Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:55, 30 November 2017

• WT:MED

Welcome to the WikiProject Medicine talk page. If you have comments or believe something can be improved, feel free to post. Also feel free to introduce yourself if you plan on becoming an active editor!

We do not provide medical advice; please see a health professional.

• Unsure about something? Make sure to look at our style and source guidelines.
• Please don't shout, remain civil, be respectful to all, and assume good faith.
• Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
• Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~).
• Threads older than 10 days are automatically archived.
• Please see Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Medicine/Newsletter/Mailing_list

Potential new articles log

Hello again. This post contains multiple questions so I have numbered them.

1. Does anyone currently use these: User:AlexNewArtBot#Biology_and_medicine (specifically, User:AlexNewArtBot/MedicineSearchResult or User:InceptionBot/NewPageSearch/Medicine/log which are filled using articles matching the regexp patterns at User:AlexNewArtBot/Medicine?
2. Has a better tool replaced it? I'm wondering because the only WikiProject Medicine page I saw linking to it (other than archives) (User:AlexNewArtBot/MedicineSearchResult) appears to be Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Medicine/Tasks (which itself, or part of it is reported to be transcluded at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Medicine/Tools, which is what the main project's menu links to (but I still failed to see the link in the latter, interestingly)).
3. If this is still considered useful, perhaps links to these could be made more prominent (or the results transcluded on a more prominent page)?
4. I'm wondering if the project would also be interested in tracking alternative medicine using this tool. Various reports I have made here were as a result of pages reported by the WikiProject Skepticism filters which includes some alternate medicine terms (User:AlexNewArtBot/Skepticism). While that project also deals with other fringe topics and pseudoscience, it would be possible to create a rules list specific and specialized to finding new articles related to alternate medicine (alternatively, it would be possible to add related terms to the existing main medicine rules). Of course, this also depends on if the project is interested in tracking new alternative medicine article creations.

Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 09:04, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

tracking alternative medicine using this tool... might be useful, though you'd need more opinions--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:49, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I have used those lists in the past, but not for more than a year. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:11, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I use it to see if the bot catches my new article creations and to see the feed of some of the weirdest medical articles. Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 17:13, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

List of genetic disorders

This list is long and unwieldy. There must be a better way to divide it than by listing everything alphabetically. Any suggestions? Natureium (talk) 18:13, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Ditch it entirely. Carl Fredrik 18:23, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

It is somehow missing the most important genetic disorder: life. Looie496 (talk) 18:29, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

best to keep Full list and mark those conditions on it that are 'most common'(thereby eliminating the need for the smaller list first)...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:46, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Could list just the main ones, and than have separate a b c etc lists for the full list. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:41, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't mind the a,b,c,d lists idea, but would you list them by gene names, each name (since most have multiple names), or some other scheme? I thought at first the it's a pointless list and just the most common should be kept, but I have no idea how most common should be defined. I also considered dividing the list by chromosome, but many are polygenic. Natureium (talk) 20:29, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

That's not nearly as long as I expected. I think it's fine.

If you want, you can add anchors inside the table, and put {{Compact TOC}} at the top of the full list. Also: I strongly recommend that you use the visual editor when you're working on tables. (You'll also like its automatic citation tool: just paste in a PMID and get your citation back.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:18, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

And I strongly recommend that you don't use the visual editor when creating tables until such time as the visual editor is upgraded to comply with MOS:DTT by marking up row headers and adding scopes for column and row headers. We're never going to make any progress in making tables accessible for visitors using assistive technology while it's considered okay to ignore their accessibility needs. --RexxS (talk) 17:07, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

RexxS is right. Of course, no reader on medical topics would ever need assistive devices. Oh, wait... LeadSongDog come howl! 17:26, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

If we wanted to make progress on that, then presumably the place to start is at the top of Help:Table. VisualEditor, WikiEditor, and RefToolbar all produce the same basic wikitext that you'll find in that help page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:25, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

