Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 18:06, 16 June 2014

WT:MED

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

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

Unsure about something? Make sure to look at our style and source guidelines.
Please don't shout, remain civil, be respectful to all, and assume good faith.
Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~).
Threads older than 7 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

Recent changes in WP:Medicine

Articles and their talkpages:

Not mainspace:

Top	High	Mid	Low	NA	???	Total
99	1,110	11,509	38,515	18,940	975	71,148

List overview · Lists updated: 2015-07-15 · This box:

Infobox should have topic titles

While we are talking about the topic of infoboxes, I'd like to ask what the feeling would be about separating content into categories in the 'infobox disease'. This is done in lots of infoboxes, see for example {{Infobox ship begin}} and {{Infobox station}}

We seem to have two types of links in the infoboxes - identifiers, like ICD 9 / 10, which are formal systems that categorise the disease, and further reading, which represent links to other sources. I think categorising them would be useful to readers, as it would give some indication as to what the strange numbers and acronyms mean here (For an example of a completely incomprehensible infobox, see Pseudohypoparathyroidism). Thoughts? --LT910001 (talk) 07:08, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The question is: Should we add subtopics to the disease infobox?

A collapsible subbox could be used for the identifiers subsection (for an example of an infobox with collapsible subsections, see Testis determining factor) --LT910001 (talk) 08:24, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Support as proposer for reasons of readability, as discussed. --LT910001 (talk) 07:08, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose - Seems unnecessary to add titles to infoboxes which usually only contain a handful of links. 188.29.83.40 (talk) 07:42, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This may improve readability by allowing us to make the 'identifiers' subsection collapsible. --LT910001 (talk) 08:24, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Currently we have a bunch of identifiers and one "further reading". If we had a second "further reading" item I would be supportive. Maybe we could have a hierarchy of what we link to as a second item?

We already have one really simple item "MedlinePlus". It would be good to have one slightly more complicated item. This could be NCI PDQ if it exist (for colon cancer)[1], patient.co.uk if it does, and emedicine if neither the previous two exist.

We do this for medication related articles. A bot made all the changes a couple of years ago. We could also have the bot move the emedicine links not used in the infobox to the EL section. User:Diptanshu.D would that address your concerns? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:09, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. If DD could redirect discussion to the thread above to prevent WP:MULTI I'd be grateful, I was just wondering if we could make some subsections and/or collapse the 'identifiers' section, for readability. --LT910001 (talk) 08:24, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see all "further reading" links removed from the infoboxes. Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:27, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Two thoughts:

Let us not use the complex and extremely odd {{infobox ship begin}} as a model for anything. It doesn't even work unless you wrap the series of templates inside a wikitext table.
Would someone please add a new parameter, |field= or |specialty=, so that I can add actual content to them, namely that Whatever cancer belongs to the medical specialty of oncology? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:23, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do not like hidden content. Happy to see the specialty parameter added. One thing to keep in mind is a lot of disease belong to many specialties. Usually not more than two though. Have we put our articles into categories by profession yet? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:48, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By "hidden", I assume that you mean MOS:COLLAPSEd content. It's generally a bad idea for WP:ACCESS reasons.

We have put some of them into cats by profession. Except for dermatology, probably not most of them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:17, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a modified version of this proposal lower down on this page. Would be glad if you take the discussion ahead from there. Diptanshu^Talk 07:47, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Non-islet cell tumor induced hypoglycemia

Dear medical experts: This article is up for review at AfC if anyone would like to take a look. —Anne Delong (talk) 19:36, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Although this syndrome is caused by a disparate group of tumours, there does seem to be a single unifying pathogenesis. A literature search does show suitable references. I have added a reference.

Several references already in the draft are primary sources and therefore inappropriate. The draft requires clean-up. However it is a notable topic. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:55, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking time to look at it. I have added a comment on the submission pointing here. —Anne Delong (talk) 18:38, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Timtrent declined the draft. I asked him about it here. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:20, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: Rare disease resources and Template:Infobox disease

Proposal

As there is considerable discussion above I would like to give light to the issue of rarer diseases and the infoboxes. A number of rare diseases lack any links to additional readable material, although there are sources out there with the goal of providing high quality reviewed information.

Two such are:

The Rare disease database

Operated by the Swedish Socialstyrelse, and is a database of rare diseases with in-depth articles on each entry. This database is well-researched and available in English. Created by a government agency.
(Some of the patient group information is Sweden-centered, but otherwise the information is not nation-specific.)

