Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Task forces/Archive 1

< Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine‎ | Task forces
Latest comment: 10 years ago by LT910001 in topic Proposed task forces

Proposed task forces

Latest comment: 10 years ago145 comments38 people in discussion

Reproductive medicine

Description: I propose a task force to coordinate work on the articles listed in Category:Methods of birth control. This excludes the abortion articles, which are covered by Wikipedia:WikiProject Abortion. I anticipate this task force would have two parent WikiProjects, Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine and Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality. (Note that Talk:Birth control is tagged with banners for both projects.)

I would like to standardize the section names and ordering of sections in these articles, coordinate article improvement (I think condom is probably the closest to FA, and it would be nice to start working toward FA status for some articles in this category), and have a place to notify interested parties of relevant activity (in categorization, for example, since few people watch categories).

Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)

  1. LyrlTalk C 00:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
  2. David Ruben Talk 01:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
  3. Andrew c [talk]
  4. Zodon (talk) 08:18, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
  5. MastCell Talk 18:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
  6. KC Panchal (talk · contribs) 07:49, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Discussion:

  • Comment regarding the task force name: Originally, Lyrl suggested the name of "birth control." I then suggested "reproductive medicine," since it would apply more to medical issues. Is "reproductive medicine" a suitable alternative name given the above description? Should it be called "birth control?" Or should the description be expanded to include all of reproduction medicine? Are there any other ideas? --Scott Alter 03:07, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
It seems like the description doesn't really match either of these names ("birth control methods" is a subset of both). Seems like "reproductive medicine" would reasonably also include much of the material in Category:Sexual health (STIs, Infertility, birth control, etc.) "Birth control" might reasonably be expected to cover material in the Category:birth control (policy, activism, family planning, etc.). I don't object to either name, and I don't know how important it is to have the scope description match the name closely. (Whether it is better to pick a name and grow into it, or chose a more specific name and maybe have to change it later.) Whichever name use, can still use the contraceptive methods articles as an initial focus. Zodon (talk) 22:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
I like the name as proposed, primarily because it seems flexible, but also because it's a regular medical specialty, which seems like a good way of organizing WPMED task forces. I also like the idea of having birth control be its first focus. Perhaps we could write a more general sentence to say something about reproductive medicine in general, and then get a task force page created so these editors can get to work. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment regarding inclusion of abortion: If this project is going to be about "reproductive medicine," I think some items regarding abortion should be included (only the medical-related articles that already have WPMED tags). What do others think? Also, Wikipedia:WikiProject Abortion has been inactive for a while - so I wouldn't use that as a reason to exclude abortion articles. --Scott Alter 03:38, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
I hadn't realized WikiProject Abortion had become inactive. Given that, it makes sense to me to include the abortion articles in the scope of this task force. Should there be some kind of official merger of the WikiProject Abortion into this task force? LyrlTalk C 21:37, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
I would prefer to keep WikiProject Abortion separate, since it also deals with the legal and social aspects of abortion. I don't think this task force should include those topics. What I've seen done in the past (I don't remember where) was placing a tag on an inactive project saying to see another project (or task force) that has a similar scope. That way, WikiProject Abortion could be revived in the future. --Scott Alter 23:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't think that the WPMED project necessarily wants to take over the entire scope of WP Abortion. The medical side, of course -- but perhaps not laws and social issues. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
That would make sense. Unless there are any objections (I can't think of any), I'll list that as a third parent WikiProject. LyrlTalk C 21:37, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Isn't reproductive pharmacology a component (subset) of reproductive medicine (as pharmacology is with all medicine), rather than being a superset? I think it would be better to have this task force as "related" to Pharmacology, rather than a descendant task force. Otherwise, all descendant WPMED projects and task forces should be a descendant of Pharmacology - since drugs are a major part of medicine. For example, there are currently a bunch of WPMED descendant projects. Most of these projects have a pharmacological aspect, but I wouldn't expect them all to also be descendants of Pharmacology. Additionally, WPMED and WPPHARM currently call each other related projects, rather than one a descendant of the other. I would keep task forces of each project only related to the other, and not a direct child. If WPPHARM had a task force (say Reproductive pharmacology), I don't think it should also be a task force of medicine, and vice versa. --Scott Alter 23:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
I also think that "related" is the right answer. It's possible that the same principle could apply to the Sexology project. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Creation