The very top of Help:Table says "For accessibility, see Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Accessibility/Data tables tutorial." VisualEditor does not produce the "same basic wikitext" that that link calls for. It's just the usual "let's ignore everything that doesn't affect us directly" attitude that everybody working to improve accessibility is so used to seeing. Sadly. --RexxS (talk) 21:46, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

It's not extremely long now, but it's nowhere near complete. I started to add more, but decided to wait until a decision was made so as to not make division of the table harder. Natureium (talk) 17:30, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

complete--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:41, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

FYI, those are only rare diseases. Natureium (talk) 17:45, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Genetic Home Reference lists about 1,200 We can copy their list as it is PD as it is a US gov site. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:47, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

I hate to say it, but it may not be that simple. Some Terms and Conditions apply that might be interpreted as requiring derivative works such as WP to carry a non-commercial license. Like many USGov sites, it is not always obvious which content items are PD-USGov and which are not. LeadSongDog come howl! 19:00, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. But does anyone have any thoughts on how to best organize the list rather than having one massive list? And is the column on what type of mutation it is necessary? Natureium (talk) 18:59, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

What's actually wrong with having one massive list?

If there are useful ways to categorize them (e.g., monogeneic vs polygeneic), then you could have a column that includes that information, but I don't see a specific problem with the fact that the list is long. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:20, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

• I hate pages like that. Hate them. Not a single ref. But to use Wikidata language, it makes "claims" in associating genes with diseases and with types of mutations. We should nuke this. Jytdog (talk) 03:35, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

List of OMIM codes

How should this be merged in? Does each OMIM code need its own row or can we merge rows where one disorder is associated with more than one gene (e.g. Bardet-Biedl syndrome types 1-15)? There are tons of red links in the OMIM list because each type of a disorder is listed separately, and each separate type does not need it's own article. In essence, is it a list of OMIM codes and their associated syndrome, or a list of syndromes and their associated OMIM code(s)? –Natureium (talk) 17:24, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Now that I think about it, I think maybe OMIM codes should be a separate list. It's really a list of codes rather than a list of disorders. For example, FBN1 is listed on 6 lines with 6 disorders and 6 OMIM codes. I think the purpose of a list of OMIM codes would be to allow someone to look something up by code. (Whether or not that's necessary...) –Natureium (talk) 17:29, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Any opinions on this? Natureium (talk) 21:14, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

too long...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:01, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Ok, but what should be done about it? Natureium (talk) 16:00, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Tables

The Help page provides this as its first example (i.e., the one almost everyone copies):

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Header 1
! Header 2
! Header 3
|-
| row 1, cell 1
| row 1, cell 2
| row 1, cell 3
|-
| row 2, cell 1
| row 2, cell 2
| row 2, cell 3
|}

VisualEditor currently produces this in the wikitext mode:

{| class="wikitable"
|+ Caption
! Header cell !! Header cell
|-
| Content cell || Content cell
|}

and this in the visual mode:

{| class="wikitable"
!
!
!
!
|-
|
|
|
|
|-
|
|
|
|
|-
|
|
|
|
|}

In other words, where accessibility is concerned, all of the editing environments behave the same.

You're right that Help:Table contains a hatnote link to a page that contains information about how to mark scope. (The same hatnote contains links to two other pages that don't.) But the information in the help page itself does not contain any of that information. If you want to this markup to be used, then IMO you need to actually change the help page itself, so that experienced editors will see this markup as being normal and recommended. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:57, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Accessibility/Data tables tutorial link gives the following basic example:

{| class="wikitable"
|+ 
|-
! scope="col" | 
! scope="col" | 
! scope="col" | 
|-
! scope="row" | 
|  || 
|-
! scope="row" | 
|  || 
...
|}