Orpha.net

A European organization with the goal

Orphanet is the reference portal for information on rare diseases and orphan drugs, for all audiences. Orphanet’s aim is to help improve the diagnosis, care and treatment of patients with rare diseases.

Both these resources are non-profits, and both have valuable information that could be used on Wikipedia.
I suggest adding their entries into the Template:Infobox disease

Here is an example article: Aicardi syndrome

Equivalent links:

NIH - NINDS:[2]
Medline: [3]

Thoughts?

-- CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 22:56, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes would be supportive of the idea. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:52, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've already "voted" against putting any links in indiscriminately, either in the Info-box or into External Links. But I agree that rare diseases need, as External Links, such resources as you suggest above.

You mention one entitled "Rare disease database". There is another! National Organization for Rare Diseases, NORD, a non-profit organization, also has a

"Rare Disease Database". Its entry for
Aicardi syndrome is here and here is another:
Non-24-Hour Sleep-Wake Disorder.

Their abstracts are free and one can see two full reports per day for free. Recommended! --Hordaland (talk) 15:18, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:External links says that you can put external links into an infobox. Sometimes, doing that means that you can get rid of the ==External links== section entirely, which reduces the amount of spam that an article is likely to attract. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:21, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine with me as long as one can actively choose which link(s) to put there. --Hordaland (talk) 15:49, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would be against adding any site that gives limited access to reports in the default template. Adding them as external links is another thing though, and I would be for adding such a section to the infobox. The reason I bring up these sources is because I think they would do well to have linked to by default.

Maybe the infobox links could be split into categorization ELs for pages link ICD & DSM & Orpha.net under one header, and additional information under another for pages like http://www.socialstyrelsen.se/rarediseases/ , www.rarediseases.org and patient.co.uk. ? -- CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 09:19, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally the links could also be split into patient info and professional info links. ? -- CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 15:40, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What about putting DMOZ in the infobox and getting ride of the EL section most of the time? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:34, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How about putting DMOZ on the list of banned sites that Wikipedia shouldn't link to? Sorry but this is a cop out: replacing a small set of links that is supposed to be carefully curated according to our WP:EL policy with link to a larger flabby set of links that are out-of-date or link to all sorts of unreliable places. We would do far better by our readers by simply saying "If you want to read more about this topic, Google is your friend" -- and of course, we don't need to say that. We've discussed our infobox external links repeatedly and imo they are the worst example of a Wikiproject forgetting our readers, with all their mysterious numbered hyperlinks and obscure category websites that contain no additional readable information. They encourage unthinking additions of links to pages that fail our WP:EL policy which must be determined per-article and is not determined by any Wikiproject. -- Colin°^Talk 07:34, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I know of some Wikipedians who are looking at creating a DMOZ like sister project. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:37, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Until just a couple of days ago, DMOZ was given as a positive example in WP:EL. It will be impossible to get it on the WP:BLACKLIST. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:44, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Categorizing BLPs

The proposed expansion of WP:EGRS that has been discussed at Wikipedia talk:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality#Adding another group of people to this guideline for the last couple of weeks might interest some people here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:47, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I posted before but note again - all these talks are related to a wave of pressure coming from Wikidata to standardize all kinds of classification, perhaps through the new Wikidata games. The games have proven to be a popular way to get people to do mass amounts of sorting and article checking. Discussions like this one are becoming a lot more relevant because suddenly they have tremendous immediate impact through these games. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:46, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oil pulling

Can someone with medical expertise please have a look at recent additions to the article Oil pulling? Although the additions are referenced, they look dubious to me and seem to rely on sources that are not compliant with WP:MEDRS. Thank you. Deli nk (talk) 16:53, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A phrase for "Bad things in health care"

After some discussion and some prodding from WeijiBaikeBianji I think there is no word for "bad things in health care" so I made an article called User:Bluerasberry/Undesirable health care outcomes for every bad thing in health care. I derived the subsection titles that article from lists of problematic outcomes described in health care quality evaluations.

I thought that medical harm or iatrogenesis might mean "bad things in health care", but I have come to see literature say that iatrogenesis is the same as medical error so I started a merge proposal at Talk:Medical_error#Merge_of_Iatrogenesis_and_medical_error. "Medical harm" is not a term consistently used anywhere, but where it is used, it too means medical error, so SW3 5DL started a deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Medical harm.

