Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine: Difference between revisions

Edit with VisualEditor

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 20 days are automatically archived.
• Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Newsletter/Mailing_list

List of archives

Merged Archive WikiProject Preclinical medicine: 1 Merged Archive WikiProject Clinical medicine: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 WikiProject Medicine Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174

Talk:Fluoxetine

Could someone help out re a primary source at Fluoxetine? Thx, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:19, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Done. I think, if I understood the request. Jaredroach (talk) 18:55, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Applied behavior analysis - assistance requested

I was randomly summoned to an RFC at Talk:Applied_behavior_analysis#Request_for_Comment:_dealing_with_controversies. I have little experience with med articles and I attempted to offer some generalist comments. I and at least one other person suggested get input from this Wikiproject. The original involved parties haven't taken action on that, so I am doing so on their behalf.

The RFC isn't very clear and it can be a bit hard to figure out what's going on. I'll attempt to summarize what I've managed to sort out. Applied behavior analysis (ABA) appears to be "overwhelmingly" focused on treatment of autism. Some of the methods and approaches used in this field are controversial, up to the United Nations using the word "torture". There appears to be very significant opposition among the autism community, an unclear level of controversy among relevant professional community, and unclear level of controversy in generalist Reliable Sources. There appears to be a lot of reliance on primary research papers, which appears to be raising significant problems. The main article-dispute is how to address the controversy in the lead, but I'm not sure whether the underlying cause may extend beyond the lead. Alsee (talk) 08:37, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I (and another other WPMED) editors have edited this in the past. I gave up. It is indeed a controversial topic not least because of some historical/dodgy aversion therapy incidents (using cattle products to shock people into normality? see Judge Rotenberg Educational Center) and for this reason there was a POV war about how this was all abhorrent and Wikipedia should reveal that Truth™. As always, stronger and more modern sources would be the best way to update the article and resolve the conflicts. The article now is in a dreadful state. One such source is

• Spreat S (2012). "Chapter 10: Behavioral treatments for children with ASDs". In Reber M (ed.). The Autism Spectrum: Scientific Foundations and Treatment. Cambridge University Press. pp. 239–257. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511978616.011. ISBN 9780511978616.

I'm not sure I want to go back there. Bon courage (talk) 08:55, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

For what it's worth I think I had some success getting across the "not truth" message here. I have the impression that my explanation was even positively received. I seem to have a knack for getting that kind of thing under control. However I have almost no familiarity with the special considerations in the Med area, so I'm very reluctant to push my standard non-med answers here.

I tried to check the ref you suggested, but I don't have access. To be honest I was hoping to get back to other work, but I could stick around if an experienced voice for policy-and-consensus is needed to quell the tempest. Alsee (talk) 10:10, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

That source is available via WP:TWL. Bon courage (talk) 10:14, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

After getting access to WP:TWL, you can use this link. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:38, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

If anyone can't access this through TWL, they can also email me for a pdf copy. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:54, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

As a general rule, I find that textbooks are better sources for this sort of dispute than journal articles. In controversial areas, the papers tend to be trying to convince people of something. The textbooks that aren't focused on ABA as the main subject usually present the middle-of-the-road perspective. Some of these might be useful to varying degrees: [1][2][3] You might be able to get books such as ISBN 978-3319912790 through your library.

It might be worth looking for sources about related/offshoot approaches, such as Millieu training and the Early Start Denver Model. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:27, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for this! As @Alsee said, it might be helpful if you'd consider wading in over there, but I understand the general reluctance - this kind of controversy is exhausting, and the discussions on the ABA Talk Page have become downright gruelling.

The trouble with textbooks as resources for this kind of thing is that most people won't be able to access them, which makes fact-checking an awful lot harder; in areas this contentious, that becomes especially important (different people's interpretations of the same text can be... remarkably divergent).

That said, while most of the textbooks don't directly address the quality of the evidence or the amount of controversy, I thought this passage from the 2022 edition of The Wiley-Blackwell Handbook of Childhood Social Development was very helpful:

"In terms of the effectiveness of ABA approaches, research suggests that intervention effects do not generalise beyond the intervention environment, and behaviours learnt during interventions are rarely reproduced in novel settings (Kovshoff et al., 2011). A meta-analysis of autism interventions highlights that many studies fail to implement rigorous methodological designs such as randomised control trials (RCTs). Out of the studies that have implemented RCTs to date, there is inadequate collective evidence for change on any selected outcome (Sandbank et al., 2020). ABA approaches have also faced intense scrutiny in the last two decades, with significant concerns around both the ethics and outcomes of ABA interventions. Many of the criticisms have been raised by autistic adults who have participated in ABA therapies themselves (McGill & Robinson, 2020)." Oolong (talk) 14:54, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

• These comments may be more useful over there than over here. Alsee (talk) 02:48, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Blow it up: what a shameful mess it is. Nuking the majority and starting over is the way to go; that can be facilitated by first going through and tagging every non-MEDRS source, and then removing the content unless it is one where a primary source or opinion piece is justified. Then rebuild from a decent starting place. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:31, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

page error, arrows in bottom-right corner?