I will start a (mostly empty) task force page at Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Reproductive medicine task force in a few minutes. It can be moved later/replaced with someone else's version/changed at will, if wanted. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, the page exists. I copied a lot of it off of the MILHIST science task force, and added Lyrl as the first participant. Please feel free to make major changes. The participants might hash out the scope in a little more detail over the coming weeks, for example, and it occurred to me that the list of categories within the task force's scope might be expanded to include a "key articles" section as well.
Eventually, we can set up a category for the task force's articles and list it in the {{WPMED}} project banner -- but I ask, as a favor to me, that we not do that until I've assessed those last ~1800 articles. I think that the task force may break the script I'm using for that (by defaulting assigning every article to a task force). WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
I'll work on the coding for {{WPMED}}, but I'll need an administrator to edit the template since it is fully protected. Also, the template could be changed ASAP, as long as no one uses the new parameters yet. As for the parameters, I'll call the new one "Reproductive". Another option is to be able to have task forces give different importance ratings to each article. Should this be done, or should the same importance be used for the main project and the task forces? --Scott Alter 23:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
The problem is with Outriggr's script. See this comment, for example. It doesn't play well with task forces. So either you assess everything as belonging to a task force (inappropriate, particularly if we only have one), or it doesn't work at all. If we're only doing a handful a day, it's not a real problem, but I'd like to get through the remaining backlog before we break the script. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Well, I was under the impression that an entire new WikiProject called "Reproductive health/Reproductive medicine" is being proposed (which is also long due). As I'd discussed with Lyrl and WhatamIdoing, articles related to Obstetrics need quite a bit of attention, too. Also, why is there a talk only of contraception when talking of reproductive health. May be it will also include the whole of obstetrics (at least) and lot of gynecology also. Of course, if lack of workforce is one of the problems, then may be it might be better to start with projects/task forces with narrower scope and then, may be merge them as appropriate projects. But, I fully support (and will try to contribute to) any effort that picks up a neglected part of Wikipedia, and tries to improve it. All the best. KC Panchal (talk · contribs) 07:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Were you under the impression that this was a proposal for an entire new project, or is there another proposal out there? I think this project's current mindset (or at least my mindset) is that it is better to have task forces than descendant projects. Most of the current WPMED descendant projects are inactive or barely active, and I think using task forces should maintain more activity than a separate project. Several other proposals for similar projects or task forces have been made over the last year, but none ever materialized. Here are links to the proposals I found and the initial proposal date:
The embryology proposal is still open, but I think this task force could fill the role. Almost all of the current embryology articles relate to humans, and WPMED should already encompass all of human embryology. I addressed the scope portion of your question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Reproductive medicine task force. --Scott Alter 09:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
No, I haven't come across any new proposal. My misinterpretation might have been because of reading too much between the lines. Yes, I read your reply on the talk page. Thanks. —KetanPanchaltaLK 11:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Emergency medicine and EMS

Description: This task would encompass all of emergency medicine, including EMS. This proposal comes from the splitting of Wikipedia:WikiProject Emergency medical services into "First aid" and "Emergency medicine and EMS." This is a compromise of people still wanting a project for First aid, even if there is a project for EMS (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject First aid#Change of project name and scope). Wikipedia:WikiProject Emergency medical services would be renamed back to Wikipedia:WikiProject First aid and the project page would be reverted back to its prior version. The current version of the page would become the new "Emergency medicine and EMS task force." The 300+ articles tagged with {{WikiProject Emergency medical services}} would be converted to WPMED with a parameter for the task force. The 30 or so articles that were part of the former WikiProject First aid would be retagged with {{WikiProject First aid}} (with the template reverted to its older version). Scott Alter 03:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)

  1. Scott Alter 03:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
  2. Medicellis (talk) 03:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Discussion:

  • Support - woud follow a natural flow.
  1. WP:First Aid - shows basic, first person on scene care. (once reverted from WP:EMS)
  2. WP:EMS - shows how casualties would be transported to acute care facilities
  3. Emergency Medicine - Advanced life support techniques (encorperated with WP:EMS)
  4. WP:WikiProject Medicine - Parent topic & advanced diseases & topics

Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 02:58, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

  • Support

I think the that would be a appropriate flow for the projects and what the consensus was reached on the WP:EMS(formaly WP:FIRST AID) talk page. Medicellis (talk) 13:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Dermatology

Description: Dermatology-related articles.

Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)

  1. Kilbad (talk) 03:34, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Discussion:

  • Just to have some discussion, Kilbad just created Wikipedia:WikiProject Dermatology. We're having a discussion on his talk page, and I am making this into a task force, rather than starting a new project from scratch. I'm not sure if there is interest from others, but I am going ahead and making this task force (instead of Kilbad making a new project). I believe that all medical specialties should eventually become a task force of WPMED, so I would support the creation of this task force. --Scott Alter 03:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Ophthalmology

Description: Restructure Wikipedia:WikiProject Ophthalmology as a task force.

Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)

Discussion:

  • WP:EYE appears to be dead. I think it would be appropriate to restructure it as a task force under WPMED. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:10, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - Assuming there is no opposition at WP:Eye. --Scott Alter 20:13, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong support — Task forces are getting much more attnetion lately. I'd support pretty much any inactive WikiProject under medicine being turned into one. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 22:02, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Pulmonology

Description

I was recommended to this page to propose this. I propose that we create a task force for all medical specialties, to make wikiproject medicine more organized. I am particularly interested in pulmonology and would really like to see this happen. It would be a great way to organize wikiproject medicine into specific specialties along with all of the diseases and other related articles such as treatments and diagnostic methods (ex: spirometry) to go along with them.

Interested Wikipedians(please add your name)

  1. --Tyrol5 (talk) 17:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  2. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 17:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  3. Of course I'm interested. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Discussion:

Medical genetics

Description: Restructure Wikipedia:WikiProject Medical genetics as a task force.

Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)

Discussion:

  • MedGen is a tiny, semi-active project. Restructuring it as a WPMED task force would relieve them of administrative overhead (e.g., fixing their busted listing in the WikiProject Council's directory) while still maintaining a separate, dedicated space for interested people and possibly increasing the visibility (e.g., getting listed in the WPMED navigation template). There are no objections from the two editors on the existing talk page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:27, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


Conversion of medicine-related projects

Most of the specialty-related projects are inactive. I propose we convert them all to task forces. This section contains a list of the projects and their status. I have left out Wikipedia:WikiProject Anatomy and Wikipedia:WikiProject Dentistry, as I'm not sure they should be task forces or remain separate projects. --Scott Alter 00:56, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


I'd like to give the recently notified groups an opportunity to respond. We don't want another WP:WikiProject First Aid-type mess to unravel. As for the older ones: do we have (or can we create) an organized list of the steps involved in the conversion process? I've had it in mind to start the work on MedGen, but wasn't quite sure what needs to be done. Move the project pages, fix the WPMED banner template, merge banners on articles, update WikiProject Council's directory, ask members to sign up at the main project participation page, perhaps rename categories? Anything else? (Perhaps we should list the steps at WP:WikiProject Medicine/Task forces.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:29, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Agree with you both. However, I believe it's essential to keep WP:DENTISTY and WP:ANATOMY separate. Both those projects are far too large to merge. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 20:43, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Scott for flagging this up. I totally agree that WP:MED is currently more served by integration than by Balkanisation of the various subfields, and I support the use of taskforces as opposed to separate small WikiProjects. This ensures the assessments are uniform, and coordination will be easier. I'm with Cyclonenim that dentistry and anatomy are not suitable for taskforce treatment; "human anatomy" would be, as would "human physiology", because they fall under the aegis of basic sciences in medicine; I'm ambivalent about pathology. JFW | T@lk 22:57, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
We should decide on how long to wait on a response. I definitely want to avoid another WP:WikiProject First aid-type problem. With WP:First aid, there was no response in two weeks, the project was modified, and someone finally objected two weeks later. So is two weeks enough time if there is no discussion? I still think it is, but I would be willing to wait longer. But I don't think such a large problem would occur with these projects. Most of the projects' participants are also active at WPMED (unlike for WP:First aid), and we would not be changing the scope of the projects. WhatamIdoing - I believe the steps for task force creation that you outlined are them all, but I will double check and start a section on task force creation at WP:WikiProject Medicine/Task forces, as you suggested. --Scott Alter 01:46, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Anything that facilitates the aim of the projects is fine by me. I think, for most of us, the real world gets in the way of contributing to our wiki-interests. I think this will improve visibility and accessability & agree the projects should be merged. Cheers! Mattopaedia (talk) 23:04, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
I think two weeks is the cutoff here. If after two weeks no objection has been raised then clearly whoever responds after that time is not particularly active. This is exactly the point: if a WikiProject is so inactive that a message of this kind gets ignored for two weeks then clearly it is better to have said WikiProject absorbed into a larger framework where its articles will be assessed more systematically.
What we could do with is a "Recent Changes" for all articles in a particular taskforce area. For instance, it would be very useful if we could monitor all edits to all neurology articles in a watchlist style. Anyone know how to make the wiki do such a thing? JFW | T@lk 09:37, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
JFW, see Talk:List_of_alternative_medicine_subjects#How_to_use_as_a_watchlist. You would have to make an article with all neurology articles inside it, and then use the recent changes on the side, I think. Might make it as a subpage of WP:MED. II | (t - c) 10:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't know the answer here, but I suspect that the end of this page contains it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi,
On the issue of procedure-- it would have been nice if the post to the group included a link to the task force page (e.g. WP:TASKFORCE). I edited the WikiProject Medicine pages to fix this and explain the organizational framework a bit.
If the merge/moves takes place:
What happens to the templates? Will the template be preserved (e.g. {{PathologyWikiProject}})?
Will the WP:MED template ({{WPMED}}) have a fold-out to list the taskforces -- if the templates get nixed?
Will the links get preserved, (e.g. WP:PATH, WP:Pathology)?
I think the above give visibility to the project/collection of articles related to pathology.
It would have been good to list the changes of the re-organization-- and possible pros and cons.
I wonder whether it has been considered that a number of people may not look for a subproject... WP:MED is a mammoth project.
How many clicks would it take to get from Talk:Atypical_small_acinar_proliferation to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pathology if WP:PATH were turned into a task force (currently it takes one click)? Nephron  T|C 14:46, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Project templates are usually folded into the WPMED template, but the task force is specifically named, and it's just one click to get to the task force's pages. (See Talk:Emergency medical services for an example.)
Every existing shortcut is kept and redirected, just like you'd do if you were moving any other page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:43, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

It has been several weeks since this process was initiated, so I will start to convert the projects this weekend. There have been no real objections to any of the project conversions. I will begin with the easy ones. Medical genetics may be a bit more difficult because it has a few important subpages. --Scott Alter 00:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I just converted Gastroenterology, Nephrology, and Radiology. All of the old project template banners will need to be dealt with. They are: {{GIWikiProject}}, {{NephroWikiProject}}, {{OphthoWikiProject}}, and {{RadsWikiProject}} (with {{MedGen}} and {{PathologyWikiProject}} still to go).
Today, I converted Medical genetics and Pathology. The only thing left to do is convert {{MedGen}} to {{WPMED}} on all of the currently tagged articles (see Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:MedGen). There are around 500 articles, so a bot should probably do the conversion. I'll save that for another time. I tagged all of the other templates with {{tdeprecated}}. They could also be put up for deletion. --Scott Alter 02:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for all that work, Scott. I left notes at (I think) all the projects to indicate that the process is (basically) complete. Hopefully, if we've missed anything, then someone will let us know. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Ophthalmology

I've started the conversion of WP:EYE (because it's the oldest in the list above).

