Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Clinical medicine/Collaboration

The sections on articles being created or completed & for peer-review had been moved to archive page. Separately there has been an active discussion in Wp_talk:MCOTW#Collaboration_on_articles about having an intermediate step of articles in progress for which the collabortaion by others was sought and so I have merged the old and new proposal on the page. This is meant to be separate from the WP:MCOTW topic that everyone jointly nominates and then works on for a specific week. David Ruben 00:55, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Good job, Dr. Ruben. I definitely agree that these belong on separate pages and not just stiing at the top of the talk page. I still have some concerns, which is why I never really participated in this earlier. One, is it really necessary to list what we're currently working on, especially if we're not asking for outside help yet? I feel like this is just taking up space at the top. This is the kind of thing one puts on his user page, or perhaps at the bottom we could have a list of participants in a table where they could update their current projects. I also would like to see a peer review more article-based, not person-based. This is for several reasons. One, I think the current method is more prone to stagnation. Many of us are physicians or medical students, and we find ourselves busier at some times. Who knows if some of these people are still contributing, or how long these entries have been around? It also makes it harder to watch for new entries, especially if you only check Wikipedia a few times a week. I also think it makes us more "closed"&mdash;if I were not already involved with these WikiProjects, and I had written an article related to medicine, I might hesitate to list it here since I didn't already have a heading. There is no mechanism for removal unless the nominator removes it. Don't get me wrong&mdash;this is a great idea, and it will probably promote cohesion among the group. But I think it the way it is designed it is prone to stagnation and clutter. It needs a mechanism for flow (like in the WP:MCOTW, entries that aren't receiving attention are removed). Or perhaps this can be used in its current manner and I should go ahead and create Medical peer review similar to Peer review. What do you think? &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 21:47, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * On further reflection, perhaps this page should stay largely the way it is, with announcements of what we are working on and so on. I think my idea of how peer review should function would be better suited for a separate page. One more thing: I think this page should be renamed, because its similarity to WP:MCOTW could be confusing. Perhaps Mr.Bip's idea of "Medical article workshop"? I am not certain. &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 22:05, August 20, 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you Knowledge Seeker, good points raised.
 * I agree adding ones own heading is off-puting to new members, but adds to cohesion. It does duplicate the adding of ones name to the list of members on the main page of the project. However it is easier to edit ones own description if headings are used rather than lists. Tables are nice, but marking-up columns still confuse me and would be easily messed up other people.
 * Alternatively, is there anyway to have a template that has 'article name' and 'date of editing page' that the members could use to indicate their work-in-progress? The time-stamp would then allow people at (say monthly) intervals to prune down the entries.
 * Requests for page collaboration and peer-review, I think should be on the same page. 'Collaberation' asks just those with a similar special interest to help out, whilst 'peer-review' invites everyone to look at the article for style, comprehensibility and breadth. I tend agree merit in the proposal to entirely drop the 'articles we are working on' bit.
 * I agree renaming seems required. "Medical article workshop" is self-explanatory and would cover for both request collaboration and peer-review. The 'colaboration' bit should be renamed 'Request co-working' or something similar.
 * In essence, you have convinced me: Rename subpage to "Medical article workshop" with just two lists (dropping the initial list of pages being individualy worked upon) of pages for which help sought ("Help sought" or "Request co-working") and the second list being "Request peer-review" David Rubentalk 02:37, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Again thank you Knowledge Seeker, I've thought more about your points, and so I propose: A solution might be to change the current structure from '  ==Individual's name== / *Page discussion  ' to just a simple list of '  *Page discussion ~  '. The use of signatures (' ~ ') is then both easier for everyone to use, and has the advantage that the entry is clearly date-stamped. However this would loose the multiple sub-sections and the ability to edit just ones own bit.
 * 1) Change name from  'WikiProject Clinical medicine/Collaboration'  as too similar to  'Medicine Collaboration of the Week'  ?  "Medical article workshop", seems better to me.
 * 2) Get rid the the initial section on articles being worked upon (for which others should allow the individual to work-up) ?
 * 3) Off-puting, to those new to wikipedia, to have to add their name as a heading to the lists, before describing articles they might wish joint working with others on.
 * 4) Many of individual's entries have not been recently updated.

Please everyone, comment below .... - David Ruben 20:24, 23 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Good job taking the initiative here, Dr. Ruben. Your suggestions sound good to me. Regarding the last one: what about using headers like, like we do on WP:MCOTW? That helps keep things organized. They could even be generate by a template too like on MCOTW, and we could set a (loose) rule of when to remove items. Perhaps: new items go on the top; remove an item if there is no discussion for at least two weeks? And of course if you decide you do want to keep the section on what we're working on individually, I'd stick it at the bottom&mdash;and we'd need some way of pruning stale listings. Like I think I mentioned before, I think the key to making this work is to ensure it's dynamic; stagnation will kill it. &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 01:43, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Old requests
Shouldn't we remove older requests. There are requests from 2004. :) NCursework 20:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Lost
I'm kinda lost here... Can someone put a message at the top what the consensus for this discussion was? How are collaborations organised?--Steven Fruitsmaak | Talk 09:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Look, this discussion is older than 1 year. We should create a new system. I'll remove requests older than 2 months. I'll let you know when I'm ready... NCurse [[Image:Edu science.png|22px]]work 10:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Done. Archive is ready. I'll refresh this page regularly... NCurse [[Image:Edu science.png|22px]]work 15:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

seeking input on Vardenafil
Hello, I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask. Another editor advised me to ask this project, but I don't know if this is the right talk page.

I asked on the Talk:Vardenafil page whether a single study comparing it to sildenafil and tadalafil in the treatment of pulmonary hypertension should be mentioned in the article. The study is mentioned in US Respiratory Disease 2006, authored by Manu Jain and Anna P. Lam. The article is available here, and a longer versino for subscribers is available here. According to the article, this one study found that vardenafil did not cause "a significant reduction in the pulmonary to systemic vascular resistance ratio."

Do you think it's worth mentioning this one study in the Vardenafil article, or do you think it should be omitted, pending further studies? Thank you. -- Kyok o  19:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)