Talk:Parkinson's disease: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 08:45, 9 September 2024 editWham2001 (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers43,169 edits →Missing source: ReplyTag: Reply ← Previous edit		Revision as of 10:15, 9 September 2024 edit undoClueBot III (talk \| contribs)Bots1,373,080 editsm Archiving 1 discussion to Talk:Parkinson's disease/Archive 8. (BOT)Next edit →
Line 96:		Line 96:
	\| format= %%i		\| format= %%i
	}}		}}

	== Citation style ==
	This article had four different citation styles (I've corrected two of them), some harking to a time before the short footnote (sfn) template existed. Unless anyone objects, I will convert the book sources to sfns with page numbers. See ] and ]; TS has only books in short footnotes, while DLB uses sfns on all sources so that all page numbers or section headings are identified (the current standard for ]). ] (]) 11:15, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
	:Sounds good. ~ ]] 18:39, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
	:{{u\|SandyGeorgia}}, I think I'm going to use sfns w/ page numbers as I start rewriting sections. That means there will be a transitory period where some journal articles have sfns and others don't, if that's all right. ~ ]] 02:08, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
	::Understood ... I think that's the way to go ... at ], I found with some articles (depending on the pagination) it was much easier to use the loc= parameter to specify a section heading in some cases, rather than page nos. I intended to chip away at all the sfns on books, but I have had back-to-back tragedies IRL, so not keeping up ... will help as I am able on the converts, but no promises I can keep a close eye or help as much as I normally would. ] (]) 02:26, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
	::Another thing on the rewrite, {{u\|HAL333}} ... because there is SO much literature on PD, I think a strict ] to sub-articles will be essential. We have to draw a line of how much detail can be included here, versus at ], ], ], ], ] and ] ... really need to be kept to a very broad overview level here. ] (]) 02:31, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
	:::Will do. ~ ]] 15:26, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
	:::: {{ping\|HAL333}}. Thanks for your extensive edits. The following two cites that are throwing Harv errors (doesn't point to any citation): <nowiki>{{sfn\|Toloda\|2021}}</nowiki>, <nowiki>{{sfn\|Blauwendraat\|2019}}</nowiki> (should the date be 2020?). This seem to have been introduced by you. Do you have the relevant citations? Thanks. ] (]) 13:25, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

	== Lead image ==		== Lead image ==

Revision as of 10:15, 9 September 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Parkinson's disease article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8Auto-archiving period: 3 months

Parkinson's disease is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.

This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 11, 2011.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
April 28, 2007	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
August 17, 2009	Good article nominee	Not listed
January 15, 2011	Good article nominee	Listed
March 5, 2011	Featured article candidate	Promoted
October 17, 2020	Featured article review	Demoted
Current status: Former featured article

This

level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Medicine: Neurology / Psychiatry Top‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Neurology task force (assessed as Top-importance).
	Psychiatry portal This article is supported by the Psychiatry task force (assessed as High-importance).

Psychology Mid‑importance

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Disability

Parkinson's disease is within the scope of WikiProject Disability. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.DisabilityWikipedia:WikiProject DisabilityTemplate:WikiProject DisabilityDisability

Neuroscience High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Neuroscience, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Neuroscience on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NeuroscienceWikipedia:WikiProject NeuroscienceTemplate:WikiProject Neuroscienceneuroscience
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Ideal sources for Misplaced Pages's health content are defined in the guideline Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Parkinson's disease.

PubMed provides review articles from the past five years (limit to free review articles)
The TRIP database provides clinical publications about evidence-based medicine.
Other potential sources include: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and CDC

Other talk page banners

Text has been copied to or from this article; see the list below. The source pages now serve to provide attribution for the content in the destination pages and must not be deleted as long as the copies exist. For attribution and to access older versions of the copied text, please see the history links below.