I'm seeing pale blue down arrow and up arrow icons floating in the bottom right corner of this page. When I mouseover on them they say There was an issue displaying this preview. This isn't even a preview, so something certainly seems wrong. I generally try to track the WMF's deployments, but I have no clue what these are or why they are there. I've never seen it anywhere else. Are other people seeing them? Does anyone know why they're there? I have experience dealing with WMF tech, I can raise this with them if appropriate. I figured I check whether there was any local knowledge about it first. Alsee (talk) 09:07, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

They are created by Template:Skip to top and bottom, so not exactly a WMF thing. Maybe Vector 2022 is messing with their functionality? They are working for me when clicked, and hovering does not give me the same message as you get. I get a fairly normal navigation popup. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:54, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

If you're using WP:NAVPOPS (local gadget preferred by experienced editors), it displays as expected. If you're using the default Wikipedia:Hovercards (simplified version enabled by default for readers), then you will get an error message about it not knowing what to display. It does not matter which skin you're using; the behavior is the same even in MonoBook. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:11, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I think this is phab:T198652, looks like there's a fix just awaiting deployment. the wub "?!" 22:50, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Monkeypox => Mpox

See Talk:Monkeypox#Monkeypox or Mpox. Could do with a few more voices. -- Colin°^Talk 08:58, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

At Talk:Mpox#Related articles we are discussing not only changing the outbreak articles to "mpox" but also how we should title them to indicate the year(s) of the outbreak. It would be great to have a few more opinions. -- Colin°^Talk 09:54, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Alaska Mental Health Enabling Act Featured article review

I have nominated Alaska Mental Health Enabling Act for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:16, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

duplicates in WHO Model List of Essential Medicines

Hi guys, I hope you've all started the year well. Looking at this article, there are several drugs that are listed twice, even within the same subsection. So, for example, if you look at the muscle relaxants, vecuronium is listed twice. One of the 2 instances has an α next to it, to show that it's on the complementary as well as the core list.

I feel like that's really confusing, to have drugs' names written twice like that. I looked at the talk page, and this concern has been raised before, albeit with unnecessarily aggressive language.

I also note that there is a lot of aggression that has gone on in that talk page, so I hope that by bringing this up I'm not opening Pandora's box.

I think the simplest approach with this list would be use the α to signify that the drug is also on the complementary list, in addition to being on the core list. If there is consensus to do this, I volunteer to make the changes. Dr. Vogel (talk) 11:00, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

That would imply the drug is also on the core list. There are entries that are on just one list or the other. --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 18:55, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, and for that, we could have a different symbol. That would leave us with no duplicates, and the vast majority of drugs would have no symbols at all. Or we could colour-code it. There are a number of ways this can be made to look neat.

I'm just worried that duplicating the names is really confusing. And if you look at the history, there have been lots of editors trying to remove the duplicates, thinking it was unintentional. Dr. Vogel (talk) 21:00, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree that additional notes would be the optimal solution, not listing the same drug twice. RickyCourtney (talk) 23:17, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

The note(s) may apply to just the entry on the core list or just the entry on the complementary list. Combining the entries with both the symbol and the note(s) makes it less clear. Some medications are in more than one class or have more than one indication and are listed more than once on the list in separate sections. What is confusing about listing the same medication twice? --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 01:18, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

For example, if you look under "muscle relaxants", it says that the drugs are vecuronium and vecuronium. If you look under diuretics, it says the drugs are "mannitol and spironolactone", and "mannitol and spironolactone". You don't think that's confusing? Dr. Vogel (talk) 01:25, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Notes can be as long as needed to describe these nuances. RickyCourtney (talk) 04:16, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

What do you think about spelling it out in a table? For the ==Muscle relaxants (peripherally-acting) and cholinesterase inhibitors== section, if could look like this:

Muscle relaxants (peripherally-acting) and cholinesterase inhibitors

Drug name	Core list	Complementary list
Atracurium	Core	–
Neostigmine	Core	–
Suxamethonium	Core	–
Pyridostigmine	Core	Complementary
Vecuronium	Core	Complementary

I think it might be clearer if we don't rely on people to click through to the explanatory footnote. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:51, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, that would work too, it's also clearer than what we have now. Personally I probably prefer lists and I don't mind footnotes, but I do accept that your solution looks very neat. Perhaps a tick in each cell instead of spelling out the whole word every time. Dr. Vogel (talk) 22:43, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

