Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine: Difference between revisions

Recent changes in WP:Medicine

Articles and their talkpages:

• In all Medicine articles (not talks)
• In articles with Top-, High-importance
• In articles with Mid-importance
• In articles with Low-importance
• In pages with NA, ???=unknown importance
• In the 1000 most popular articles (source)

Not mainspace:

• In all non-articles
• In all templates
• In Medicine navigation templates

Top	High	Mid	Low	NA	???	Total
99	1,062	11,550	38,886	20,109	1,191	72,897

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

• view
• talk

The sugar industry has influenced the scientific agenda of the National Caries Program in the United States.

• Sugar Industry Influence on the Scientific Agenda of the National Institute of Dental Research’s 1971 National Caries Program: A Historical Analysis of Internal Documents—PLOS Medicine (March 10, 2015)

—Wavelength (talk) 03:22, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yup not really surprising. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:06, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

there more interested in "profit", than what the facts are--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:41, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That reminds me: In my ongoing delusion that I'm going to keep working on Candy and associated articles, I've looked for a really solid source that says candy causes dental caries... and I've come up empty-handed. We all know it (right?), but it appears that no reviews actually cover this basic point. If someone else has better luck, please fix the article or let me know. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:49, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the literature usually revolves around sugar-containing foods, rather than using the word "candy", per se. See this AAP guideline, for example, though this webpage from the AAP mentions "candy" in particular. This review also seems to mention "candy" by name. Yobol (talk) 04:16, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dental caries in preschool children (as per above review) shows sugar industry starts early--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:25, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Virgin cleansing myth#Quality Of Sources. A WP:Permalink for the discussion is here. Backstory is at Talk:Virgin cleansing myth#Blood Libel And Racism. Flyer22 (talk) 21:27, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

seems to be an interesting article--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:08, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In its current state, I recommend not believing anything in that article unless you've personally checked the source to see that it is reliable (relative to the type of statement being made) and that the source actually verifies the statement. Flyer has noted a couple of sources that might be useful for expanding parts of the article. I've noted some others on the talk page, mostly about the fact that this idea started several centuries before AIDS was defined, and that it didn't start in Africa. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:24, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ill check the sources--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:52, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

if you look at references 1-14, none are review articles within 5 years (some aren't even journals), the only one that approximates is ref #10 (though not clear if review or primary),--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:30, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which doesn't matter, because there is almost no biomedical information in the article beyond "raping children doesn't cure HIV infection", which is WP:BLUE. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:59, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Prevalence section is also subject to WP:MEDRS in part, but WhatamIdoing is clearly correct that not much of the article is subject to WP:MEDRS. Flyer22 (talk) 22:18, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning edits occurring. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:33, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Heading of marketing of MST Services is paying someone to write that article. I trimmed issues priously but more likely needed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:12, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

very much, COI--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:20, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I thought we might want to make friends with these people http://alsuntangled.com/

they are volunteer doctors who take on common questions about ALS (people tweet questions or post on their website) and they write review articles answering them, and then publish them. See: http://alsuntangled.com/completed.html Nice right? like us some. Jytdog (talk) 00:40, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I like there evidence based reviews. They could likely use summarizes on Wikipedia. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:45, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

looks good,--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:38, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed the cause of death in many articles about people is stated to be cardiac arrest; often featured prominently in the article's infobox. However, cardiac arrest is the mechanism of death and not its cause. Should this technical point be corrected, or should we just let sleeping dogs lie and leave the colloquialisms in place? And if we wish to correct this, then how? Some problems I see are 1) discrepancies between what coroners from different nations are allowed to use to describe "cause of death", for instance some countries allow "old age" whereas others do not, 2) the unreliability of news sources to correctly use terms like "mechanism" vs. "manner" vs. "cause" of death, and 3) the lack of access to official coroner reports to find the actual cause of death to replace the current info in articles. Thoughts? TypingAway (talk) 05:22, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

the #1 and #3 points you raise are difficult to get around due to, as you say "nation" in question (which also involves the corresponding coroners office).In regards to the media, this wikiproject uses review article, so I would think they are a non-factor--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:29, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We typically do rely on the media for the cause of somebody's death -- medical review articles are rarely available. Anyway, I don't think we have any realistic choice here, in cases where no autopsy was performed. I would definitely be opposed to changing "cause of death" to "mechanism of death" in those infoboxes, if anybody has any such idea. Looie496 (talk) 15:15, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

