| Revision as of 13:40, 10 October 2006 editEyeMD (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users716 edits →[] announcement: shortcut← Previous edit | Revision as of 01:55, 13 October 2006 edit undoDroliver (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,412 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 99: | Line 99: | ||
| :Excellent! Look forward to more eye-related FA's -- ] 05:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC) | :Excellent! Look forward to more eye-related FA's -- ] 05:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC) | ||
| ::Shortcut ] redirects to the ] project. Phew! ] 13:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC) | ::Shortcut ] redirects to the ] project. Phew! ] 13:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC) | ||
| == request for peer review on breast implant rewrite == | |||
| I've done a fairly major rewrite in a "sandbox" on the entry on breast implants at http://en.wikipedia.org/Breast_implant/Revised which I would like some input into from the group. This is a pretty dry & evidence based presentation re. the history, use, & reviews of alleged links to systemic disease (with silicone implants). Breast implants is one of the medical topics that really bring the political activists out (like autism & vaccines, fibromyalgia, aesbestosis, etc..) and that has plagued this entry for months. In fact, the most prominent anti-implant activist in the world has been actively engaged in misrepresenting this wikipedia entry and continuing her political campaign thru it. There is a clear general consensus in the world medical literature on this and that is the where the discussion needs to start IMO. ] 01:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 01:55, 13 October 2006
 Archives |
|
/archive 1, /archive 2, /archive 3, /archive 4, /archive 5, /archive 6, /archive 7 |
You may also want to add and argue at the Very Important Pages and Where They're At. (this link redirects to Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Medicine)
This is the doctors' mess (or lounge, if you're from the USA). In order to streamline the project, this page contains sections where participants can raise ideas for general discussion and debriefing. To communicate recent work and seek collaboration or peer-review of pages, please see WikiProject Clinical medicine/Collaboration.
History of the present illness
New article History of the present illness -- could use review, expansion, and international perspectives. --Arcadian 01:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- I left notes on the article's talk page. NCurse work 05:49, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Request for comments regarding merge proposal
This is not really about clinical medicine, but I thought some here might be interested. For those familiar with Stephen Barrett, Quackwatch, and NCAHF, I received a message from another editor that there is a discussion to merge these articles together. -AED 04:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Request for assistance
Hi all. I've been working on balanitis xerotica obliterans for some time, and would appreciate any help in improving the article. I'd like to get it to featured article standards, if possible. Thanks in advance. Jakew 20:43, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Tuberculosis
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)
Participants
I've initiated a discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine#Participants that I would like to merge the participants list on Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Clinical medicine to Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Medicine/Participants. Please comment there. -AED 22:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
- Why do you want to merge the two lists? Personally, I don't think it should be done. Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Medicine and Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Clinical medicine are two different projects. Nephron T|C 20:47, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Infobox:Diseases
Suggestions for an explanatory header & footer in Diseases Infobox - see Template_talk:Infobox_Disease#Suggestion. Please comment there. Finavon 07:10, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
RFA
Hi,
for those interested, NCurse is up for adminship, voice your opinion here.
--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 20:44, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
- That's easy. Ge wordt bedankt, Steven. JFW | T@lk 21:06, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Notable patients
Steven Tyler from Aerosmith has hepatitis C. OK, so every Aerosmith fan with a computer has descended on the hepatitis C article to include this factoid. All very good and well, except it is another case of a celebrity having and therefore being notable on the disease page. I dispute that this meets notability criteria. Given that this comes up again and again, I have now asked for an WP:RFC on this. Come to Talk:Hepatitis C to discuss this. JFW | T@lk 21:06, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
- I've read Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (Medicine-related articles)#Usage and I'm still not clear on what the consensus opinion is how to deal with these factoids. It appears that some feel that a separate list article should be created. If I may, I'm going to post for reference a few threads that have touched on this subject:
- -AED 21:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Various articles for deletion
For those interested:
Phenobarbital for epilepsy
Calling all WikiDocs with experience or knowlege of prescribing practice or guidelines for the treatment of epilepsy. Would you please make your way over to the friendly discussion at Talk:Phenobarbital where your opinions would be welcome. The sticking point is the sentence:
- "In more affluent countries, it is no longer recommended as a first or second-line choice anticonvulsant."