It could be spelled out in list format, as well:

• Suxamethonium – core
• Pyridostigmine – core and complementary lists

The formatting is simpler. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:13, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

@Whywhenwhohow what do you think of these options? I don't really want to change this article without your blessing because you've been looking after it far more than any of us. Dr. Vogel (talk) 22:11, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Spelling it out in list format seems like a good approach to try. I'm concerned that updating either of these formats may be harder when the next revision comes out. --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 02:17, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

I add some complementary labels. --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 07:07, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

I think these changes you've made make it a bit better because at least the drug names are not mentioned multiple times in tandem. So it's a lot less confusing now. I feel that this is still more confusing than it needs to be, because we're just saying complementary list, without saying core list as well. Obviously you and I know how the lists work, but from the point of view of someone who's not into this, it's unnecessarily hard to make sense of it. What do you think of @WhatamIdoing's idea? And what makes you worry that this would make it harder to update in the future? Dr. Vogel (talk) 22:05, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Mast cell activation syndrome

I could use some assistance on Mast cell activation syndrome, a fairly new and rare syndrome with very specific diagnostic criteria. In recent years, MCAS has become somewhat of a fad diagnosis, whereby it is promoted as the cause of many disparate health problems. As discussed here, misinformation and confusion about MCAS are driving anxiety and needless medical evaluations.

An AAAAI consensus document describes the problem of flawed and overly-broad diagnostic criteria that is promoted in the media and in certain publications. The publications suggested as unreliable have Lawrence Afrin, MD as an author. Afrin operates an "integrative medicine" clinic with Tania Dempsey, MD. Previously, he was a professor at University of Minnesota.

First, although the MCAS article has been cleaned up, it still needs fact checking and removal of citations to Afrin.

Second, there is some conflict over recent edits based on Afrin's publications, which I reverted. A new article on Long COVID by Long COVID patients and Eric Topol, MD references Afrin. The editor @Innisfree987 suggests that this secondary source is a reliable source for the statement "MCAS symptoms are associated with Long COVID." Of course, definitions for Long COVID include many non-specific symptoms, similar to Afrin's discredited standards for MCAS.

Overall, the linking of MCAS to Long COVID and including references to Afrin and colleagues is WP:PROFRINGE and not compliant with WP:MEDRS. ScienceFlyer (talk) 05:38, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, have to say I consider this account pretty one-sided and am disappointed @ScienceFlyer would not leave a neutral request for a third opinion. I am happy to add more if that would now be helpful but in the interests of neutrality, I’ll just say please see the talk page section Talk:Mast cell activation syndrome#Review articles removed as well as the edit summaries for more information. I do think more opinions would be helpful as clearly the discussion was not progressing. Innisfree987 (talk) 06:04, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

I took a pass through this article, editing the whole article. See my comments on the article talk page. Jaredroach (talk) 15:27, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

MEDRS help needed at a featured article review

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Uranium/archive1 - the article itself includes some content subject to MEDRS related to health effects of uranium exposure. Would anyone familiar with MEDRS be willing to give the medical sourcing there a look-over? Hog Farm _Talk 14:18, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I read through the section that pertains to human health and looked at the citations. Most are from older text books and review articles. There are one or two primary research papers cited that I noticed and numerous places were we could find more recent MEDRS sources, I would imagine fairly easily. I added "updated needed tags" in those places. I hope that this is ok as a starting place. I do not have time to find the references myself, but can try to swing back later in the week. Please do feel free to remove my edit if you disagree! JenOttawa (talk) 03:32, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi again @Hog Farm: I found a few review articles with free full-texts that may be able to fill these gaps: [4][5], [6], a 2012 gov report from Canada([7], Europe [8], and from ATSDR in the States [9]. JenOttawa (talk) 11:51, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

I linked that over at the FAR (which is where comments should be placed so they don't go missing in archives). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:55, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Functional MRI Methods and Findings in Schizophrenia

Topic specialist help needed to review this new draft. Besides the easily fixed headings an other simple MOS errors this draft needs a knowledgeable editor to evaluate the claims and sources. Please help. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:36, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

several of the references (journals[10]) listed aren't MEDRS compliant (they're either dated or primary)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:27, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Feedback on Persistent stapedial artery