That is canonical as far as accessible tables are concerned. It's also canonical as far as I'm concerned. If you think that some other pages need to be updated to reflect the consensus of our Manual of Style, then IMO you need to change those pages, for exactly the reasons you give. See WP:SOFIXIT, and ask yourself why it's always somebody else's job to try to improve accessibility on Misplaced Pages. --RexxS (talk) 22:06, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree that it's a better approach, but I'm frankly not sure that the core community will accept it. I'm not volunteering to get yelled at this week, so I'm not going to push that approach to the other pages. And by "not sure that they'll accept it", I mean that it's not even being followed in Featured Articles, all of which are theoretically supposed to comply with every single page of the MOS. See, for example, Alzheimer's disease, Acute myeloid leukemia, Cholangiocarcinoma, Dengue fever, Endometrial cancer, Huntington's disease, Influenza, Lung cancer – every single FA that I've checked from the list at Misplaced Pages:Featured articles#Health and medicine either has no tables or fails to mark the column or row scopes. I also mean that the column scope (which should be more common than row scope) appears in fewer than one out of 3,000 of articles. For comparison, I believe there are tables in about one out of seven of articles (not including infoboxes or other tables constructed via templates). The fact that some editor boldly slapped a guideline template at he top of the page two years ago, without any WP:PROPOSAL or even a discussion on the talk page, does not mean that the community accepts or supports this particular page (or even knows about it, which I suspect is the bigger problem).

But my point is about your comment above, which advocated against creating tables in one piece of software. I hope that, since I've shown that all of the editing environments produce equally inaccessible code, you can agree that the visual editor is no worse (if also no better) for creating tables than the other options. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:17, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

The page at WP:DTT gives a more in-depth explanation of Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Accessibility #Tables, but the latter page contains exactly the same example. I hope you're not going to suggest next that Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Accessibility doesn't enjoy project-wide consensus?

You'll note that the Featured Article process doesn't insist on images having WP:Alternative text for images text, either – despite Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Accessibility #Images being clear that "Images that are not purely decorative should include an alt attribute that acts as a substitute for the image for blind readers, search-spiders, and other non-visual users.", and Misplaced Pages:Featured article criteria requiring that "It follows the style guidelines". Your point that the FAC process regularly falls below its own requirements when it comes to accessibility is understood, and I'm only too well-aware of it. But just because the FAC process has been poor at improving accessibility doesn't meant everybody else should be as well.

It doesn't have to be that way, and assistive software doesn't have to produce inaccessible markup. In the days when I used to use Dreamweaver to create webpages, it wouldn't allow me to add an image without explicitly supplying something for the alt text.

I agree that the visual editor is no worse than other pieces of software that automatically create tables. I hope you will agree in turn that manually creating a table by adapting one of the accessible examples produces far more accessible tables, so that particular other option is preferable. You might like to consider as well whether there is any need for the visual editor to create tables that don't meet our standards for accessibility. --RexxS (talk) 19:16, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

I hope that everyone follows all of the advice from WP:ACCESS. But the fact remains that the community isn't actually doing this particular thing, which means that there is no evidence of community support for doing it. To put it more bluntly, "our standards for accessibility" do not appear to include accessible tables. If accessible tables were actually part of our standards, then we'd actually use them in a lot more than 0.003% of articles. The community's practice, rather than a written page, is still the ultimate source of, and the most accurate measure of, "our standards". WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:36, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

De facto, only some parts of the MOS are considered mandatory at FA level. I don't know the background but judging from some comments I've read about the topic on User talk:Iridescent it's because a) the MOS is far too long and b) some people perceive it as pedantic and often not good advice in many situations. Perhaps something for WT:FA? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:47, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: Meeting the standards outlined by WCAG for all websites ought not to be beyond the capability of a site as large and important as Misplaced Pages. Failing to meet those standards results in a poorer experience for those whose disabilities include blindness and other visual impairments. To be honest, I'm not prepared to accept people's excuses for not doing their very best to improve the experience of disadvantaged visitors. MOS:ACCESS is part of our standards, and it is sad that it is ignored so often. Our editing community ought to be ashamed of that fact, not promoting it as an excuse.