question #2 (from the poster) reads mechanism vs manner vs cause correct usage, when a primary or secondary source is made available we in fact do use journals (or WHO, CDC) as has been the case with the ebola outbreak in west Africa and evacuated cases[1]. Now then, that in fact "cardiac arrest" as a cause of death may take longer (or in some cases maybe never) as opposed to a virus, bacteria, head injury, is a different story, we are suppose to follow Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:41, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While creating a disambig page for double penis, I found that we currently have articles on both bifid penis and diphallia. Are these two names for the same condition, or two distinct conditions? If the former, they should be merged: if the latter, can someone please clarify the exact difference between the two conditions in both articles? Also, should the normal condition of bifid penis in some other species be split out from the article about the abnormal condition in humans, into its own article? -- The Anome (talk) 11:06, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

apparently diphallia is a much more complicated congenital disorder, which springs a number of co-existing problems in the individual in question ( renal, vertebral, hindgut, anorectal). While bifid is relegated to the area in question, and no further than that (congenitically speaking).... in regards to the last question its not clear, what the exact question is--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:43, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For medical content here. Wondering if others have opinions [2] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:21, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

commented there. Jytdog (talk) 15:31, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

seems important--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:45, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all. Just passing on a thing. We just had our very first request through the CRUK information nurse helpline to edit a Wikipedia page. It was from a survivor of a very rare leukaemia, who felt that the current page on the topic was unnecessarily negative and 'filled him with doom and gloom' (he's survived for 14 years - somewhat of an outlier given the overall statistics for the disease in general!). He didn't feel he was qualified to edit the page himself, hence the request to us. If anyone felt like having a look at the page with this in mind, that would be great - I'm not aware of any current refs that would substantially change its content but perhaps the tone could be a little less brutal in places to bear the newly-diagnosed in mind. Cheers, HenryScow (talk) 14:05, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Plasma cell leukemia (for it is he) is pretty short, with no refs later than 2009, 2 cn tags & a 2010 refs needed tag. Plasma cell leukemia: consensus statement on diagnostic requirements, response criteria and treatment recommendations by the International Myeloma Working Group is probably the place to start, and there are other papers. Johnbod (talk) 14:11, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ill take a look at it over the weekend--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:34, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnbod: Excellent link - thank you! It appears that the current article's tone about prognosis pretty accurately reflects the relevant section of that working group report (e.g. from that abstract: "The clinical course is aggressive with short remissions and survival duration.") though the precise numbers could be updated. Exceptional good outcomes should not skew our article's content unless secondary sources express similar optimisim. -- Scray (talk) 14:43, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that article is properly presented with 2 references to give an opinion(even if more references were not to change the overall tone of the subject matter)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:32, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the information wouldn't change, then just one reliable source is sufficient. Encyclopedia articles aren't curated collections of sources, so the number of sources itself isn't a good measure of quality. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:30, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

your correct, however there should be a standard while "x" numbers of references may be too much, 2 is a little short, will look at MEDRS to see if it has information to this respect--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:05, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia is currently doing a good strong cleanup of that article, which has been subject to lots of school projects and crufty edits and has long been in need of love... hooray for Sandy!Jytdog (talk) 16:09, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

looks great--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:23, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

After working all morning, I have not made even a tiny dent in all the work that is needed there. There are still tons of primary sources, and worse-- based on the reviews that I've read and added to the "Further reading" section, the article is still woefully inaccurate and outdated, and days, weeks, months of work will be needed to render anything useful. There are many good, full-text reviews available, but it will take a sustained effort to incorporate them and get all the crap replaced by good text. Ugh, what a dreadful, dreadful article. If anyone is interested, pick one of the recent reviews and have at it! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:09, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is an RFC that may affect a page in this project at WikiProject Tree of Life. The topic is Confusion over taxonomy of subtribe Panina and taxon homininae (are chimps hominins)?