Hello you lovely people, I've just finished writing this article, and I would like some inputs/feedback. I do accept that since this is not my area of expertise, there may be errors. I am willing to learn, however, so if some of you could take a look that'd be great. Thank you. X750. Spin a yarn? _{Articles I've screwed over?} 02:33, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

did some minor edits [11]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:20, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Added {{medical resources}} and codes from ICD-10 and 11 for persistent arteria stapedia. Although showing as a synonym on multiple sources, can this please be verified. Little pob (talk) 14:35, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for that Little pob. Would ICD-11 10.64 be more appropriate seeing as how it is a middle ear disorder? Thanks for your efforts too, Ozzie10aaaa. I will be adding another section on variants later today, do you think after that the article is ready for a good article nomination? Cheers. X750. Spin a yarn? _{Articles I've screwed over?} 19:35, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

I can't find the code you are referencing; but the notes at the start of ICD-11 Chapter 10 state "structural developmental anomalies of the ear" are coded elsewhere. Parsing to non-coding terms; WHO have classified persistent arteria stapedia to LA22.3 because it's a congenital condition, rather than an acquired one, and–even if persistent stapedial artery is not a synonym–it should be classified to a Chapter 20 code within the LA20-LA2Z range. Little pob (talk) 09:32, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Ah I see where I went wrong, I meant Q16.4 for the ICD 10,not 11 code. The ICD-

code looks good to me Little pob. X750. Spin a yarn? _{Articles I've screwed over?} 17:29, 3 February 2023 (UTC)1

Low-level laser something

Could someone who knows what the difference is between Low-level laser therapy and all of the similar-ish things please take a look at https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q1872556&diff=0&oldid=1766751240 ? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:16, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Leaderboard report

The current leader of the reference campaign is a relatively new editor, Medlibrarianhnl, who has made 55 edits total and already added 42 citations Second place is currently held by Lyall0 with 41 citations added.

Any registered editor can sign up, and your contributions are counted retroactively to the beginning of the year, so there's no penalty for signing up late. The sign-up link is https://outreachdashboard.wmflabs.org/courses/Wikipedia/WikiProject_Medicine_reference_campaign_2023?enroll=qyoufwds WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:29, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

• this recent script might be useful User:Phlsph7/HighlightUnreferencedPassages it comes from this conversation--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:06, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Project-independent quality assessments

See Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Project-independent quality assessments. This proposes support for quality assessment at the article level, recorded in {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and inherited by the wikiproject banners. However, wikiprojects that prefer to use custom approaches to quality assessment can continue to do so. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:21, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

• give opinion(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 02:34, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Cancer Diagnostic Probe

This oddity was taken to DYK by the article's creator. It describes a device invented in Iran and used in breast cancer surgeries. I flagged this as having odd sourcing, and Spicy also expressed concerns with MEDRS. It's been trimmed a bit, and some of the medical claims present in prior revisions have been removed. I just would like the opinion of MED editors as to whether the content of the article in its current condition is appropriate for Main Page linking, as this is not my topic, before I potentially approve the nomination. Pinging the nominator Mhhossein to make them aware of this discussion. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:49, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Sammi Brie would you mind adding here a link to the DYK page so others can find their way through the impenetrable DYK process ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:12, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Found: Template:Did you know nominations/Cancer Diagnostic Probe. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:17, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Separately, I can't find an article defining a cancer margin. Surely we have one ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:57, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Maybe margin (oncology) ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:58, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Resection margin (one of my additions at CRUK). Feel free to add redirects and update or improve. I see it has been somewhat expanded since my last version in 2014 (oh, plus to this in 2018), with some loss of comprehensibility. Johnbod (talk) 17:04, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Antibody

Antibody has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 21:10, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

thank you for posting this--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:32, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Announcing script RefRenamer: replaces VE numeric refs with reasonable ref names

This is an announcement about a new script which is not specifically aimed at project MED editors or articles, but which is so useful, that I think many of you will be very happy to hear about it. Experienced editors here are used to seeing newer MEDRS editors, especially, who use the Visual Editor; perhaps you use VE yourself, for its ease of editing without having to learn wiki markup. There is one serious downside to VE however, and it pertains to the difficulty of reusing those opaque, numerically named references (tracked in T92432), and which heretofore has had no simple solution. VE's handling of reusable references is poor, with the resulting opaque numeric ref name cruft we are all used to seeing, such as in citations like <ref name=":0"/>, ":1", and so on, and the concomitant difficulty in assuring that you are citing the correct source elsewhere in the article when you attempt to reuse one of these numeric-named refs. There is now a script available to mitigate this problem after the fact.

Script RefRenamer converts all VE numeric names on a page to useful named references (default: Lastname-YYYY). There are many addditional options to customize how you want it done. This has worked flawlessly on pages containing more than a hundred numeric references; here's an example where it made about 136 changes at Generation Z (diff). This script by User:Nardog is powerful, effective, flexible, and accurate.