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: The reason some parts of ACCESS are ignored at FAC is that it's hard to acquire the skills to produce good WP:alternative text for images. That resulted in some very over-prescriptive advice a few years ago, and the push-back resulted in the dropping of WP:ALT from the requirements. But understand this: just because something is difficult, it doesn't mean it's not worth doing. An image with good alt text and a properly marked-up table make the experience of reading an article much more pleasant for the visually impaired. Featured articles that fail to do that do not represent Misplaced Pages's best work, and the fact that these shortcomings are accepted does not stop them being shortcomings. Yes, the MOS is too long and too pedantic, but that does not grant a licence to ignore it when it's inconvenient, nor when its benefit is only apparent to a very small minority of disadvantaged visitors. --RexxS (talk) 18:16, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Child sexual abuse vs. child molestation

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Child sexual abuse#Child sexual abuse vs. child molestation again. A permalink for it is here. The discussion concerns whether or not to differentiate child sexual abuse from child molestation in the lead of (and/or possibly lower in) the article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:08, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

• need opinions(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:54, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Metagenics, Inc.

• Draft:Metagenics, Inc. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Recently declined draft about a company producing "medical foods". —PaleoNeonate – 11:39, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

agree w/ decline based on Misplaced Pages:Spam#Advertisements_masquerading_as_articles--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:22, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, I now tagged it with CSD G11. —PaleoNeonate – 02:29, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Update: the article was recreated and is now at MfD. The article was improved during the nomination process. I'm trying to evaluate its notability. Paper mentions appear rare but has a mention. Those products appear to be sold by acupuncturists and other altmed practitioners. It's possible that they're notable? The sourcing still seems suboptimal (non-independent)... —PaleoNeonate – 00:43, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

2017 Hypertension guidelines

The results of the SPRINT hypertension study have been incorporated into guidelines, see http://www.onlinejacc.org/content/early/2017/11/04/j.jacc.2017.11.006 I have done a little work at Management of hypertension#2017 guidelines based on Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) but much more could be done. User:Fred Bauder Talk 16:33, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

created--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:54, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Did some aswell. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:54, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Munchausen syndrome -> Factitious disorder imposed on self_Factitious_disorder_imposed_on_self-2017-11-19T23:43:00.000Z">

Since Doc James' move of Munchausen syndrome to Factitious disorder imposed on self was reverted with edit summary revert per BRD, back to common name, I've made a move request at Talk:Munchausen syndrome #Requested move 18 November 2017. This is going to be opposed by a number of folks ignorant of our agreed conventions on titles of medical articles ("the scientific or recognised medical name that is most commonly used in recent, high-quality, English-language medical sources, rather than a lay term", so more informed eyes are needed on the move request. --RexxS (talk) 23:43, 19 November 2017 (UTC)_Factitious_disorder_imposed_on_self"> _Factitious_disorder_imposed_on_self">

• more opinions(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:37, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Science contest judges

Being requested here Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:54, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

• great opportunity--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:05, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Monosodium glutamate and headaches

Input welcome at Talk:Monosodium glutamate#Fix the safety quote. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 01:52, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

opinions please--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:09, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Domestic violence against men article -- the lead

We need some help at Domestic violence against men (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

The most recent discussion is at Talk:Domestic violence against men#Advocates of battered women. A permalink for it is here. It's a long discussion, but I ask that some editors here at least skim over it if it's WP:Too long; didn't read for you and get the gist of what is being discussed. The matter is about the lead of the article and what should be in it and how it should be formatted. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:19, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:36, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Even eight-year-olds get it

An eight-year-old writes on the importance of Open Access medical information: https://twitter.com/lteytelman/status/933395576506347520 Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:10, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

thanks for posting--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 02:54, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Gynecologists and obstetricians

• Are all gynecologists obstetricians? And vice versa? Should the category of gynecologists be merged with the category of obstetricians? Please comment on the category question at Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_November_14#Category:Gynaecologists. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:27, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:41, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Authorship details are now avaliable within article space as a script

Thanks to user User:Wurgl. The database is currently being build over the next few weeks. So for pages with lots of edits it can take up to 30 min to generate results. For short pages it works in seconds.

Copy and paste the following to here
mw.loader.load('//en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Wurgl/WikiHistory.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript');

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:13, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

I can't seem to get it to work :/ I'm not sure what went wrong. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 00:35, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Did you hit "ctrl F5" to reload your browser? Initially you will see "authors are..." as it works to calculate it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:53, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Refresh is not needed, it refreshes automagically. But it is only available for namespace 0: Articles, not discussions, not user pages … --Wurgl (talk) 00:57, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

very cool(works perfect)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 02:53, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, it kind of works. A few articles displayed the authors in the way the image above did but most of them just show me an ellipsis like it's perpetually loading. Cool idea but there are still some bugs to work out. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 15:21, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

What does this count? Visible bytes on the page? Number of edits (even if it's just blanking someone else's work or reverting obvious vandalism, neither of which mean that authored anything at all)? Something else? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:41, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

What's the point of this? Pride? Natureium (talk) 18:22, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

May people I speak with ask who writes Misplaced Pages articles. This provides some details. How it works is described here. Not sure if reverts are excluded but they could / should be. And of course those who do not like it do not need to turn it on.

User:TylerDurden8823 older pages with more edits may take 30 minutes to calculate. Subsequent looks will than be fast. As I mentioned a database is being filled. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:31, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I... can't read that.

If a vandal blanks the page and you restore it, are you then listed as writing 100% of the article? Natureium (talk) 21:34, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Reverts are not counted if a revert is marked as a revert.

It starts with the current version. Splits that into "words". Then it examines every revision (except reverts) stating with the very first one and tries to assign every occurrence of every single word to that revision (if it is not assigned already) and thus to the user making this change. Changing the order of words does not matter, adding/removing Space/Newlines does not change anything, since spaces/newlines are ignored. At the very end every word is multiplied by its length.

So changing "Hello" to "Hello Hello" is 50%/50% (The first "Hello" is assigned to the first user, the second "Hello" is assigned to the other user). Changing "Hello" to "Hello crude whatever" is 37.7%/72.2%. Changing "Hello" to "Hello world" and reverting it to "Hello" is 100%/0%/0% (when three different users are involved). BTW: Google translate does a good job in translating the german text …

Summary: If a vandal adds whatever text or deletes whatever part, it is not taken in account when you revert it. It may be taken in account when you restore the old version with a typical edit. It "may" because this happens when a vandal duplicated the text and in later revisions word from this duplication are reused (eg. often used words like "the", "and" …). I hope this helps. --Wurgl (talk) 00:27, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Agree Google translate works reasonably well for the EN DE pairing. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:54, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

A real example with a small article: Antosca User Xezbeth is counted as 100%, 2 other authors are shown with 0%. When looking at the history, you see 4 edits. Jd22292 changed {{surname|Antosca}} (two words: "surname" and "Antosca") to {{surname}}, then HindWIKI added {{disambiguation}} and the last edit is again done by Xezbeth who removed {{disambiguation}} (Note: This is not detected as a revert! It is an ordinary edit, therefore the user HindWIKI is mentioned in the list of authors). When you compare the initial version with the current one, only one word ("Antosca") was removed, so 100% of the current version's text was written by Xezbeth. Adding {{disambiguation}} is not counted, since it does not appear in the current version.

Or Fussman. This was first a redirect and changed later. The two words "Gérard" and "Fussman" appear in the current version, the word "redirect" does not appear. So when you count all the words (multiplied with the length of the words, giving actually the number of characters) you find 132 characters in the current version (special characters are changed to spaces and ignored). 13 of these 132 characters, namely from the words "Gérard" and "Fussman", can be seen in the previous version, so these 13 characters are 9.848% of the final text and 90.152% are written by the second author and this is what you see. BTW: The word "Fussmann" appears three times and it is counted three times, one occurrence is assigned to Xezbeth and the other two to Tahar Jelun. --Wurgl (talk) 10:32, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Betrayal trauma article

Betrayal trauma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was created by student editor Sholeh Salimi in September. Has also been substantially edited by student editor Caseymcginnis. Some parts might need cleanup. Assessing the quality of sources is also an issue. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:33, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

talk page should be added...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:58, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Interventricular foramina (neuroanatomy)

Congratulations to Tom (LT) who was the major contributor to this recently promoted to GA class article. Nice job and Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 16:47, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

p.s. Thanks also to Seppi333 who reviewed this article.

Thanks. BTW, I would REALLY appreciate it if one of you (i.e., any medical editor) were willing to take on the GA review of β-Hydroxy β-methylbutyric acid; as of today, it's been listed at Misplaced Pages:Good article nominations#Biology and medicine for 8 months and 0 days. It's been through WP:Featured article candidates 3 times already, so I'm certain it's GA-quality as is. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 21:01, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

@Seppi333 you poor thing! will take up the review. --Tom (LT) (talk) 05:48, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 21:57, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Further opinions requested

Talk:Stillbirth#Case_control_study Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:52, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:55, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I commented as well.JenOttawa (talk) 16:05, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Media naturalness theory

This AfD discussion may be of interest to this project: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Media naturalness theory (has been relisted for lack of participation). Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 03:16, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

commented(article/talk should been tagged w/ Psycology project(Evolutionary psychology))--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:04, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Kallmann syndrome

Hello,

I have taken a very close interest in the page on Kallmann syndrome. I am a patient with the condition and very keen to raise awareness of the condition. Since it is such a rare condition the Misplaced Pages page can be a very good source of information to new patients. I make no secret of the fact I am a patient with the condition and I have plenty of You Tube videos and blog sites where I talk about the condition.

I am keen to improve the article as much as I can and raise the standard of the article. Doc James has recently made some helpful alterations to the article but I am keen to keep improving the article.

As a patient advocate I am keen to ensure that the page is relevant and useful to all patients but at the same time I do try to keep a balanced and neutral look to the content I post there and to keep within the rules of Misplaced Pages medicine pages.

I would welcome any feedback on the page.

Thank you.

Neilsmith38 (talk) 21:50, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

agree with Jytdog assessment of the edit--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:55, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I've commented at Talk:Kallmann syndrome #2 recent updates to the page. but as Neilsmith38 is proposing content – some of which is based on an article he has authored – it would be better per WP:SELFCITE if the edits were reviewed by others, and consensus reached on making them or not. --RexxS (talk) 00:03, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Let's centralize this discussion at the talk page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:53, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Sebileau's muscle

I'm tempted to PROD this article, which has been flagged at a Misplaced Pages criticism site. My own search for sources replicates what posters there found: I cannot substantiate that the article is not a misunderstanding or a hoax. But as a non-expert I may be missing a source giving a redirect target. So I bring it here. Yngvadottir (talk) 01:20, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Looked in my copy of Dorland's and found it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:45, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! Yngvadottir (talk) 02:30, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Calculating total pageviews for all disease related articles

Anyone have any idea how? Disease related articles being defined as those that have either Template:Infobox medical condition or Template:Infobox medical condition (new). Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:33, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I could be wrong...but since West.Andrew does User:West.andrew.g/Popular_medical_pages he may have an idea...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:45, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I have figured it out :-) Will share soon. Andrew West unfortunately has been very busy with other things in life. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:57, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Rare disease notability

What are the criteria for notability for articles about rare diseases? Natureium (talk) 18:26, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

@Natureium: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." See WP:GNG. There are no subject-specific notability guidelines for diseases that I'm aware of. --RexxS (talk) 20:44, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Basically, if it's a real/accepted disease, it's notable. (If it's in the "one lab says that they've discovered this thing", it's more complicated.)