Please feel free to comment there. SPACKlick (talk) 17:06, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

very interesting topic (I commented on page)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:21, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Template talk:Suicide response#Requested move 19 March 2015. A WP:Permalink for the discussion is here. Flyer22 (talk) 04:40, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

interesting subject (every opinion counts)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:00, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kauffman–White classification states it is a classification system only for Salmonella, but Proteus (bacterium) mentions it as a method to classify it as well. Anyone knowledgeable? Also the KW classification article could use some love, currently it has citations to the German Wikipedia. Possibly a little fringe, but I'm putting it out here before I have a stab axing the uncited content. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 15:15, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

the 8 proteus (bacterium) references are somewhat dated if im not mistaken, as per definition of Kaufman/white-[3] seems to define it--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:05, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk#17:05:56.2C 22 March 2015 review of submission by MedResearchSF where the author of Draft:Bioelectronic Medicine needs help beyond the capabilities of (most) regular AFC reviewers. Thanks Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:22, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

the article cites 27 references...none are reviews that fall within a 5 year range, (see Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine) --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:47, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ozzie10aaaa Thanks for replying, but posting here isn't really useful, you're just preaching to the choir. Please respond directly at the AFC help page where the draft author can find it easily. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:53, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

no problem... done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:33, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

as you may have heard by now the UK became the first country to legalize this practice [4] , should the article section on "ethics", add a subsection dealing with its possible legalization in other countries? why or why not?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:31, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

argh. see In_vitro_fertilisation#Cytoplasmic_transfer Jytdog (talk) 23:40, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

interesting, several points to think about 1. with mitochondrial DNA (effect)...2.the baby's genes has elements of three parents--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:45, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think that an Ethics section is appropriate for this subject. Legalization status in general should have a paragraph, but any long list of countries should be a separate article. Whether to put these sections in Cytoplasmic transfer, Three-parent baby, or merge the two articles is a more difficult question. Mamyles (talk) 20:18, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WikiMed,

Just announcing a new course working on medical topics: Template:Course link. It's an intro class. A small intro class, but as we know from past experiences, introductory psych classes can prove challenging. So we requested some additional support from our partners at APS, who were quickly able to connect this course to a psychologist with experience teaching with Wikipedia. Details are being worked out, but that seems worth mentioning. --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:07, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

this is another great way, Wikipedia advances knowledge--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:20, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see all of the usual course design flaws, and narry a mention of WP:MEDRS-- perhaps it is there somewhere and I missed it? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:40, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia: What other usual course design flaws? If there are design flaws there, they will indeed be usual since that's a largely unmodified version of the Assignment Design Wizard output.

There's a section in the header linking to MEDRS and the editing medical articles brochure. It's also part of student training and they're mailed printed handouts. It may be a good idea to include it in the timeline somewhere, too, though. I have some ideas for what that might look like (having students use them along with the article evaluation exercise), but checking to see how difficult that would be to implement (we can make changes to the output, but I don't know what's involved in making certain blocks of text variable with the "will you work on medical articles" question. Will have to get back to you on that (i.e. it may be a mid-term rather than short-term thing). --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:26, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mouse models of breast cancer metastasis (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Is this a viable topic for an article even? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 18:07, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it is a viable topic, as with any model-organism, be it dictyostelium, mouse ,etc...even more in this case where you have a model-organism that has already been altered for research, hence-Breast Cancer metastatic mouse models (BTW while there are many non MEDRS, the #8 ref however is a fine review)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:36, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I also believe it is a viable topic. Just to be clear, it is outside the scope of WP:MED so WP:MEDRS does not apply, but within the scope of WP:MCB where WP:SCIRS applies. Boghog (talk) 21:12, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A new editor who seems to know something about a complicated subject area! Quick, let's grab him/her. Is there anyone from MCB reading this? You might be able to recruit a new partner.