The script doesn't prevent the VE problem from occurring, but it is a complete solution for converting all numeric ref names on one page to reasonable ref names. I don't expect newer MED editors to use this—they have enough learning about proper MEDRS sourcing on their plate already—but the regulars here may wish to know about this, so you can wade in after an article stabilizes, and then rationalize all the ref names in one fell swoop. Details at User:Nardog/RefRenamer. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 22:55, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Sure will ... that crappy ref name = 0 stuff has long prevented me from any attempting to fix medical content. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:15, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi, Sandy, glad to hear this. It's so easy to use, that if you'd like to list a dozen articles below where ":0 stuff" is standing in your way, I'll go fix them all, and be back five or ten minutes later. There's a brief learning curve as you look at an unfamiliar interface, try stuff out, and learn the ropes, but it quickly becomes second nature, and is fast, and powerful. The Gen Z thing took me less than a minute, and it only took that long, because I'm a perfectionist and altered a dozen or more ref names to something more to my liking; if I'd accepted all the defaults, it would've been done in five seconds. Once you get going, you can churn them out several articles per minute. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 23:22, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

I'll remember to ping you in next time I come across one ... too busy today! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:32, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Mathglot here's one: Cancer Diagnostic Probe. Lord that ref naming convention is awful. When in edit mode, if one can see a name-date, it is so much easier to examine text. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:19, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Sandy, I started to run the script, but looking at the first one, it seems to be a product sales catalog page, and so I immediately stopped; doesn't seem worth fixing a ref to a bad source. Maybe the other two were okay, but I didn't check. Can you find me another example? Mathglot (talk) 21:24, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Mathglot I see that multiple sclerosis has taken on a bit of the dreadful VE refnaming ... not much, though, because I used to try to keep it clean. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:53, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

 Done. You should try it out . Mathglot (talk) 04:09, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Here's a better one: FA Major depressive disorder. Needs a FAR, but checking text for dated sourcing becomes difficult because one cannot see what the named ref is while working in edit mode because they have those stupid names with no indicated of year. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:57, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Sandy:  Done. Can you check it out? (edit conflict) Mathglot (talk) 04:04, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Mathglot it looks like Zhou-2020 and Zhou-2020-1 are the same source, and the same problem with Hetrick.[12] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:11, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

That's because someone wrote the citations in there twice, fully spelled out, so :1 (Zhou-2020) they included |display-authors=6 but in :5 (Zhou-2020-1) they did not; the script sees them as different, and does not combine them. You can consider it a GIGO problem, perhaps. Same thing with Hetrick, :2 and :6 differed by the same parameter, and the script renamed them to "Hetrick-2021" and "Hetrick-2021-1", for the same reason. At least when the script renames them to names like, "Zhou-2020" and "Zhou-2020-1", it's easy to fix the problem; when they were ":1" and ":5", it's not so easy to see. Mathglot (talk) 04:35, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

True 'dat! Next time I come across one of these, I'll find the time to use the script. Thanks for doing that. I HATE Those Stupid Ref Names. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:42, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Here's another fine mess: Applied behavior analysis. Someone just asked on my talk that I look at it, but I go in to edit mode to start tagging non-RS, and I have to look at a bunch of gibberish ref names that give me no idea which source each it. Who Ever Invented That Mess. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:03, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

 Done. Please verify. Mathglot (talk) 04:07, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Mathglot all good now (you left one error inadvertently at major depressive disorder that I fixed). The instructions at User:Nardog/RefRenamer give me no idea where I will find the Options or how I will set them, and I don't want to install unless I know I can make it work. That is, I would not want ref name= "Smith-2015"; I would use ref name= Smith2015. The instructions seem to suggest that I will be able to remove the hyphen and the quote marks, but if I can't, I will never use the script. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:04, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

That’s awesome, thanks for the head’s up @Mathglot! Innisfree987 (talk) 23:24, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Looks like a useful tool. On perhaps you use VE yourself, for its ease of editing without having to learn wiki markup Just a anecdotal datapoint, but my motivation or using VE is far more to do with "proof reading as you write" than not learning markup. A mental model that goes "graduate from VE to markup" doesn't quite apply... though perhaps if I could do some "tag folding" in markup it might be a different story, or hack something up so I get a preview with a big red cursor where I am editing in another window... Is there a way I can set the name property on a reference from within the VE (I had a quite look at the properties of a citation), and if not should I run tool after every edit / dig through the markdown to fine the reference? Talpedia (talk) 09:57, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

No "graduation" implied. I switch to VE when I want to insert table columns, because VE is better at it; otoh, wiki markup is better at reuse of ref names. About your question: I'm not sure, but I don't think so. I checked mw:Help:VisualEditor/User guide#Re-using an existing reference and mw:Help:VisualEditor/User guide#Editing an existing reference and there's nothing there about it, but that doesn't mean it's not possible. You could try the links at WP:VisualEditor/Named references#See also, or ask at mw:VisualEditor/Feedback.