There is definitely a concept called "health care quality" and a lot of culture and research about that concept. I think there are no terms for what health care quality tries to produce - good health care? - and now I just made up a phrase for what it tries to eliminate - User:Bluerasberry/Undesirable health care outcomes. If anyone has better ideas for what terms should be used to describe the point of health care management then please share. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:02, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes the best available treatment still carries unwanted but unavoidable harmful effects (or a risk thereof). Think necessary amputations, for instance, or radiation-induced nausea in cancer therapy. One would not normally call this error, yet it still is harm which one would seek to minimize. The distinction is useful, though I'm not sure about the best terminology. LeadSongDog come howl! 17:55, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On looking at Bluerasberry's "Bad things in health care" page I was surprised not to find a link to Harm (Medicine); then I saw the deletion discussion... All rather unfortunate, imo. There's actually a 2014 MeSH term for 'patient harm' [4]. 'Harm' is also a key concept in risk-benefit analysis. For example, my understanding is that there is no rationale to implement a screening (or treatment) programme unless the health benefits can be shown to outweigh the potential for harm, however inadvertent. 86.181.64.67 (talk) 19:18, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We have morbidity but that is slightly different. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:30, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Or adverse effect perhaps? At least, that's the measure used in the Number needed to harm entry in the Dictionary of Epidemiology (which doesn't contain a separate entry for 'harm'). In its broadest sense I think the term 'harm' may be extended to largely imponderable adverse effects of screening programmes such as anxiety and loss of sleep.
(Fwiw, the new 'patient harm' MeSH term currently retrieves only 9 articles: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=patient+harm[mh]).
86.181.64.67 (talk) 08:29, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Propose creating a redirect for Harm (medicine) to Adverse effects (in the plural). 86.128.169.211 (talk) 13:02, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello 86. What you say sounds reasonable to me but for the past few days, I have been unable to find any literature using this kind of terminology. Also I have gotten some pushback about including some things like expected side effects, medical debt, and societal discrimination against certain patients as anything to be related with the terms "health" or "medicine". Also "adverse effects" is a term with a history of usage, and means something more nuanced as a technical term than just the literal meaning of the words "adverse effect" even though literally that is the meaning I want to convey. Thanks for the feedback and thanks for the link. It is helpful to know that "patient harm" is a MeSH, term, and that it is new, and that it is not being used much, and that it seems to not be used as a technical term in that literature to which you linked. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:43, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Blue Rasberry. ... While trying draft a nuanced response, I actually stumbled, via Google, on a ~~page named~~ redirect for "Medical harm" to "Medical error", which I don't think is altogether appropriate. ~~I now think Harm (medicine) should redirect there,~~ and we should add a dab header to the more generic (and somewhat sketchy, imo) page called "Harm". 86.128.169.211 (talk) 15:50, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello 86 - just earlier today, "medical harm" was its own article. It was just deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Medical harm. The major argument for deletion was that no one had identified any source which defined the term "medical harm", and that all sources used in that article were referring to "medical error". While I agree that "harm" is a more general concept, Wikipedia is supposed to be a summary of what has already been published and not what people intuitively believe. If I found a source which used any word to mean all kinds of "harm" in medical contexts, then I might make an article on that concept or apply or combine the term with what I am calling "User:Bluerasberry/Undesirable health care outcomes". I have not found that term or any book or paper which combines the idea of "medical error" with intentional harms, like known side effects or anticipated and chosen harms which go with expected treatment. If the literature uses "medical harm" and "harm" seemingly exclusively to mean "medical error", then Wikipedia guidelines recommend that Wikipedia also use the word in that way. For that reason, it is difficult to make the argument that the "harm" article should be used as you suggest. I initially also wanted to use that article in this way, and that is why I am trying to sort out the correct terminology for these things. I will put up DABs and all the other navigational aids when we are closer to consensus about correct terms. Right now also there is a discussion about the difference, if any, between iatrogenesis and medical error. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:56, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fwiw, this was the response I was drafting, before I stumbled on that redirect: A synonym for "Bad things in health care"? The standard term, as I understand it at least, is "harm". See various, though not all, of the article titles here (eg [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] etc). Of course "harm" has other medical usages too, as in "self-harm", which is a separate topic. Nevertheless, given the relevance of the term in the meaning you proposed I feel we should probably have a redirect available for Harm (medicine). Technically, I feel adverse effects would be appropriate, although the scope of the topic may be broader. 86.128.169.211 (talk) 17:14, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adding: I think the CONSORT extension on reporting of harms in RCT [10] by itself demonstrates the notability of Harm (medicine). In their glossary, the CONSORT group defines "harms" as The totality of possible adverse consequences of an intervention or therapy... 86.128.169.211 (talk) 18:06, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WPMED flyer again