  • Pages I think I've done everything listed in the directions under "Pages".
  • Templates I've left a message at {{WPMED}} about adding the new task force to the template. Perhaps, since we're getting no opposition, it would be sensible to do all of these task forces at once. There's not much point in updating the templates on the articles' talk pages until the banner understands | ophthalmology=yes.
  • Categories As they weren't doing article assessment, they only have two existing cats (that I can find): Category:WikiProject Ophthalmology articles and Category:Ophthalmology articles needing expert attention. I'm off to figure out how to create categories.

If I've missed anything, I'd be happy to have someone else step in and fix it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:21, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I've proposed that the existing cat for ophtho articles be renamed here. The process for creating cats appears to be rather... indirect, but I'm making progress.
Should we keep the separate "expert attention" program, or roll it into WPMED's long list? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:06, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
I think I've done all the category stuff. Will the existence of the categories (eventually) automatically result in a table being created for the assessment page, or is there an additional step to be taken? (I've created a place for the assessment stats to appear, but of course there will be no assessed articles until the WPMED banner is updated and the banners converted.) WhatamIdoing (talk)
Everything you've done looks good. I just coded the modifications needed for {{WPMED}} at {{WPMED/new}} and am waiting for an admin to copy the code. This will implement all of the new task forces into the banner. There is no harm to add all of the parameters for future task forces now, and if some projects do not become task forces, it is okay for the unused parameters to stay. Once {{WPMED}} is updated, all that is left is to update talk pages using {{OphthoWikiProject}} to the new syntax of {{WPMED}}. Once this is done, the assessment table will automatically be generated. As for the "expert attention" category, I do not think it is currently needed. However, if the task forces ever become very active, I could envision each task force with its own "expert attention" category. --Scott Alter 05:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Everything is now completed in the ophtho task force transition. The only decision left to make is whether or not to keep Category:Ophthalmology articles needing expert attention. --Scott Alter 02:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
How do articles get onto that list? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:48, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
By adding {{Expert-subject|Ophthalmology}} to the article. Alternatively, {{Expert-subject|Medicine}} is much more widely used, as evident by Category:Medicine articles needing expert attention. --Scott Alter 07:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I think it's going to disappear, then. The template asks the editor to add the name of the WikiProject, and someone looking through the directory would choose Medicine instead of a task force name. Perhaps we should empty and CFD it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:06, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
I just emptied the category by using Medicine as the WikiProject, rather than Ophthalmology. I'm not sure if we need to CFD it, or if it might apply for a speedy delete (since it was populated by a template that is no longer used). --Scott Alter 23:48, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Speedy-ing it sounds much better. The CFD process is horrible. Will you, or shall I? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I just tagged the category with {{db-templatecat}}, with an explanation in the edit summary. If an admin does not accept that, we could always just wait 4 days and then use {{db-catempty}}. That would still probably be easier than using Cfd. --Scott Alter 02:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Everything has now been deleted. Now, we're just waiting for the CFD on Category:WikiProject Ophthalmology articles to close. --Scott Alter 02:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Cardiology

Description: Wikipedia must have a task force for Cardiology, Because it is a big area of midecine, and the articles related to cardiology need allot of efforts, you can check that here Category:Cardiovascular system stubs Maen. K. A. (talk) 13:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Interested Wikipedians (please add your name) add # then ~~~~

  1. Maen. K. A. (talk) 13:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
  2. T.F.AlHammouri (talk) 13:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Discussion:

  • Support, because the articles of cardiovascular diseases are exceptionally weak. Due to its high importance, I think wikipedia must be a no.1 reference to this subject, like it is to any other. T.F.AlHammouri (talk) 13:43, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - as per Maen. K. A. --- kilbad (talk) 16:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - good idea. Don't know, however, how much time I'll be able to dedicate myself to it. Mikael Häggström (talk) 17:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - all major medical specialties should have their own task forces. --Scott Alter 20:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. Rapidly moving field of medicine that needs up-to-date content. JFW | T@lk 22:13, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
I created the task force, but i want some help on creating the article tagging and assessment part please check it here Maen. K. A. (talk) 16:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Everything is now in place, except for the modifications needed to {{WPMED}}. An updated version of the template with cardiology is at {{WPMED/sandbox}}, but I'd like to get some feedback before it gets implemented (see Template talk:WPMED#Meta Banner). Also, I don't think the task force needs separate article assessment and participant pages at this point. They would only be necessary if the main task force page gets too cluttered. --Scott Alter 19:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your help, and do we have to edit all the articles to modify the {{WPMED}}, to become tagged with cardiology task force ?? Maen. K. A. (talk) 14:53, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes - you have to edit the talk pages of all articles you want to include in the task force. Just add the parameters "| cardiology=yes | cardiology-imp=x", and fill in the x with an importance (Top, High, Mid, Low). --Scott Alter 21:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Psychiatry

Description:

Articles relating to psychiatry are inconsistent across Wikipedia. They generally take different descriptive approaches (often eschewing a valid neurological explication for a psychological one). Schizophrenia is an excellent article, and might be looked to as a model for less organized entries, such as Antisocial Personality Disorder.

Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)

  1. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:07, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
  2. Dr. Mainak Mukherjee, MD (Psychiatry) Mainak (talk) 09:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  3. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 10:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  4. JFW | T@lk 22:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
  5. InnocentsAbroad2 (talk) 23:22, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  6. earlypsychosis (talk · contribs)

Discussion:

Just so that everyone is aware, 2 projects already exist related to Psychology - Wikipedia:WikiProject Psychology and Wikipedia:WikiProject Psychopathology (which is inactive). There will be significant overlap, so communication with these projects might be a good thing. --Scott Alter 02:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Not sure why there would be an overlap. Psychology is a field of experimental biology -- psychiatry is a field of medicine. Unless, of course, we should promote Psychiatry (and Medicine) from an art and a science, to a science (not an applied science). --InnocentsAbroad2 (talk) 18:12, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
There is an overlap in the articles these projects cover - not necessarily the fields themselves. The definitions of psychiatry and psychology don't really matter when it comes to WikiProjects. A project may encompass any article its members wish to work on. WikiProject Psychology has tagged most psychiatric medical disorders with their project's banner (see Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Psychology articles by quality), so they are already looking after many articles that the psychiatry task force will cover. --Scott Alter 20:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Support creation I think that five interested editors is enough to support creation of this task force. Does anyone involved want to do so, or do you want someone else to set things up? The main page should be WP:WikiProject Medicine/Psychiatry task force, and the instructions are here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Hematology

Description: Hematology is a major area of medicine, and it should have its own task force, plus there is allot of articles that need to be cleaned up, expanded and created, and there is allot of quality articles that can be maintained or even promoted for better quality ranks Maen. K. A. (talk) 13:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)

  1. Maen. K. A. (talk) 13:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
  2. Renaissancee (talk) 16:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
  3. User:Ayman Qasrawi —Preceding undated comment added 11:34, 11 July 2009 (UTC).

Discussion:

  • Question Should it be part of a larger oncology task force? There's substantial, but definitely not total, overlap. I think that all the hematologists I've met are "hem/onc"s, not just "hem"s. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:20, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
    • I also think it should include hematology and oncology, and should be named "Hematology and oncology task force". --Scott Alter 00:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
      • I believe you are both right, those 2 cant be separated, and its time to start a hematology-oncology task force, thank you :-) MaenK.A.Talk 06:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
        • I couldn't agree more with creating this task force, as hematology/oncology (specifically oncology), are huge topics within medicine that absolutely need coverage in WP:MED. I agree with the fact that hematology does belong with oncology. Tyrol5 [Talk] 20:40, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Oncology (To be merged with Hematology task force)

Description: Contributing information on cancer and other sorts of information dealing with oncology. Large amounts of articles on WP:MED already are somehow linked to onocology and it would only be right to create a task force to support those articles.As of 2 June, 2009; there is no WikiProject, Task force or any other type of administration to cover Oncology. Renaissancee (talk) 03:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)

  1. Renaissancee (talk) 03:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Discussion:

Hematology covers blood and pathology. Oncology is the study of tumors, which both are completely different topics. Renaissancee (talk) 20:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
And lymphoma goes where in your scheme? Outside of the very largest research centers, I don't think that I've ever met a hematologist that didn't also treat solid tumors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Lymphoma is cancer, and cancer is tumors, and tumors is Oncology. Renaissancee (talk) 00:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
And two-thirds of the "oncologists" -- including 100% of the non-hematologists -- in my area won't take patients with lymphoma, but all of the "hematologists" in my area take patients with colon cancer, lung cancer, etc. If these are completely separate areas, can you explain why the "oncologists" refuse to treat lymphoma, but the "hematologists" are treating lung cancer? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
And in some areas general practice MDs manage pregnancy, labor, and delivery. To answer the OP, the intersection between hematology and oncology includes leukemias. No tumors there. The majority of cancers in children are leukemias, so pediatric hospitals tend to combine hematology and oncology. --Una Smith (talk) 07:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Question Can somebody please explain to me why task forces are so heavily reviewed before they're made? All they are is little pockets of users to work together. They don't need to go under extreme scrutiny for them to be successful, don't they? Renaissancee (talk) 00:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
The point is to avoid creating a thousand little pages that will be ignored after an initial burst of energy. If there are only one or two people interested in an area, they don't need to bother with an official task force; they can use the main page or talk directly with each other on user pages. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Sleep medicine

Description:

Sleep Medicine is a field in its infancy. Sleep research comes up with startling discoveries almost weekly. Bits of new information are added to Wikipedia articles haphazardly - understandably. A task force is needed for quality control and coordination within and among articles. A Sleep medicine task force may want to start with a look at Sleep disorder.

Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)

  1. --Hordaland (talk) 07:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
  2. Medicellis (talk) 04:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Discussion:

  • A selected list of articles in which I'm particularly interested may be found on my sandbox/soapbox page. (Link corrected, March 2009.) "My" topics, primarily regarding Circadian rhythms, are a just a small part, probably the most fast-moving part, of Sleep Medicine. A task force working on the whole will have to identify and work on several hundred articles. --Hordaland (talk) 07:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
  • A discussion, "Cause -> Bad sleep?", here: Talk:Major_depressive_disorder/Archive_10#Cause -> Bad sleep? (at entirely the wrong place), shows some interest in cleaning up the sleep (medicine) articles. - Hordaland (talk) 12:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC) [fixed link --Hordaland (talk) 22:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)]
  • I would think that sleep medicine would fall under the already created pulmonology task force. All of the sleep specialists that I know of are pulmonologists also. However, I would also think that it could fall under the neurology task force, as the two topics overlap frequently. Either way, I don't think that creating a separate task force is necessary. I would just bring the topic to the attention of the neurology task force and the pulmonology task force. Tyrol5 [Talk] 20:46, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Aware that I risk the wrath of pulmonologists everywhere, we who have circadian rhythm disorders do not recommend "sleep doctors" who are pulmonologists. Psychiatrists, yes. Neurologists, perhaps. Pediatricians, yes. Pulmonologists, no. Those who have the new Sleep Medicine sub-specialty in the USA may be an exception to that. Pulmonologists know all about apnea and can diagnose that as well as restless legs and probably narcolepsy and other disorders, but it is the experience of patients in several countries that they do not know about circadian disorders. </rant>
Here's hoping the neurology task force will be interested! - Hordaland (talk) 22:18, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Now that I see it your way, I would have to agree. As for the neurology task force, it looks like this is up to them, just make sure you let them know. All the best, Tyrol5 [Talk] 01:21, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Done, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Neurology task force#Sleep & sleep disorders, thank you. - Hordaland (talk) 18:55, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Anatomy

Description Probably does not need a desctiption. See here Wikipedia:WikiProject Anatomy for a basic layout of how the taskforce page can look like.

Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)

  1. Possibly current WP:Anatomy members.

Discussion:

  • Comment: I thought I be a little bit bold and humbly suggest that wikiproject Anatomy be merged as a taskforce under WP:MED. Clearly WP:Anatomy is a daughter project of WP:MED and it will easily fit in within as a task force. This would lead to reduced talk page headders (with the articles of relevance tagged as {{WPMED|class=|importance|anatomy=yes}} and everything else may remain the same (of course all the pages will just be moved under the WP:MED linking but they can be modified/updated as appropriate. The participants of this task force will also be the exact same individuals in the current WP:anatomy participant list. Having said that, I welcome any comments from anyone (including wp:anatomy participants) that they might have in regards to this, i.e. whether we should leave things as they are or go with the entire process.
Furthermore, in terms of article tagging, I believe the main Anatomy talkpage headder can just be modified, perhaps with the help of a bot that will be able to make an easy conversion (I woulf hate for someone to have to change all 2,000 Anatomy tagged articles into med ones. Then there will need to be another bot to automatically remove the duplicate med tags, and keep the most completed ones only. Calaka (talk) 11:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Not to be the meany or anything, but there is already an WikiProject that covers all of this. It doesn't need to be cut down to a task force as there is a lot of room for improvement and expansion over there. For conditions and stuff regarding anatomy, I'd think it'd fall under genetics and internal medicine. Sorry, but I don't think we need task force for it. Renaissancee (talk) 05:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Comment:That is fair response but I just wanted to point out that just because a project gets moved over to become a task force, does not mean that it becomes smaller or gets cut down in size (or reduce in level of importance!). It would still have all the same pages and functions as before, minus a talk page tag (since it will be incorporated into the WP:MED tag). Not sure what you mean by your comment re: genetics/internal medicine? Cheers!Calaka (talk) 08:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose I don't see general anatomy (which includes zootomy and phytotomy) as being a subject entirely within the scope of medicine; yes, medicine has its fingers in the anatomy pie, which means some anatomy articles are in the scope of medicine, but definitely not all. Now, I don't see the harm in something like a surgery task force, which would have considerable overlap with human anatomy subjects. Or maybe even a "medical anatomy" task force, which would focus on the interconnect between medical science and the biology of human anatomy. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 17:04, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment WPMED has no interest in a forcible merger of that project. If the members of that project define their scope as being essentially human anatomy and they want to become a task force of WPMED, then we will accept them. If they define their scope more broadly, or if they prefer to remain separate, then we will not accept them. I see that a note has been left at their talk page about this proposal; I have requested that they clarify their scope internally. We should wait for a response from the members. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose: When we initially started converting some of the medicine-related WikiProjects to task forces, we intentionally left out Anatomy and Dentistry (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Task forces/Archive 1#Conversion of medicine-related projects). The thought was that task forces of WPMED should solely encompass strictly medical fields. WikiProject Anatomy is basically inactive, with the exception of some WPMED editors that contribute where medicine-related articles do not fit under the scope of WPMED. Around 1.5 years ago, WP:WikiProject Preclinical Medicine (which was inactive) and WP:WikiProject Clinical medicine (which had significant overlap with WPMED) were merged in to WPMED. (As an aside, maybe we should have a history page to keep records of this project's timeline.) This allowed for a centralized discussion of all medicine-related items. Back then, a WikiProject was just a group of people who got together to independently work on a specific topic. Now, WikiProjects are better defined by the topic they cover, rather than the group of people working on the project. Additionally, there is better organization within each project and better collaboration between projects. Due to these changes, for the most part, all preclinical medicine-topics are no longer covered within WPMED, but rather other more focused projects (such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Microbiology, Wikipedia:WikiProject Cell Signaling, Wikipedia:WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology, Wikipedia:WikiProject Pharmacology). It is almost as if each pre-clinical topic has its own WikiProject; therefore, there is no need for WPMED to oversee these topics. --Scott Alter 05:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Re all of the above comments: Thank you all for your insight. :) It is a good idea to wait and see what the members from the WP:Anatomy page have to say (hence why I posted a little note on their talk page). As an aside, I like the idea of a history page hehehe. Kind regards! Calaka (talk) 10:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - providing it was called a human anatomy task force. I would support the formation of a task force on "human anatomy". Human anatomy is a basic medical science and I think that it is less likely to be studied outside of medicine than the other basic medical sciences. Snowman (talk) 18:33, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Toxicology