Personally, I would not run the tool after every VE edit. Any tool should somehow improve your productivity, and running it that way would just slow you down, I would think, and wouldn't help you at all with your next edit at that article. If you use VE exclusively, you needn't run it at all; someone who uses the standard editor can convert it, if and when they need to. If you wanted to be especially accommodating, I suppose you could run it once, at the end of a series of edits at one article, when you're done with that article and ready to move on to some other one, but even then, it's not necessary, as it doesn't help you, and the next editor might be using VE as well, so it wouldn't help them, either. Mathglot (talk) 10:29, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

This is fantastic. Thanks to @Nardog for this annoyance-solver. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:52, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Voting underway at meta

Apparently, they are voting at Meta on changing VE reference naming style, which is directly related to this topic. You can register your opinion in the #Voting section (down the page; the "#Discussion" section is above it, for some reason) at: m:Community Wishlist Survey 2023/Editing/VisualEditor should use proper names for references. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 00:17, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Can you help evaluate these?

Here are ten articles updated via RefRenamer; can you help evaluate them for accuracy, and note any problems you see? I tried to find ones that are part of the MED project, but not all of these are; covid articles flood the search results, so I tried to winnow it down and get more of a balance, so they wouldn't all be Covid articles. Here's the list:

1. COVID-19 pandemic in India – (diff)
2. COVID-19 pandemic in Sarawak – (diff)
3. Eukaryote hybrid genome – (diff)
4. Face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States – (diff)
5. Murine respirovirus – (diff)
6. Polycystic ovary syndrome – (diff)
7. RBM10 – (diff)
8. Thraustochytrids – (diff)
9. Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in Saskatchewan – (diff)
10. Viral quasispecies – (diff)

I noticed that in a few articles (e.g., Face masks, and the Saskatchewan article) the original citations created by VE users contain no author name at all; the tool cannot create a refname like "Lastname-YYYY" if there is no last name in the citation. In this case, it falls back to other data in the citation, so you'll see names of websites or publishers instead of the last name in some of them. (Not sure what MEDRS guidelines are about citations, but I would have thought that author name is part of the minimal set.) In any case, any help you can give evaluating these by clicking the "diff's" and offering your opinion below, is appreciated! (Positive or neutral feedback is also valuable; if you try some of these and see no problems, please comment as well.) Mathglot (talk) 02:24, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

In the masks diff, a couple refs without a date used the first four digits of the ISSN in lieu of the four-digit year, which IMO has the potential to introduce confusion. The PCOS diff looks good to me tho! Innisfree987 (talk) 04:07, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

@Innisfree987:, Thanks. That's by design, or at least, configurably so. The dialog asks you what you want to do, if there is no YYYY date, and gives one possibility as "choose any four-digit number instead", and I picked that, resulting in the piece of ISSN being used, as you saw. Perhaps a bad choice on my part; I'll go back to the article and manually adjust that, but had I been as eagle-eyed as you were, I might've spotted that, or configured it not to substitute some other four-digit number. What do you think it should do, if no year is available? What do you do, in that case? Mathglot (talk) 04:14, 11 February 2023 (UTC) P.S. "Masks" fixed (diff). Thanks for the heads-up on that one. Mathglot (talk) 04:24, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

For books, the last four digits of the ISBN would be a better choice than the first four. Pretty much all books published in the US have the same first four digits in the ISBN (9780). I'm not sure how ISSNs work, but if they are similar in design, then the last four might work better than the first four in that case, too. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:23, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

I hadn’t encountered this before now; but I am wondering if the first word of the article or publication title might be useful just to avoid a situation where four digits looks like a year but isn’t? Innisfree987 (talk) 05:20, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Imho, it doesn't make sense to try to deal with this programmatically. The script already gives you the option to override what "year" digits it chooses, so you can just type in the value you prefer if it picks the wrong value. It hasn't been a problem in any of the articles I've used it on so far. But a better venue for questions about operation of the script is the script Talk page. Mathglot (talk) 07:00, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

General questions

Do you have a method for preventing collisions? What if there are two different "Lee-2020" sources cited in the same article? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:17, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Handled automatically by the script. This is covered in the documentation at: "'Increment starts at' – Number to be appended in case a name is already used". Iirc, the default behavior is to add a hyphen and a digit after the year, so: "Smith-1996-1", "Smith-1996-2" and so on, but you can configure it in the dialog box that appears to do it differently, and you can override all of those and choose your own method, by specifying them in the reference table. I happen to prefer "Smith-1996a", "Smith-1996b", etc. and for the moment at least, that involves a manual override, which is not a big deal–I just type them in (there are not usually very many such). If that were a very popular method among script users, I imagine that we could prevail upon the script author to add it as a new method.