There appears to be a draft of the free flyer for Wikimania 2014 here. I like the overall look. However, if you click through to read it, the text does not match what was posted. User:EdSaperia might be able to tell us more about the text that he was given for this version. It's gone back to saying that learning is a "right", which a few people objected to, and that "Personal physicians will always be invaluable", which was disliked on multiple grounds. (Nurse practitioners, clinical officers, physician assistants, surgeons, dentists, optometrists, and midwives aren't valuable? And nobody's ever encountered an ineffective physician?)

How can we be sure that the non-discriminatory text that we want is what will actually end up on the flyer? Do we need to write a couple of extra sentences to fill up the space? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:59, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving some space in a publication is generally considered healthy (~~unless you have~~ in the absence of horror vacui). 86.181.64.67 (talk) 18:34, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice to see the text actually reflect the discussion and consensus about it. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:11, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from what's being said there (on the back page of the leaflet), the text needs some copyediting. The first sentence seems to be missing a word. The second is too long and contains the word "which" twice. There will probably be participants at Wikimania who are not totally comfortable using/reading the English language, no? --Hordaland (talk) 21:31, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

86.181, I don't mind negative space, but if a designer feels that a piece needs a certain amount of text for visual reasons, I don't mind copyfitting (in either direction). WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:10, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect if the text on the page isn't in sync with what's on the flyer, it's because the text was improved after the graphics were designed. It'll be updated before they go to print. EdSaperia (talk) 14:18, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please evaluate a draft at AFC

Draft:Toxicity of preservatives seems to me to contain some rather dodgy claims. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:57, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it please. While the topic is potentially notable, the draft itself is a blatant soapbox. The "references" used are shockingly biased. (There are also a couple of primary studies that are inappropriate.) Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:54, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately there is no suitable Speedy deletion rationale, a MFD nomination is the only way to get rid of it, I don't have the expertise (or time) to argue such a case so it's up to an interested and competent editor here to do so. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:38, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do we really need the revision history to be deleted? If not, then a bold merge-and-redirect to Preservative#Health issues associated with preservatives (which itself needs some attention) might be useful and efficient. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:47, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that there is any salvageable material in the draft. I agree that it would be reasonable to have an "Adverse health effects" section in "Preservative". Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:26, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Toxic metal poisoning

Yes poisoning is sufficient. One does not need toxic. If it wasn't than it wouldn't be a poisoning. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:20, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well... it depends on what the cat is supposed to contain. Iron isn't usually considered "a toxic metal", but people (especially children) certainly do get poisoned by eating too much of it. So the correct title depends on whether it's supposed to contain information about poisoning by "toxic metals" (e.g., the six non-radioactive metals listed at Metal toxicity#Toxic metals), or "toxic poisonings" by any metals (e.g., silver). WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:53, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Natural eggshell membrane

Draft:Natural eggshell membrane needs a beady eye cast over it. It is claimed to be an altmed treatment for arthritis. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:27, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another draft that needs some help

Please take a look at Draft:Chronic Kidney Disease of Unknown Origin (CKDu) it looks to me like it is a notable topic but the draft is not written in an encyclopedic style. Someone familiar with MEDMOS should be able to help the author get it into shape. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:56, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the topic is notable, and many recent popular press articles necessitate the existence of comprehensive and balanced coverage (there are social controversies which may require non-MED:RS sources). A similar article on Central American CKDu, which did not have a WP:Med banner until yesterday and can benefit from expert review, is Mesoamerican nephropathy. --Animalparty-- (talk) 20:45, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links in infobox

