07:03, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the advice Garrondo! You are right, we still have to go back and link a lot of terms. Also, we will take your advice on getting rid of the conclusion paragraph. The three of us original authors are first timers at this, so any tips / criticisms are welcome. We are hoping to attain the good article status, so we really appreciate the time you are putting in! You seem like a Wiki veteran, so this is all very helpful! Gleasoda (talk) 06:36, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Fast comments

message: Hey guys, I thought the article included a lot of pertinent information, but I would definitely recommend that it be adjusted so that the page flows better. Overall, Wikipedia tries to be written in a style so that the average user can more or less understand the topic. The introduction does a good job of conveying some of the basic information, but I think the body gets rather complex and does not give enough background to understand the technical information. I would recommend minimizing the amount of scientific jargon if possible, as well as briefly explaining anything that is brought up. You already did this in a few areas using parenthesis, which worked great in those instances. Other than that, a few of the more obscure topics still need links to their respective pages, if possible. Images would be great too, but it's likely you weren't unable to find any. When I was writing the article for my group I looked at some of the "good page" samples on Wikipedia for other biology articles to mimic their balance of detail and general information- you guys may find this helpful also. Another thing is the use of capitalization- I'm pretty sure you don't want to be capitalizing "Mitempfindung" as was done in a few of the sections (namely the introduction). Also, another Wikipedia editor mentioned to me that "conclusion" paragraphs are not often used, so I would consider whether or not you want to keep the one at the bottom of your page. Overall though, the page seemed well researched and adequately sourced, so I would say you guys did a good job covering all the aspects of the topic. At this point it's mostly just issues of writing style more than anything.
Pathyland (talk) 15:46, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Pathyland, thank you for taking the time to review the article and making insightful comments and criticism. The authors for the revision of the referred itch article are very new to editing in Wikipedia, and there were many mistakes to be caught. The article was read through by the group again and hopefully our new edits give the article more flow and make it appear less mechanical and unapproachable with the scientific jargon. As for images, while it would definitely be a great addition to the article, there did not seem to be relevant pictures/diagrams that would aid in a reader's understanding of what mitempfindung is. We discussed as a group that images of people itching some part of the body was not conducive to creating a well-written and well-presented article. A lot of the grammar and capitalization mistakes were hopefully caught and corrected, thank you for pointing the error out to us. As a group member has mentioned above, the conclusion section was removed, as it did seem to serve no purpose. Thank you again and as always the authors welcome any and all comments. Micahsy (talk) 03:54, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Sean J. Dikdan, thank you for taking the time to look through the article and offer helpful suggestions. We have gotten many comments on the reference page, and I am happy to say that the authors have adjusted the reference page to make it appear more organized and even added some more secondary sources. Unfortunately, many of our references (especially the primary sources) were found through online databases that our institution is subscribed to, so we can't easily link readers to the references. The epidemiology section remained on top of the causes section because it mostly involved prevalence and briefly explained the variability among those affected. The later sections got more in depth with mechanisms and specific causes, so it seemed right to place the section right below the introduction. Another user has suggested adding an image, and as a group, we all agree on that point. However, we found no images that we deemed relevant or would aid readers and understanding the phenomena any better. As suggested, more links to other Wikipedia pages were added, and missed grammatical and spelling errors were corrected. Thank you again, and hopefully our edits have helped improve the article. Micahsy (talk) 03:54, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

text: JCal2011, thank you for the comments and very helpful suggestions. The grammar mistakes and linking to other Wikipedia pages were mentioned before and were corrected as soon as possible. Hopefully, the authors have caught all of them and the flow of the article has greatly improved. For the linking error with "pruritoceptic", apparently a Wikipedia page for the subject does not exist, so the link was removed. Also, your suggestions for how to cite references were a great help, and we used them so thank you very much for guiding us in the right direction. We acknowledge that most of our references were primary sources, and we have searched for some secondary sources and added a few. The mechanism on the peripheral nerve and its branches was elaborated on. It was really a writing mistake on my part; I had separated the sentence with the one about embryology (the two were linked). The phrase "Amazonian medine sangre de grado" was removed, as after more research it seemed to give no further understanding or relevance to the topic. Thank you again, and hopefully the edits have improved the page. Micahsy (talk) 04:23, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

text: Thank you for the suggestions and comments! The errors that were pointed out were fixed and as stated before by other users, much of the hard scientific terms were further explained or more links to separate Wikipedia pages were added. Micahsy (talk) 04:23, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

text: Stempera, thank you for reading through the article and providing constructive criticism and useful insights. A lot of the organization and formatting problems have been addressed and the mechanisms section was expanded or elaborated on so hopefully the information comes out clearer for the reader. I did remove most of the mentions of researchers in the article, but I did keep one: the scientist who was the first to record or observe the phenomenon. Thank you! Micahsy (talk) 04:23, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

text: Bazoberr, thank you for the comments and suggestions. All capitalization and grammar errors were caught and corrected and the article was read through to improve the flow of the article. And thank you for pointing out the "theory" contradiction under mechanisms, I followed your suggestion and changed the term to hypotheses. For the link between synesthesia and referred itch, however, there was only one published article on the similarities, so further expansion was not possible. Thank you again, you have helped my group improve on the article! Micahsy (talk) 04:23, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: BI481 Peer Review

message: Hi guys, nice job with the article, it's in much better shape than before. A few points:
*The referred itch diagram you have included doesn't have the correct permission attributes. It's an image, not software. You can't use it unless you get explicit permission from the British Medical Journal. If you don't already have that permission and indicate it properly, it will be deleted soon.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by NeuroJoe (talk • contribs) 23:47, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: End of Boston College BI481 Project

message: Either I'm reading this incorrectly, or there appears to be duplicate content in the "Mechanisms" section. Specifically, The 6th paragraph appears to be an unrevised copy of the 2nd paragraph. Mmseng (talk) 04:41, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Duplicate content

message: I have been trying to incorporate new research regarding the scientific basis of acupuncture into relevant pages. One of the users that has been opposing me is @User:2over0. In this edit, removed accurate information that improves the article. This is clearly unacceptable and should not be tolerated.  - Technophant (talk) 04:02, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: There are problems with using primary/poor sources. QuackGuru (talk) 05:02, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: "Do acupuncture meridians exist?" is a primary source (research paper), "Referred itch and meridians" is a secondary source (anaylysis/synthesis) without research data and summary conclusions. Both are reliable and published in reputable publications. @User:QuackGuru, could you explain what you mean by "poor"? - Technophant (talk) 05:20, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dispute from acupuncture spilling out to this article 

message: I apologize if my revert resulted in extra work in cleaning up this article and appreciate the hard work of other editors to improve this article. - - MrBill3 (talk) 14:57, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apologies if revert created more work 

message: Who is Kowalewsky? This person has been referred to since the article was created, but with no explanation of who he is. The link goes to the page for the surname, not the person. 184.67.135.194 (talk) 19:10, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  History: "Kowalewsky"