Personally, I'd have picked a slightly larger topic, like Mouse models in cancer research or Mouse models in breast cancer, but this is a fine place to start, and there are so many mouse models for breast cancer that there will be no trouble filling the page. (As a general rule of thumb, any model mammal that's been around for a few years is going to meet notability requirements). WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:16, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• My personal view is that primary sources are not a problem for narrowly focused articles on research topics. Reviews are of course better if they are available. Looie496 (talk) 13:36, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article Cloves syndrome has been nominated for deletion: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cloves syndrome. Is there a notability guideline for diseases? Everymorning talk 23:30, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

that's a shame there seem to be two good review articles on it [5] and [6] (maybe more)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:42, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've recently brought the Herd immunity article from start-class to B, and believe it could be GA. I'd like to know what could further be done to improve the article. Comments can be made here or on the article's talk page. ComfyKem (talk) 02:31, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the work bringing it up to B! Jytdog (talk) 02:33, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

the article looks good however there are "19 references" that lie outside the 5 year/review of MEDRS you may want to look for newer refs...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:48, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Following this discussion, I have prepared a draft for the Wikimedia Newsletter. Feel free to comment. Axl ¤ [Talk] 03:10, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing this. Not very newsy in style. You should explain more about what the research did & concluded before getting the scalpel out. We should also say that WP is not intended to be a textbook for medical students. Johnbod (talk) 04:01, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Axl , you dissected that paper (in your response) with logic and objectivity very well done!--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:55, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

John, thank you for your suggestions. I have added a couple of paragraphs at the beginning to describe the paper's findings. I also added my own opinion about students' use of Wikipedia at the end.

Ozzie, thank you for your endorsement. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:21, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Article has already been deleted once, at the creator's request (after it was redirected IIRC). It's now back, and is a weird grab-bag of topics that made me think 'someone's posting their term paper as an article'. Creator's userpage suggests exactly that, except the account's being shared by five people. Could use some guidance from someone who's had experience with student editing. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:28, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Student editing is rather beside the point - per WP:ROLE policy, shared accounts aren't permitted. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:22, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. Yes. But these people are students who don't seem to have gotten much direction before starting their project, doing no harm beyond writing an article that's not that great, but above average by the standards of medical articles written by students. They should get their own accounts, read WP:MEDRS, write their articles in a sandbox, get linked up with the education program, etc. etc. Engagement with the educational angle would be much more effective than a block and an impersonal lecture about an unintuitive rule. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:25, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree if they are students then perhaps it would be best to engage them, (accounts, read MEDRS) than to block--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:42, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zinc after all does play a rather useful role in the brain, although zinc is a dark horse. Student editing in itself shouldn't be discouraged. They shouldn't be forced to link up with any education program or do any other red tape bureaucratic work that regular users don't need to do. --IO Device (talk) 16:23, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. Deleted all the primary sources one. Gave advice and now they have added them all again. Anyone else interested? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:38, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirected it Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:39, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Been restored. Would be useful for others to weight in. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:30, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I userfied it and left them a note, which I suppose I should have done in the first place. Hopefully whoever is giving these assignments will clue in. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:53, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An RFC which may affect the status of Wikipedia's "No Medical Advice" policy is located here. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:51, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

once again I am astounded as to how this issue can even come up, what part of no medical advice is it that's so hard to understand ,(this should be something that is not open for discussion}...

Nothing on Wikipedia.org or included as part of any project of Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., should be construed as an attempt to offer or render a medical opinion or otherwise engage in the practice of medicine.[7]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:34, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These debates have been kicking around for months. This is really about editors' behavior at the Reference Desk, and the real question appears to be more like "People keep asking questions that relate to medicine. How shall we respond, and what if I think we should take a harsh line and you think we should take a gentle one?" In particular, how do you respond to the questions that could be taken either way? If someone posts, "I am caring for a child with Type 1 diabetes. Exactly how many units of insulin should I inject at mealtime?" then it's pretty easy. The other end of the spectrum is also easy: "I'm writing a paper for school about this disease that I've never heard of. Please tell me about it."

But when someone posts, "I've got a bad cough. Does that cough syrup from the grocery store actually work?", then you could read it either way. Is that person looking for medical advice, or is that person just curious? What responses can you give that provide medical information but not medical advice? Some editors might benefit from some education on the distinction between the two, perhaps similar to the explanation given here.

(One thing I haven't seen in these discussions is that "go see a doctor" can be medical advice, as it orders an individual person to take a specific step to correct or maintain his or her health. That's why we don't write "If you have chest pain, go to the hospital" in articles, but instead write something like "Chest pain with shortness of breath is normally considered a medical emergency".) WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:16, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point, and its quite human to help when one thinks its OK. However, to be safe, it would be better there be no gray area...perhaps the medical disclaimer needs to be displayed much more often at the Reference Desk...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:39, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Vaginal tightening article is extremely poor. And, today, AbuseResearcher (talk · contribs), who is clearly not a new Wikipedia editor, created the Vaginal laxity article and made a bunch of vagina-related redirects. The Vaginal laxity article does not use the ideal medical sources named at WP:MEDRS. I ask: What should be done with these two articles? We don't need both, and we have the Pelvic floor, Female genital prolapse and Vaginal weightlifting articles. Note that, looking at its sources, I also have concerns about the Vaginal weightlifting article; I addressed that article at this WikiProject last year (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 49#Vaginal weightlifting article), but got no replies.

I will alert WP:Anatomy to this discussion to keep the discussion centralized (WP:TALKCENT). Flyer22 (talk) 23:15, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep the former, nominate the latter for deletion, (on the first article im certain with help it can go from "poor" to good)...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:27, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's also significant overlap between the vaginal laxity article and vaginal tightening article; a partial or complete merge might be in order. A lot of physicians don't ask their patients about vaginal laxity not only because of time constraints, but also because they haven't known of good treatment options; that goes to show how much connection there is between the two topics of problem and cure. By the way, vaginal laxity is not only a medical topic but also one that has attracted the attention of feminists and other social and cultural commentators. AbuseResearcher (talk) 01:16, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how your Vaginal laxity article is needed. As mentioned above, it uses poor sources for medical information, and is covered in one or more of the aforementioned articles with different names. It can be expanded on in the Vaginal tightening article if that article is kept. Right now, the Vaginal tightening article reads like a personal website. I'm not a fan of unnecessary WP:Content forking. I will almost always choose consolidation unless a WP:Spinout article is truly needed. Flyer22 (talk) 03:16, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is your specific proposal? Basically "address these concerns in a reasonable timeframe or it'll be converted into a redirect and/or nominated for deletion"? I would consider the overlap between the vaginal laxity and vaginal tightening article to look something like this, while the relationship between an article A and B, in which B is a fork of A, would look more like this. AbuseResearcher (talk) 03:29, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am 100% in favour of merge. I do not believe there can possibly be enough reliable material on either of these two subjects to justify independent articles. It is better if such content can be kept in a central place so interested readers don't have 5+ articles they have to pass by to engage with a topic. That is my 2c. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:20, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedic parts of the Vaginal tightening article could be merged into the Kegel exercise article once the vaginal tightening content is appropriately sourced. Parts of the Vaginal laxity article would also fit there; other parts of it would fit better in the Pelvic floor and/or Female genital prolapse articles. Flyer22 (talk) 07:39, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With this edit, I see that Stuartyeates took away the main unencyclopedic part of the Vaginal tightening article. Thanks, Stuartyeates. Flyer22 (talk) 07:43, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We also have the Human vaginal size article, but, at Talk:Human vaginal size in 2013, I suggested that the article be merged with the Vagina article. Given the support for the merge at that talk page, I would have merged the content by now if it weren't for the poor sources used at the Human vaginal size article. Then again, there are not a lot of good sources on that topic. Flyer22 (talk) 07:53, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree Stuartyeates improved the article--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:16, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is an RfC at Ayurveda that is relevant to this project. The question is essentially, should WP present the information from sources that the modern practice of ayurveda is pseudoscience. Input there from knowledgeable editors with experience in articles on medical topics would be useful. Please note the editing restrictions on the article itself and on those on talk page discussion. - - MrBill3 (talk) 08:57, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

this is an interesting topic, (however, be aware of the editing restrictions on the article and talk page).thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:39, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

i don't see any RfC there. Jytdog (talk) 13:31, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

me neither(I wonder why...)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:42, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See Draft:STOP_Bang_Questionnaire Jytdog (talk) 13:12, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like a reasonable article. (We already have "Epworth Sleepiness Scale".) Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:27, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

its tagged with COI, besides AXL is right we do have Epworth Sleepiness Scale why bother--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:47, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

updated link as article has been moved to draft space. Jytdog (talk) 13:57, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]