If you click the 'diff' link on the Sarawak article above, you'll see that Sharon Ling was prolific that year and had at least twenty publications. The numeric references were converted by the script into disambiguated "Lastname-year" refnames with appended uniqueness digits as follows:

• "Ling-2020-2" (was ":9")
• "Ling-2020-3" (was: ":13")
• "Ling-2020-4" (was: ":14")
• "Ling-2020-5" (was: ":16")
• "Ling-2020-6" (was: ":19")

...and so on and so on, until:

• "Ling-2020-20" (was: ":139")

No, wait: I changed my default: the original default, is that the first one is "Smith-1996" and then the second one is "Smith-1996-2"; but you can configure all that, and I did and it remembered my change, so I'm starting to not be 100% sure of the original default when you first load the program. But general questions would probably be more appropriate at the script Talk page than here, where only a limited audience will see it. Also, I shouldn't really be answering questions, I'm a newbie, too, as far as the script is concerned. (Everyone is; it's only hours old.) Mathglot (talk) 03:43, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Cataract surgery

I am trying to fix a bunch of uncited claims and clarify the text of Cataract surgery. Anyone with the time and inclination, particularly if they have topic expertise (which I do not), is invited to chip in to the extent they can afford. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 11:29, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Use of subsartorial artery/vein

Hello all,
I'd like have some more views on this topic related to Femoral_artery#Segments, Femoral_vein#Course, and two related diagrams ([13], [14]). Please look at the previous conversation below (copied from my talk page). Mikael Häggström (talk) 19:39, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello Mikael - would you reconsider your changes from superficial femoral vein to 'subsartorial' this term is not at all generally recognised. The general usage has been recommended to just use femoral vein as per the long standing misunderstandings generated by the use of superficial to a deep vein. Its use on many files as with 'subsartorial artery' is confusing and unhelpful as a search for these terms is fruitless. Kind regards --Iztwoz (talk) 11:31, 10 February 2023 (UTC) Hello Iztwoz. Thank you for the review, and those are valid points, but overall I think this usage is justified. It is true that I have cited a work where I am the author (Subsartorial Vessels as Replacement Names for Superficial Femoral Vessels - I can email it to you if the online pdf is temporarily unavailable), but as it is in a peer reviewed journal, is is acceptable use as per Wikipedia:Identifying and using self-published works. Pragmatically, I do think the subsartorial name should be mentioned first, as the superficial one is discouraged. Simply calling the entire segment femoral is practically not enough, since clinicians often need to specify the location, such as in thrombosis where there is a lower risk in the subsartorial vein compared to the common femoral vein (more of this in my article). Adding it myself in Wikipedia may be viewed as a promotion of medical practice (conflict of interest), but the usage is reflected in multiple peer reviewed articles: Phi Thi Nguyen N, Luong Cong T, Tran TTH, Nhu Do B, Tien Nguyen S, Thanh Vu B; et al. (2022). "Lower Plasma Albumin, Higher White Blood Cell Count and High-Sensitivity C-Reactive Protein are Associated with Femoral Artery Intima-Media Thickness Among Newly Diagnosed Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus". Int J Gen Med. 15: 2715–2725. doi:10.2147/IJGM.S351342. PMC 8922038. PMID 35300147.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link) Cheung LH, Martin JS, Barger N, Phillips C, Fernandez V, Diogo R (2022). "The arteries of the musculoskeletal system of siamangs, and a comparison with other hylobatids, greater apes, and humans". J Morphol. 283 (7): 932–944. doi:10.1002/jmor.21480. PMID 35510698.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) Ramdass MJ, Spence R, Harnarayan P (2020). "Outcomes Associated with Femoral Vein Segmental Oversew/Ligation in Penetrating Trauma". J Emerg Trauma Shock. 13 (3): 231. doi:10.4103/JETS.JETS_50_20. PMC 7717467. PMID 33304076.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link) Gitto L, Bonaccorso L, Serinelli S (2019). "Death due to severe blood loss following an accidental lesion to the femoral vessels". Med Leg J. 87 (4): 196–201. doi:10.1177/0025817219875425. PMID 31686595.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) As per WP:COIM, this potential conflict of interest "does not mean that material from a conflicted source or editor should necessarily be dismissed" and I think readers of those listed articles should be able to find the item in Wikipedia. I might have created some undue weight in the relatively long description of this segment compared to the common femoral one, but I have now amended this by expanding the common femoral segments in the Femoral vein and Femoral artery articles. Mikael Häggström (talk) 19:02, 10 February 2023 (UTC) Mikael - since the renaming was your suggestion the other uses cited (all post 2019) may have taken their lead from the page. If it was an already established use it wouldn't have needed suggesting renaming? The use is stated to be only sometimes referred to - so why change to a widely unaccepted term? The part on diagrams widely altered refers to the femoral vein which is the current terminology. Usage is of the femoral continuing as the common femoral - superficial femoral is not used in major textbooks post 2005 if not before (it does still appear in various papers) and is actively discouraged. The 'newer' terminology is that of the consensus papers presented in 2001 and 2004. Since the use of superficial is redundant and to be discouraged where is the need for this newer renaming? Iztwoz (talk) 13:02, 11 February 2023 (UTC) Iztwoz, we can not assume that other publications have taken after the Wikipedia pages. I have supported this naming to fellow physicians and scholars, and I have made presentations at conferences, in a manner that you would expect any scholar to present their work even before Wikipedia existed. The need for an alternative name for the femoral artery/vein segment is justified by the same reasons as for the common femoral artery/vein - mainly that it is clinically important to be able to specify the segment, particularly in angiology and vascular surgery, even if it is not currently listed in Terminologia Anatomica. The discouragement of using superficial is not because of any redundancy, but to avoid patients being erroneously denied anticoagulant therapy for thrombosis in this segment (because the treating physicians may believe it is a superficial vein thrombosis when it is actually a deep vein thrombosis). Despite repeated recommendations against usage of the term superficial femoral vein, it does still appear in modern textbooks: Schrope B. Surgical and interventional ultrasound. New York: McGraw-Hill Education Medical; 2014. Page 186. Tibbs DJ. Varicose Veins and Related Disorders. Burlington: Elsevier Science; 2013. Page 466. Lefebvre C. Atlas of cardiovascular emergencies. New York: McGraw-Hill; 2015. Page 51 and 68. Moore EE, Feliciano DV, Mattox KL, Demetriades D, Inaba K. Trauma. New York: McGraw Hill Education; 2017. Page 852. Furthermore, they still often use it without caution in regard to its potential consequences of patients being denied anticoagulant therapy, particularly in books related to vascular surgery and sonography. It reflects the continuing need to specify the more distal segment of the fermoral artery/vein, and it is not realistic to expect busy clinicians to use more lengthy descriptions such as "the segment of the femoral vein distal to the branching point of the deep femoral vein". Wikipedia is in the real world - what we write here has real consequences - and if we do not present the alternative to superficial femoral artery/vein, then there will be an increased risk of people dying from untreated deep vein thrombosis. Yet, I have now clarified in the femoral artery and femoral vein that these terms are not listed in Terminologia Anatomica, and the diagrams still mention the femoral artery and the femoral vein as specified in that reference work. Mikael Häggström (talk) 19:22, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Generally speaking, articles/content about anatomy should use the Terminologia Anatomica name; unfortunately, TA doesn't mention these sub-segments. In such cases, I prefer to follow textbooks. It is possible to find a peer-reviewed journal article claiming just about anything.