Description: This task force would monitor and work on articles related to medical and forensic toxicology, toxicogenomics, and other toxicology articles with a direct link to human health. MMagdalene722talk to me 14:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)

  1. Mmagdalene722 (talk) 16:04, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  2. Jrtayloriv (talk) 06:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Discussion:

  • Comment: It seems like if there's a Pathology (diseases caused by living microbes) task force, then it would make sense to have one for Toxicology (diseases caused by inert substances). It has its own category, so there are plenty of articles to work on. The toxicology article itself needs plenty of work (though that's not a justification for the creation of the task force). This would probably have a lot of overlap with an Occupational Medicine task force, too...something to think about. Mmagdalene722 (talk) 16:04, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't say that pathology is "diseases caused by living microbes" (that's ID), but there is definitely a place for a tox task force. Something you should define is the scope. The current Toxicology article encompasses the sub-fields of: Aquatic toxicology, Chemical toxicology, Ecotoxicology, Environmental toxicology, Forensic toxicology, Medical toxicology, and Toxicogenomics. You'd probably want to exclude aquatic, eco, and environmental from the task force, even though they should be included in the Toxicology article. Also, the task force could commandeer {{Toxic}} and turn it into an expanded navbox. --Scott Alter 03:46, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Excellent ideas - I've modified the description above to reflect your suggestions. I'm not the expert on commandeering navboxes, but I think it'd be worth doing. Any takers? MMagdalene722talk to me 14:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
I'd work on the navbox, but support from a task force (if there is sufficient interest) would be nice before starting. I might just bring it up on the talk page of the template, but I'm in no rush (WP:TIND). --Scott Alter 01:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Hrm. How would one go about determining the level of interest for this? I don't know how often people from WP:MED check this page, and I'm not sure how I feel about spamming people's talk pages... MMagdalene722talk to me 18:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
I've been busy working on other areas lately, but was planning to soon start doing a lot of work on adding information from CHE Toxicant and Disease Database, Scorecard.org: Chemical Profiles, and other such sites to the appropriate Wikipedia articles. I'd be very interested in working on this project with you all. What is the status of this? What do we need to get it moving? Jrtayloriv (talk) 06:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and begun working on creating this task force at Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Toxicology task force‎. I'll finish it up and announce creation when I've got time, if none of you get to it first. Jrtayloriv (talk) 07:08, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


Physiology

Description: The Physiology task force, as part of the WikiProject Medicine, is committed to make Wikipedia the most comprehensive human physiology resource. Physiologic mechanisms are the basis of many clinical signs and symptoms and this task force can work collaboratively with any other task force. Dr Satendra (talk) 13:06, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)

  1. Dr Satendra (talk) 13:06, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
  2. Drparthnsy (talk) 07:28, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Discussion:

  • Comment (or Oppose or other indicators)


Human body diagrams

 
leukemia.

Description: This is a project that so far has had its main page in commons: Commons:Human body diagrams. In short, The main purpose is to provide a way of explaining medical conditions and other phenomena in an easier way, that is, with pictures, helping to get an overview of the involved components. The latest works include diagrams in human anatomy and leukemia. However, it might be more suitable to move the project to a WPmed task force instead of having it far off in Commons. Mikael Häggström (talk) 07:01, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)

  1. Mikael Häggström (talk) 07:01, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Discussion:

Bourgery's Traité complet de l'anatomie de l'homme, comprenant la médicine opératoire is available at this site in eight volumes. The drawings are simply stunning work that should be imported to commons. The text, of course, is rather dated, but historically relevant. A modern reprint includes multilingual versions of the original text, but those translations would not be public domain. If someone is sufficiently ambitious to take on paraphrasing those translations, I have a print copy that I'd be willing to make available. (I got it for the amazing price of $1.00 at a book sale!) LeadSongDog come howl! 21:01, 10 December 2012 (UTC)


Translation

Description:To improve and translate important medical articles I just came across this page and have already stated putting the task force together here. One important reason for developing this is that having an easy way to determine page views for all articles combined. The first group of articles numbers about 80 and the goal is to bring them to GA or FA before translation. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:44, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)

  1. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:44, 30 December 2011 (UTC) '

Discussion: * Comment (or Oppose or other indicators)