Remember to bring your textbooks with you. Thank-you, Colin Harkness° 21:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Timeline of PUD and H. pylori
Hi all - I am, very much, a non-specialist. I have been doing research on the history of peptic ulcer disease and H. pylori for my dissertation. In doing so, I wrote a timeline of peptic ulcer disease and Helicobacter pylori, for myself, and also posted it here. To be sure I'm not royally messing anything up, could someone take a look at it and suggest improvements where necessary. Thank you very much! --best, kevin 20:20, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
- Very nice! -- Samir धर्म 05:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Shaken baby syndrome
I received a message from a physician new to Misplaced Pages asking me to take a look at Shaken baby syndrome. He had some concerns that his attempt to correct what he considered biased information was reverted. Given that this subject is beyond my area of expertise, I explained that I would forward his concerns here. Thanks! -AED 17:28, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Oversized stub templates
There's a couple of stub types that related to this project that seem to have become somewhat intractably oversized: {{med-stub}} and {{pharma-stub}}. If anyone has any ideas what addition sub-types it would be useful to create, or is minded to do some sorting to the various existing more specific tags, that'd be very welcome. Alai 02:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
www.collegehealth-e.com links
On two occasions now links to this website's health topics were inserted into multiple pages (see Contributions Collegehealth-e and Contributions 71.127.172.67). The multiplicity and absence of adding any content seem at first glance to be a case of spamming. The current editor User:71.127.172.67 has following a test-warning now engaged on Talk:Human papillomavirus stating:
- A well written article has been written that summarized treatment of HPV in "college-age" patients. This article is located at http://www.collegehealth-e.com/4/n02.htm any thoughts?
- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.127.172.67 (talk • contribs) 03:36, 9 October 2006
The articles are well written and, more importantly, well sourced/cited. The problem is more of whether content should be added to wikipedia articles or external links. Ideally no external link should be made if it fails to add greater information than the finished article should have once it reaches featured-article status. In this case I think the collegehealth-e.com is generally more detailed. Secondly wikipedia is not here to act as a link to other sources - we don't have one-to-one links to the equivalent article at Encyclopaedia Britannica or Encarta - yet I appreciate that collegehealth-e.com is not trying to be an encyclopaedia on all topics. I am more uncertain the more collegehealth-e.com articles I look at, perhaps this is a useful resource? But if so, should it be a standard external link resource provided by Template:Infobox Disease ? What do other editors think ? David Ruben 03:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I copy across the latest exchange from my talk page:
A review of the Misplaced Pages guidelines reveals: "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article. Ideally this content should be integrated into the Misplaced Pages article, then the link would remain as a reference, but in some cases this is not possible for copyright reasons or because the site has a level of detail which is inappropriate for the Misplaced Pages article." Links relevant to the college-age population are greater in detail for that demographic than the Misplaced Pages article calls for. In regard to your accusation of "spamming": your claims are speculated. You should review the external links contents before making accusations that a legitimate contributor is spamming. 71.127.172.67 02:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
- WP:SPAM includes wide-scale external link spamming, and WP:SPAM#How not to be a spammer point 2 states "If you have a source to contribute, first contribute some facts that you learned from that source, then cite the source. Don't simply direct readers to another site for the useful facts; add useful facts to the article, then cite the site where you found them. You're here to improve Misplaced Pages -- not just to funnel readers off Misplaced Pages and onto some other site, right?" and point 5 notes "Adding the same link to many articles. The first person who notices you doing this will go through all your recent contributions with an itchy trigger finger on the revert button. And that's not much fun."
- So despite having been that "itchy trigger finger", I do tend agree with your assessment of the depth of detail, so can I suggest you present your case at the Clinical Medicine projest at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Clinical medicine#www.collegehealth-e.com links) :-) David Ruben 03:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Ophthalmology announcement
Invitation to an excellent beginning: Announcing the birth of Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Ophthalmology!! Its up and running as part of the clinical 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 Misplaced Pages! Cheers!!! EyeMD 05:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- Excellent! Look forward to more eye-related FA's -- Samir धर्म 05:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- Shortcut WP:Eye redirects to the Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Ophthalmology project. Phew! EyeMD 13:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
request for peer review on breast implant rewrite
I've done a fairly major rewrite in a "sandbox" on the entry on breast implants at http://en.wikipedia.org/Breast_implant/Revised which I would like some input into from the group. This is a pretty dry & evidence based presentation re. the history, use, & reviews of alleged links to systemic disease (with silicone implants). Breast implants is one of the medical topics that really bring the political activists out (like autism & vaccines, fibromyalgia, aesbestosis, etc..) and that has plagued this entry for months. In fact, the most prominent anti-implant activist in the world has been actively engaged in misrepresenting this wikipedia entry and continuing her political campaign thru it. There is a clear general consensus in the world medical literature on this and that is the where the discussion needs to start IMO. Droliver 01:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)