I am always suspicious of claims that we need to write something to prevent ill-informed physicians from making mistakes (or, on the flip side of that coin, to prevent patients from making the "wrong" choice). WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:24, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

My experience is that when:

1. there is a thrombus located solely in v. femoralis superficialis,
2. the radiology report describes the location as such, and
3. the radiology report does not use the term DVT

then the probability that this will be interpreted by the clinician as a superficial vein thrombosis and treated accordingly is pretty high. That being said, this is not a particularly common occurrence since step 1 is fairly uncommon and many radiologists are aware of this issue and therefore avoid steps 2 and 3 (at least in conjunction). Whether Wikipedia should strive to use terminology that circumvents this issue is a question that can be discussed. One could certainly make the case that the argument that we should is in essence an instance of WP:Righting great wrongs. TompaDompa (talk) 06:56, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Electroconvulsive therapy - urgent

Please help and stop this IP-vandalism. Greetings. --Saidmann (talk) 20:21, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

I listed it at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Electroconvulsive therapy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:08, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Strangely, the request was declined. What shall we do? Would it help if someone added a comment on the talk page of the article? I also suspect that the disruption is done by a blocked user. --Saidmann (talk) 16:10, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

I guess we do some combination of:

• Reverting more
• Posting things on the users talk page and the page to make clear that they are being unreasonable (quote rules at them)
• Wait for people to insult us

Until a block occurs

I'm glad I'm not an admin. Talpedia (talk) 17:28, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

I probably should have labeled it as "edit warring" instead of the (default) vandalism. Saidmann, I think it would be safer if you didn't revert anything yourself. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:43, 13 February 2023 (UTC)