I realize you have attempted to start the process to create this task force, but before all of the categories are created, this may be better formatted as a "How to help" (page like COTM), rather than a task force. So far, all of the task forces of WPMED have been medical specialties. Articles assigned to task forces are based on their content, and not so much editor interest. The "How to help" projects (Google, COTM, etc) have selected articles for inclusion based on editor preference. I think this is an important distinction to make and keep.
I think a few things should be hashed out before proceeding forward in any direction - as I have not seen any discussion on what this project is trying to accomplish from a technological point of view. First, what are your reasons for creating this as a task force. Is it just a space for collaboration? Who is doing the collaboration? (Typically task forces or projects require a bunch of editors expressing their interest before creating everything.) How are you planning on tracking articles. Once an article is part of the project, is it always part of the project? Does the article's status in this project change when the article is "finished?" If there are waves of articles to be worked on, what happens with prior waves of "completed" articles? Will they be removed from the project? What are you trying to track? Do you just want to use the WP 1.0 bot because it looks like it may be useful? Is there another bot that may give you more of what you are looking for? Should a separate bot be used for this project? What are you attempting to gain via categorization?
With all of these questions still up in the air, I think a discussion is needed before moving forward. (And FYI, each change to {{WPMED}} causes a huge burden on the WP servers, as every article talk page tagged with WPMED must be processed whenever that template is changed.) As you can tell from my questioning above, this is not the same type of project as the current task forces. It may be better to have more of a COTM-formatted page/categorization scheme than a task force-related categorization...but you'll need to provide further information. Anything is possible, but it just requires the right coding - and more importantly - planning all of this in advance. --Scott Alter (talk) 04:09, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Hey Scott the main piece of data that I am wanting is the sum of all page views for all articles within this project without having to do it manually such as seen here [1]. The project is concentrating on translating about 80 top or high importance articles.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:31, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


OPP (viz. Organisations, Persons & Publications)

Description: A significant number of medical articles relate to medical organisations, practitioners or famous patients (alive and perished) and medical-related publications (books, journals, magazines, encyclopedias, almanacs, etc.) However no taskforce exists to cover these.

As it is, WikiMed covers two types of articles: articles related to the practice of medicine, and articles relating to the social history of medicine (including organisations, practitioners & publications). Both articles and the social history are important, however I think it would be useful to demarcate med articles relating to these things vs. med articles relating to the practice of medicine, for editing, viewing and sorting purposes.

This name is not concrete and is quite amenable to change).

This taskforce is important for three reasons:

  • Allows interested medical historians to edit with ease
  • Allows easy transfer or spotting by bibliographic wikiprojects
  • Makes statistical information easier to generate on medical articles.

Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)

  1. LT90001 (talk) 10:24, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Discussion:

  • Comment (or Oppose or other indicators)


Other discussions

Latest comment: 13 years ago14 comments4 people in discussion

Noinclude

Scott, can you tell me what the noinclude tags are supposed to do in this instance? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:06, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Hands up! II think it was a rationalisation of my edit, which was to fix the header levels, i.e as included on the medicine proct page, intro was level 3, list of task forces was 2, so it caused a break when it shouldn't, assumed I'd got it wrong! LeeVJ (talk) 01:11, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
This page is transcluded to the main WPMED page as the task force section. LeeVJ, while your edit made sense, I don't think we need that header on the main page. When this page was expanded with content as to how to create a task force, new headings were added here that need not be displayed on the main WPMED page. Rather than adding the task force list directly to WP:MED, I chose to transclude the list to simplify maintenance. --Scott Alter 02:25, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Understood - and it's fixed now! By the way - Exellent job on all of this task force organisation / reorganisation! LeeVJ (talk) 03:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Scott! I know if I asked, I'd learn something interesting. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Task force creation criteria

Should there be any set criteria that should be met before a new task force is created? Although it is nice to have separate task forces for different fields of medicine, most are not really active. And since we are not really limiting task force creation, why not just get it out of the way and create task forces for all the remaining common medical specialties? Besides the proposed hem/onc, endocrinology, and psychiatry, others major ones we've missed so far include surgery, rheumatology, and pediatrics. --Scott Alter 00:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Overall, I'd rather see task forces created when there are at least two or three editors willing to watchlist the pages. I don't expect them to be particularly active pages, especially when task force members themselves don't use them for discussions in their area (posting to WT:MED instead of to the task force page when the question is clearly within the specialty is a good way to end up with an "unused" task force page), but a page that's unwatched is clearly undesirable.
Also, I think that it's natural for a spate of task force creation to be followed by a long lull, while people get used to the idea and figure out what does and doesn't work. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Updates

Not quite sure how to add discussion to this specific topic. Would it be possible, in this space, to provide some regular update on the status of the proposed task force ?

If we know where the task force stood, then it would be a little easier to engage colleagues into participating. --InnocentsAbroad2 (talk) 23:22, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi InnocentsAbroad2,
I've moved your comment down here and hope that you don't mind.
In general, if nothing's happening at this page, then nothing's changed. I think, though, that with the proposed psychiatry taskforce, that we've got five people on board, and perhaps it's reasonable to create the page now. (Perhaps we'll wait until tomorrow, just in case anyone objects.) If you know anyone that might be interested, please encourage them to volunteer here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

If a new page is created for the proposed task force, what are the first steps to maintaining the page ? --InnocentsAbroad2 (talk) 01:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

This is the page to watchlist to follow task force creation guidelines. The steps to create the page are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Task forces. We could help you out in creating the task force, if needed. After a place for discussion is created, the first steps would be to possibly notify the interested people that the task force now exists, and direct them to a discussion regarding the goals of the task force. Maybe specific articles would be named as high-priority, and should receive attention, or maybe new articles need to be created to cover missing topics. --Scott Alter 02:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Could we list google project under task forces

I'd like to add a link to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Google Project on the project page. I was thinking it is a kind of task force but you guys are pretty organized, so thought better check first - as it doesn't really fit criteria... maybe associated taskforces? Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 10:37, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I just added it to WP:MED and {{WPMED Navigation}} under the "How to help" sections. --Scott Alter (talk) 03:38, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Many thanks. Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 13:38, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Task_forces/Archive_1&oldid=1090642594"