CZ Talk:Health Sciences Workgroup

Active articles requiring attention

Would health sciences authors and editors kindly take a look at Cosmetic Surgery ? Thank you, Nancy Nancy Sculerati MD 09:23, 27 February 2007 (CST)

History of Medicine

I'd like to add a subcategory instead of one large article. Any objections?--Peter A. Lipson 13:15, 27 April 2007 (CDT)

What do you buy "add a subcategory"? Not sure what you mean. --Larry Sanger 19:46, 27 April 2007 (CDT)

Sorry, I'm not sure of the terminology. For articles that relate to the history of medicine, should there be a separate category or just have each article under medicine?

New articles

I added a bunch of new articles so that we can blue some red. They need lots of work, but are an ok starting point. I'll of course work on them, but i could use all the help i can get.Peter A. Lipson 13:03, 3 May 2007 (CDT)

Finding source evidence for Health Science articles

I have a number of health related search plugins to help quickly find source evidence. The plugins can be installed from http://medinformatics.uthscsa.edu/searchplugins/. Please let me know if other search tools are needed.Robert Badgett 12:41, 4 May 2007 (CDT)

A serious check on Health Sciences editors

Anyone interested, please take a look at the latest discussion on Category talk:Health Sciences Editors. Thanks! --Stefano Bartoletti 11:49, 22 August 2007 (CDT)

Need medical terms defined

Already we have articles using words like myalgia and arthagia and so forth that the lay audience will not understand. I think we need to start making definition pages for these kinds of terms so that people besides MDs no what the symptoms mean.

I think definitions page would be great. For readers that have nav popups installed on their browser, that would let them over their mouse over the term and the definition would display without their leaving the page.

Disclaimer needed on health articles

This is a continuation of a discussion that started on User_talk:Robert Badgett about whether CZ health pages needs a disclaimer alerting the reader to consult their health care provider for medical decisions.

Making a disclaimer would be easy with a template. Might be best if the template succinctly announced the link, then the link went to a page that detailed the disclaimer. This would avoid using precious space at the top of each page. Should probably think of putting these on disease pages as well. Questions:

• We need to vet this with others.
• If CZ goes with this, do we rely on authors to insert the template, or is this more safely done automatically on any article in the health science category?
• Other questions?

- Robert Badgett 16:21, 6 March 2008 (CST)

Roberrt, this is probably important enough that we should make a proposal on the official proposals page. Take a stab if you would like to it, otherwise I will work up the text, for the proposal and the actual disclaimer, this weekend. David E. Volk 10:28, 7 March 2008 (CST)

Probably the easiest way to deal with this technically is to create {{subpages-hs}}, which will contain the disclaimer. Stephen Ewen 10:39, 7 March 2008 (CST)

David, that would be great if you could start on it. I still need to work on CZ:Proposals/Standardizing the naming of biomedical articles. which is floundering. - Bob - Robert Badgett 11:50, 8 March 2008 (CST)

Proposal has been made

I made a quick proposal at CZ:Proposals/New regarding medical disclaimers. Please comment as desired. David E. Volk 09:14, 10 March 2008 (CDT)

recruitment needed before we could even attempt a workgroup week

massive recruitment is necessary. I would say we would need 10 more editors and 20 more authors before we could even try a workgroup week. Tom Kelly 20:24, 8 June 2008 (CDT)

That's what workgroup weeks are for, Tom. --Larry Sanger 21:53, 8 June 2008 (CDT)

Then we'd need the help of other workgroups to organize it, because not enough people here to lead one is what I am saying. Tom Kelly 23:18, 9 June 2008 (CDT)

I disagree. Bear in mind that when it comes down to the wire, I count for ten.  ;-) --Larry Sanger 23:28, 9 June 2008 (CDT)

In that case, "LET'S DO IT" Tom Kelly 21:24, 10 June 2008 (CDT)

what about focusing recruitment to physical therapists?

Physical therapists don't really have a project at Wikipedia - maybe we could make a niche for them here. Tom Kelly 20:26, 8 June 2008 (CDT)

the following is copied from wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Images_of_rare_diseases

Images of rare diseases

For those of you who are wondering how I got those fabulous pictures for Tricho-hepato-enteric syndrome (please copy-edit, it's up for WP:DYK), there is an open source medical journal called the Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases which is licensed {{cc-by-2.0}} (see Orphanet). Commons currently has (at least) 88 pictures from this journal, mostly uploaded by one Polish Wikipedian with an interest in rare diseases. Many of these images don't even have an article on their condition yet! If anyone wants to help transfer images from this source, please mark them with clearly (with Orphanet) and join in!

Also, it might be a good idea to create a list of similar open source journals which could provide images as an alternative to directly uploading patient images on Commons. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 00:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I thought that it might be useful and people may be interested in it here. Tom Kelly 23:17, 25 June 2008 (CDT) End of copy from wikipedia

---

talk of merger with healing arts

I oppose this merger on the grounds that it might hurt recruiting of editors for the science side of medicine. I like complimentary medicine, but feeling obligated to monitor work on homeopathy would really frustrate me, and I imagine it would frustrate other scientists. Tom Kelly 08:29, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Now that we have subgroups, I would like to see Healing Arts demoted to a subgroup of Health Sciences. David E. Volk 15:36, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

interesting... then many workgroups could contribute the Art aspect... however a workgroup still needs to approve those articles... I'd rather not have Health Sciences in charge of approving them - that is just me though. Again, I'm pro complimentary medicine, I just have a hard time explaining science to people who are dead set... well, if it helps people, that is all that matters. I just don't want to have to go through an analyze every sentence, you know? keeping them their own workgroup allows them to approve their own articles. If they were part of Health Sciences Workgroup, we'd have arguments within the workgroup with some editors approving and other not wanting them approved. I just want to avoid that whole problem. Tom Kelly 22:24, 5 April 2009 (UTC)