Issue: The Template:Infobox disease is a widely used template that contains various important links related to a particular disease to which the page belongs. DiseasesDB, ICD-9, ICD-10, MeSH, OMIM etc. are internationally accepted codes that are used to define the disease. On the contrary MedlinePlus, (proposed) patient.co.uk, (earlier) eMedicine etc. provide links to external sources which might or might not contain data not included in the present Wikipedia article. Since the infobox is right at the top of the page, many people may click on these external links and leave without reading the Wikipedia article. Proposal: I propose moving all such links into the External links section and retaining only the defining codes within the infobox disease. Please sign to support or oppose the proposal or feel free to discuss the issue in greater detail. Please note that there have been multiple earlier discussions about splitting the Infobox. Diptanshu^Talk 07:32, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Diptanshu^Talk 07:32, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WS (talk) 13:48, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A sound proposal, clearly presented to boot, and one I support thoroughly. --LT910001 (talk) 22:31, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose I think the infobox links are a good feature seeing as they add relevant information for professionals and patients alike. ICD/OMIM etc. codes are very useful for a professional and may actually be a driving force for someone to come here, and having these at the bottom of the page defeats much of the purpose of the infobox.
I would personally suggest a hidden-by-default section of the infobox with professional information instead, and an open-by-default section for patient information links. We have to think about what our goal is, and it is not to simply have all our content read but to bring the mass of medical knowledge to the world. To provide the best medical knowledge available we need to both link to other high quality sources as well as curate our own content. Default style links in the infobox ensure we link to sources that have been accepted and vetted by the mass of editors here at WP:MED. Having everything under an external links section makes it easy to add a poor source among high quality sources, and it makes it much harder for us to have oversight. -- CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 06:05, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Agree with CFCF's views. From usage I put a lot more trust in info box content than I do in 'external links' which very often contain a lot of dead links anyway. Also I feel info at top of article is a lot more helpful. Iztwoz (talk) 14:46, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss

Following the Eye-tracking pattern of users, if a Wikipedia article is small i.e. belonging to the Stub or Start class, there might be a greater requirement of going to a suitable external link that might contain some valued resource, the page being short. But if a page is long, leaving an external link at the bottom and not above the fold automatically reduces the probability of it being actually visited unless the user is that desperate to read more. Diptanshu^Talk 07:44, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One of the main reasons that these were moved to the infobox back in the day is that putting the commonest ones in the infobox meant that we could frequently get rid of the ==External links== section altogether, which in turn reduces the amount of spammy links that get added. (If there's no existing section for it, then people don't add external links as often.) I wonder if people think that risk has gotten better or worse in the intervening years. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:23, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External Links sections are a headache I must admit. I have no huge preference on this really otherwise. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:38, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Phenotypic heterogeneity

Hello WP:MEDICINE. This article (maybe not exclusively medical topic) needs expert attention. Thanks to anyone willing to check and verify. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 07:42, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I very much get the feeling there is a separate term for this phenomnenon, which likely is a larger article. That this is a stub feels very unlikely to me, though this notice would be placed better under WP:Genetics. -- CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 02:58, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A number of similar articles which could well do with a merge:

Genetic heterogeneity

Allelic heterogeneity

Locus heterogeneity

Vaginal weightlifting article

The Vaginal weightlifting article came to my attention after seeing this edit by Ahriman2014 (talk · contribs) at the Kegel exercise article. Ahriman2014 created the Vaginal weightlifting article, and that article needs attention from WP:MED. Flyer22 (talk) 13:23, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 134: / Line 134: @@
 ::::<small>Fwiw, this was the response I was drafting, before I stumbled on that redirect:</small> A synonym for "Bad things in health care"? The standard term, as I understand it at least, is "harm". See various, though not all, of the article titles [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=harm%5Bti%5D here] (eg [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24460532] [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24368639] [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23955467] <u>[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23581549] [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=number+needed+to+harm%5Bti%5D]</u> etc). Of course "harm" has other medical usages too, as in "[[self-harm]]", which is a separate topic. Nevertheless, given the relevance of the term in the meaning you proposed I feel we should probably have a redirect available for [[Harm (medicine)]]. Technically, I feel [[adverse effects]] would be appropriate, although the scope of the topic may be broader.  [[Special:Contributions/86.128.169.211|86.128.169.211]] ([[User talk:86.128.169.211|talk]]) 17:14, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
+::::* ''Adding:'' I think the [[Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials|CONSORT]] extension on reporting of harms in RCT [http://www.consort-statement.org/Media/Default/Downloads/Extensions/CONSORT%20Extension%20for%20Harms.pdf] by itself demonstrates the notability of [[Harm (medicine)]]. In their glossary, the CONSORT group defines "harms" as ''The totality of possible adverse consequences of an intervention or therapy...'' [[Special:Contributions/86.128.169.211|86.128.169.211]] ([[User talk:86.128.169.211|talk]]) 18:06, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 == WPMED flyer again ==