Copied Parkinson's disease (history) → Signs and symptoms of Parkinson's disease (diff)
Copied Parkinson's disease (history) → Parkinson's disease clinical research (diff)
Copied Parkinson's disease (history) → Treatments of Parkinson's Disease
Copied Parkinson's disease (history) → Braak staging (diff)
Copied Parkinson's disease (history) → Lee Silverman voice treatment (diff)
Copied Parkinson's disease (history) → History of Parkinson's disease (diff)

Revisions succeeding this version of this article is substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication. Since the external publication copied Misplaced Pages rather than the reverse, please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of the following source:

Fymat, Alain L: International Institute of Medicine and Science (December 23, 2017), Parkinson's Disease and other Movement Disorders: A Review, Scientia Ricerca

Additional comments
See Talk:Dementia with Lewy bodies/Alain L. Fymat

Lead image

Is there any chance we could find an alternative lead image? The text on it is barely legible without expanding it — I don't think readers should have to click on an image to see what it represents. ~ HAL333 23:44, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Not thrilled with what is there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:29, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

I think some kind of histological sample would be the best way to go. If you look at current featured articles on diseases (Dementia with Lewy bodies, Chagas disease, Coeliac disease, Hepatorenal syndrome etc.) that's what most go with. It's the status quo. If we do go down that route, I've attached some tentative images. F is my preference — I like the staining. B is nice as well. ~ HAL333 03:26, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

That’s not what most go with. It’s not the status quo. This is the status quo:

~~File:Blausen_0348_EndometrialCancer.png~~

File:LungCACXR.PNG

File:Van_Gogh_-_Trauernder_alter_Mann.jpeg

File:Meninges-en.svg

File:Head_of_femur_avascular_necrosis.jpg

File:File-Oxygen_toxicity_testing.jpeg

File:Diagram_showing_the_position_of_the_pancreas_CRUK_356.svg

File:Polio_lores134.jpg

File:RhabdoUrine.JPG

File:Cloth_embroidered_by_a_schizophrenia_sufferer.jpg

File:Illu08_thyroid.jpg

~~File:Tourette2.jpg~~; edited to make page loads faster 05:12, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

14 medical FAs out of the total 23.

BTW, the current lead image doesn’t mean much to me without reading the caption. And even after reading the caption, IMHO our global lay audience won’t know much about alpha-synuclein or Lewy bodies. Further, currently PD isn’t diagnosed by those (unlike other diseases such as Dementia with Lewy bodies), it’s diagnosed by symptoms. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 13:44, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

I’ve edited the page :) , added images created from an image uploaded by Msokun, who generously released it under the CC0 license. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 14:31, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

It's a bit too many images I think - bloats the infobox. ~ HAL333 21:24, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

I concur that the image is trying to do too much at once ... when it comes to infoboxes, less is more. It would make better since in prognosis or another section which discusses progression. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:22, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

I concur that the new four-way image is trying to do too much at once ... when it comes to infoboxes, less is more. It would make better sense in prognosis or signs/symptoms or another section which discusses progression. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:24, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Good --Dustfreeworld (talk) 22:30, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

The new proposal is four images, where A is pretty much the same as D, and the images are captioned in a way that they are trying to convey the entire progression of PD in the infobox ... it's too much. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:36, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

GOOD. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 22:39, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

And it’s really good to know the BIG differences between 3 images and 4 images.

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Parkinson%27s_disease&diff=prev&oldid=1181240012

Thanks for telling me that. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 22:45, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't think we should determine "What image should lead this article?" based on whatever shit, frankly, editors managed to find that was free and stick on other articles, featured or otherwise. Misplaced Pages is extremely limited in its choice of pictures and most articles are badly illustrated. A better question would be "What images does media with an image budget choose to illustrate articles/books on PD?" And aim to get that if we can. -- Colin° 16:38, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Agree (the only reason DLB is a stain TS is Georges is that there is nothing else available). We also need to stop indiscriminately changing images here, and start discussing before changing. The article text/content needs major work; the image issues have so far been a distraction. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:43, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

The textbook put out by Cold Spring has a graphic highlighting the substantia nigra. Since that's the brain region largely at play, it might be worth it to do the same or have some graphic regarding dopaminergic neurons.

Here are some candidates. ~ HAL333 18:54, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

They can be added to the article, but not the lead. A quote from the first link you posted “this volume is a vital reference for neurobiologists, cell biologists, and pathologists pursuing the biological basis of Parkinson's disease, as well as scientists and clinicians”. I don’t think the images are intended for most of our readers. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 19:07, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

And I really don’t think we need a fancy animation in the lead. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 19:25, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Different versions