Note that you don't have to have high-quality MEDRS-ideal sources for a disease to be notable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:40, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I read this paper and was going to create an article on Neotenic Complex Syndrome, but saw that it was deleted just last year. Does one new primary research paper now make this notable? Natureium (talk) 23:09, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Not per se. WP:MEDRS specifies that Misplaced Pages articles should use secondary sources, i.e., review articles. If no review articles exist, there is no good basis for constructing a Misplaced Pages article. As soon as somebody reviews the primary research paper, or even writes a perspective about it, the story changes. Looie496 (talk) 23:50, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

If it's real, it's notable. For something published in September 2017, that may be a bit too recent. We need reviews/substantiation/replication/something of a 3rd party source. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:48, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

That's the opposite of what @WhatamIdoing: said above. Natureium (talk) 03:02, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it is. This has been discussed before.

WP:Notability (and related guidelines and policies) say that you can have an article if all of the following are true:

1. you can find multiple (i.e., ≥2) sources, that:
   1. are independent and
   2. are secondary and
   3. provide "significant coverage" of the subject (think "500 words about it", although the real rule is at WP:WHYN), and
2. editors don't want to merge it into a larger article, and
3. it's not outright banned by WP:NOT.

Any accepted disease will trivially meet the first and last. Sometimes editors choose to merge them, but that's pretty unusual except when we're talking about sub-types (although nearly every subtype will trivially meet all of the other rules, too).

So, to use a rare disease as an example, an entry in NORD and/or Eurodis and/or OMIM pretty much means guaranteed notability, but two long articles in two different popular science magazines would technically be enough.

Of course, once you've started writing, there will be a chance that someone will come along and demand that only MEDRS-ideal sources be used because it's "medical" and somebody might get hurt. You're allowed to have an article, but now you can't put any content in it, because the known review articles are more than five years old (notability is not temporary, so this doesn't affect notability), or the recent information is on a website or a magazine article (notability doesn't restrict itself to the academic literature), etc. We have collectively refused to believe that this disconnect between the guidelines is a problem. I think it's a problem; I also think that it would be difficult to solve in practice. This group and the FTN regulars don't appear to want the actual as-written notability guidelines to apply to anything that we think isn't conventional medicine. And because of NPOV, we're not really going to get community approval to have one notability standard for conventional medicine and a different notability standard for altmed. So we're stuck, and the short answer to your original question is still: if it's a disease accepted by conventional medicine, then it's notable, no matter how rare it is. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:44, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

For the specific example, there seems to be a good deal of content in Brooke Greenberg. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:49, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Not listed by NORD or NIH's rare disease databases. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:23, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

NORD's website says "NORD's Rare Disease Database provides brief introductions for patients and their families to more than 1,200 rare diseases. This is not a comprehensive database since there are nearly 7,000 diseases considered rare in the U.S. We add new topics as we are able to do so, with the help of rare disease medical experts." I didn't find a similar statement on the NIH website, but I assume it also it's nearly complete. Natureium (talk) 15:41, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing really ought to have included:

4. There are secondary sources that provide enough content to write the article.

because we also have a requirement that "Misplaced Pages articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources." (WP:PSTS). Note that the requirement that the bulk of the sourcing should be secondary applies to all articles, not just those subject to MEDMOS. --RexxS (talk) 12:30, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Maslach Burnout Inventory

• Maslach Burnout Inventory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Recently relisted at AfD for lack of input. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 00:59, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Cancer phobia

A deletion discussion. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:43, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Antisperm antibodies

needs cleanup. I removed bad refs but it needs just plain copyediting to become decent english. Jytdog (talk) 16:07, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Sourcing question

The discussion at Talk:ʻOumuamua#Is the Inbound Velocity table original research.3F may interest some of you. It's an interesting case: Someone has pulled data for an astronomical object from a NASA tool, somewhat similar to how we look up information in the SEER database, and added it to the article. The ref is a link plus the search parameters. Nobody doubts the accuracy, relevance, or encyclopedic nature of the data, but an editor wonders whether extracting data from a web-based tool is technically compliant with a strict reading of WP:V. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:55, 30 November 2017 (UTC)