I have been testing with different image combinations and have come up with 3 different versions of infobox, A, B, and C here (it’s the sandbox of another user, used in previous lead image discussion ). The total width was reduced. C is a variation of A, but the 1880s image doesn’t come first. B uses only 2 images (the photos that are now in the article). Long caption has been removed. But they can be added back or edited easily. The space between images can also be changed (by changing a parameter) if needed. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 08:11, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to two images (the donkey and fish sizing looks fine), but four is simply too many. I also really don't like the two images we currently have of the gait. They are pretty low resolution and something about it (maybe the low overall quality or pixelated faces) reminds me of a terrorist hostage video. I still think an image of an alpha-synuclein deposit would be the best way to go, but I'm open to alternatives. ~ HAL333 18:47, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

I think the image of alpha-synuclein deposit belongs to the body, but not the infobox. I still think WP:Technical applies:

This page in a nutshell: Strive to make each part of every article as understandable as possible to the widest audience of readers who are likely to be interested in that material.

I would like to know more on why you insist that we should have it in the lead though. The edit summary you left when adding the current image was simply “added meaningful image ...” --Dustfreeworld (talk) 21:41, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

I have updated the two images (gait). Hope that addresses your concern. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 08:34, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I added 3 more versions, so there are A to F now.

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:WhatamIdoing/Sandbox_3&oldid=1189771208

Actually any combination of the different images is possible. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 19:11, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

In this updated sandbox page the infobxes’ width were reduced to 300px, and an image of alpha-synuclein deposit was added below infobox for testing. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 08:39, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

This is the latest sandbox page, which contains 8 versions of infobox, with almost all the possibilities I can think of. While I don’t think the number of images in the box is a big problem, considering that we have 7 images and 4 maps in article like this, I’m open to an infobox with fewer images. Discussion welcomed in case anyone is still not happy with infobox A, which have been included in the article already. I’d be happy with any version (A-H) in the sandbox. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 19:41, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

As a side, there are two versions of Gowers’ sketch in the sandbox. Both are made from his original drawings. The difference between them is that one has better image quality, while the other has thicker lines and thus resembles the long-standing etching more. I made two because I’m not sure which one people would prefer. The later one is in the article now. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 20:41, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm cool with what we have now. Nice work. ~ HAL333 00:43, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, HAL333! --Dustfreeworld (talk) 04:10, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

2024 revision

Since I'm revising larger parts of the article, I want to explain my further intentions in this talk page. If you have any thoughts on my edits, feel free to add a new paragraph to this discussion and I will try to describe them more detailed.

30 May 2024 restore by @Dustfreeworld (diff)

While I appreciate the inclusion of the fact that non-motor symptoms may precede motor symptoms, most of the paragraph's content is repetitive and too specific for the "lead section" of the symptom subheading. For example, the specification of prevalence and the mention of pneumonia, which is more of a complication linked to prognosis rather than a symptom, are overly detailed for this section. Additionally, two out of the three sources are outdated: one is from 2008 and another from 2016, indicating that the data may no longer be current. The remaining source, from 2023, primarily addresses treatment and intervention options for dysphagia rather than the broader range of symptoms mentioned.

What I did now: Preserving the paragraph in its current form seems neither feasible nor useful imho (WP:IAR, WP:BB). The guideline states "fix problems if you can, tag or excise them if you can't", and I don't see a way to just "fix" this without rewriting it substantially. Nevertheless, I proceeded cautiously. Thus, I altered the paragraph, included one major symptom from each non-motor subheading, made the wording more concise, and shortened some formulations. Regarding the sources, I removed the outdated ones and moved the dysphagia-related source to the section specifically discussing dysphagia. For the rest, I provided up-to-date literature.

I hope you, Dustfreeworld, understand and approve of my approach. If you have any further ideas or objections to my edits, please let me know. –Tobias (talk) 09:45, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Dustfreeworld has been banned from medical topics, so we should not expect them to respond. Perhaps other editors will. NebY (talk) 10:01, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

@NebY oh, ok, thank you for the information - we'll see. –Tobias (talk) 10:15, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

contradiction?

under causes and risk factors, it states '85% of cases are sporadic, meaning there is no family history' however directly under that it states 'heritability lies around 22-45%'

is this perhaps just an inconsistency between two studies? 194.193.48.192 (talk) 10:37, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Missing source

@HAL333, in this edit you added an sfn to Bhattacharyya (2017), but didn't add the long-form source. Could you add it to the bibliography please? Thanks, Wham2001 (talk) 17:53, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Wham2001, oops. Thanks for catching that. I've just fixed it. Cheers. ~ HAL333 22:15, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Wham2001 (talk) 08:45, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Categories: