Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Pathology task force/Archive 1

Wikiproject:pathology
Count me in, Nephron! Let me know if you have specific ideas on how I can help - I've spent a bit of time filling out Pathology already. It will be a challenge to sort through the nomenclature used in different countries and prevent articles from being redundant - perhaps we should come up with a master list on this page of which major articles we need, which should be redirects, and what content should be where. Looking forward to the project. --Rustavo 05:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * A list would be good. As for terminology, I think a combination of Google hits and PubMed hits is a good arbitrator (e.g. Talk:Ampulla of Vater, Talk:Fibular artery).  There was some discussion about naming at WP:Anatomy in the past (as alluded to in Talk:Ampulla of Vater). For anatomical terms there is a general preference for descriptive terms over eponyms.


 * I'll like a to write a section about what pathologist do-- the importance of morphology and staining in diagnosis 'cause I think the speciality could be better explained and may be poorly understood.


 * Based on my experience (which admittedly is somewhat limited... but growing), the staining and histochemistry is mostly where it is at and this is very much related to the genetic basis of much disease (which is much of the hype these days with the work on the genome & proteome)-- as genetic abnormalities manifest as abnormal proteins and/or the abnormal location of proteins in the cell or on cells that usually don't have a given protein. Thinking about breast cancer as an example of this-- breast cancer is classified based on HER-2/Neu status, ER status and PR status-- those things are the pathologist's call (based on stains & an examination of the histomorphology). Nephron  T|C 05:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Sounds good. One question is whether such details should go in pathology, anatomical pathology, or surgical pathology. Personally, I think that surgical pathology is the major componant of anatomical pathology, and the two pages should be remain combined. I think extensive details of the process of morphological diagnosis belong in anatomical pathology, rather than the Pathology page which covers a broader range of subtopics. Autopsy, cytopathology, molecular pathology etc., should have their own pages but be discussed briefly on the anatomical pathology page (speaking of which, the latter two pages could use some work!) We should also expand and crosslink to immunohistochemistry. Your take? -Rustavo 06:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll try to help. I'm a histopathologist who likes his facts, grammar and spelling to be tidy. Hovea 03:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Nomenclature issues
Per Nephron's suggestion, I'm using Google and PubMed hit counts to help us decide some nomenclature issues for titling pages. I also find it useful to see what terms licensing bodies use. Here are the results with my suggestions (based on best 2/3 + later discussions):

Synonym---| Google hits | Pubmed Hits | Governing body preferred? | Main page, or redirect?

Anatomic pathology--941,000--2,062Yes(ABP-U.S.)---Redirect

Anatomical pathology244,000--1,256---Yes(RCP-UK, others)---Main (priority per WP:ENGVAR)

---

Clinical pathology--1,320,0008,108Yes(ABP-U.S.)-Main

Laboratory medicine-1,200,00025,498--Redirect

---

Chemical pathology--969,000--3,324Yes(ABP-U.S.)---Redirect

Clinical chemistry-1,500,00034,736--Main

---

Experimental pathology--890,000--4,845---Main

Investigative pathology---357,000--20Redirect

I will post these on their respective talk pages and will try to get a consensus here and on the subject pages about suggested moves (e.g. Chem Path -> Clin Chem). -Rustavo


 * Many of these differences are UK vs US terminology. According to WP:NC, pages should not be moved around if it is just a difference between UK & US spelling.


 * I agree that "investigative pathology" should be a redirect. JFW | T@lk  23:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * This is exactly why I agreed with Nephron's suggestion to base the names on google and pubmed hit counts (which are not country-specific). Currently, the Clin Path vs. Lab Med ambiguity is the only one that could not be decided on that basis, since CP has a higher google count while LM wins PubMed. I'm using ABP terminology and inertia as the tiebreak on that one, but if you have a good reason why it should be the other way around, please explain. -Rustavo 00:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Note that this is not exactly the same as an American vs. British spelling issue, since most of these terms have different histories and are in use in different contexts in both countries. -Rustavo 00:41, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I have moved Chemical pathology to Clinical chemistry. There seems to be some debate over the merits of Anatomic pathology versus Anatomical pathology - please join the discussion on the latter page. -Rustavo 05:20, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

After discussion with Nephron and Jfdwolff, on Talk:Anatomical pathology we've reached consensus that the usage of "Anatomical pathology" vs. "Anatomic pathology" is nation-specifc and thus by WP:ENGVAR, the usage of the first major contributor (e.g. "Anatomical pathology") should be preferred. -Rustavo 23:48, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I am updating the above chart as discussions progress and changes are made - please refer to History of this page to see its previous form. Others are welcome to update it as well. -Rustavo 13:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Proposed "blue box" template
I am proposing we create a template similar to Template:Medicine which will serve both as a navagation tool for readers and a way to organize important pages and focus on them for improvement. The draft version is posted above. Of course, additions and changes are welcome, but if you make any changes, please explain your rationale below. Oh, and yes, I know hemepath is listed twice - if someone has a better suggestion, it would be appreciated. -Rustavo 05:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, Template:Pathology is going online as of now. -RustavoTalk/Contribs 00:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Here's the current version of the template:

A bit cleaner and more focused. -RustavoTalk/Contribs 13:20, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Requesting input on stub proposal: Pathology-stub
(Also posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Clinical medicine}

Hi all. I've proposed a new stub, Pathology-stub, to mark the many proto-articles on topics related to Pathology - including various tools and techniques of pathologists, subspecialties of pathology, and microscopic entities which are part of disease processes and are used by pathologists in diagnosis. In assembling the items that would be appropriate for the stub, I found that some of them had been labeled as medical signs and marked with Med-sign-stub, under the broad definition that anything which is detectable and relates to a disease is a "medical sign". In my experience, named eponymous signs, and other medical entities specifically referred to as "signs" are concepts which refer primarily to a appearance or observation rather than to a physical entity which is part of the disease process itself. Thus, observations made on physical examination (e.g. strawberry tongue) or radiographic study (e.g. Kerley B lines) are "medical signs" but entities such as fibrosis, astrogliosis, and auer rods are not, and would be appropriate for my new stub & category. Whether you support or oppose my idea, I'd apprciate your joining the conversation at WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals. Thanks. -RustavoTalk/Contribs 02:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't find the discussion at WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals. It helps if you link directly to the section. You can do that with "#section_name", e.g. Forensic_pathology.  Any case, I think it is a good idea... and based on the fact that you added it in the templates section I suppose it is already approved. :) Nephron  T|C 10:34, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it was approved a few weeks ago. Thanks for the tip! -RustavoTalk/Contribs 13:19, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Do we need a separate page for Surgical pathology?
Currently, surgical pathology is a redirect to anatomical pathology. I think it might be helpful to make these two separate pages, with anatomical pathology containing summaries and links to the various subdisciplines of anatomical pathology (e.g. Surgical pathology, cytopathology, autopsy, molecular pathology etc), as well as general info about the training, certification, and practice models of anatomical pathologists. I think we could write a really solid page on Surg Path alone, which would focus more on the actual role of surg path in the diagnosis and treatment planning of major disorders broken down by anatomical region, as well as an explanation of surg path workflow & techniques. Eventually, we could have the goal of making Pathology, Anatomical pathology and Surgical pathology very distinct pages in terms of subject matter, and each at good or featured article quality. This would be a pretty big change so, I wanted to put it up for comments. -RustavoTalk/Contribs 17:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I posted a message on the anatomical pathology talk page. You can be more bold --see (WP:BOLD). Nephron  T|C 21:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I am bold :-) Just thought I might get some input as I worked on the new surgical pathology page, and corresponding revisions of anatomical pathology and pathology. Check 'em out! -RustavoTalk/Contribs 20:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Cytology
We should probably create a cytology article at some point. Currently cytology redirects to cell biology, which is pretty exclusively focused on the biology/pure sciences side of things. There is nothing about the value of looking at individual cells for diagnostic purposes, i.e. pap test, peritoneal washings, bronchoalveolar washings et cetera. Nephron T|C 05:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I re-disambig'ed the article. Nephron T|C 06:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you mean Cytopathology? Emmanuelm (talk) 17:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I do. The cytology article now makes this clear-- as per the definition in Stedman's. Nephron  T|C 19:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

''Technical note: this discussion is transcluded in Talk:lymphoma, Talk:Non-Hodgkin lymphoma, Talk:Cancer, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pathology. Comments posted here will be shown in all. ''

Task force idea
Hello, all. I ran across this WikiProject, and I would like to participate, but my knowledge of pathology is focused primarily on molecular pathology, the field in which I will (eventually) be receiving my PhD. Given the discipline's crossover status, it occurs to me that molecular pathology may be a good subject for a joint task force between this project and the molecular and cellular biology project. Thoughts? – ClockworkSoul 17:40, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Move to WPMED task force?
This project looks relatively inactive. Would anyone object to it being subsumed under WPMED as a task force? The changes are pretty minimal (talk-page banners get merged, this page gets renamed to a subpage of WikiProject Medicine). This project would become a task force like the others listed at WikiProject Medicine/Task forces. The advantages to Wikipedia is that we have fewer tiny projects hanging about. The advantage to members here is that they get somewhat greater visibility (e.g., a listing in the WPMED Navigation template) and don't have to mess with administrative stuff (e.g., article assessments).

Whether you're interested or not, please reply here or post a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Task forces beneath the listing for this project. --Scott Alter 00:54, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Anything that facilitates the aim of the project is fine by me. As long as I can still find it! Mattopaedia (talk) 22:59, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. --Arcadian (talk) 22:20, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a good idea. Hovea (talk) 11:47, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I do not understand all this Wiki jargon. Frankly, I think the Pathology-related pages are good. As in the past, I will edit instead of asking others to do it. Stop organizing, just do it. Emmanuelm (talk) 18:42, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to WPMED!
This project has been moved to a new home under WikiProject Medicine. The primary goal of the merge is to let you get back to work on pathology-related articles. Members are invited to watchlist this page as well as the main project page, and to list themselves both at this project and also at the main project's list if they haven't already. Please feel free to leave a note here about what you're working on or to let other members know where you need help.

If anything got lost or broken during the transition, or if administrative tasks need done in the future, then please feel free to squawk at WT:MED or the task force page, and we'll try to fix it promptly. Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts
This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the  parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 09:32, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement
This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 03:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Pathology articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release
Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Pathology articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (&diams;) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of November, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:27, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Pathology articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release
Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Pathology articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (&diams;) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Sunday, November 14th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of November, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

If you have already provided feedback, we deeply appreciate it. For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 16:35, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Citation templates now support more identifiers
Recent changes were made to citations templates (such as citation, cite journal, cite web...). In addition to what was previously supported (bibcode, doi, jstor, isbn, ...), templates now support arXiv, ASIN, JFM, LCCN, MR, OL, OSTI, RFC, SSRN and Zbl. Before, you needed to place id (or worse http://arxiv.org/abs/0123.4567), now you can simply use 0123.4567, likewise for id and http://www.jstor.org/stable/0123456789 &rarr; 0123456789.

The full list of supported identifiers is given here (with dummy values):



Obviously not all citations needs all parameters, but this streamlines the most popular ones and gives both better metadata and better appearances when printed. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:12, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Anatomic(al) Nomenclature revisited
This page has only just now come to my attention. I posted the following on the Anatomical Pathology Talk page but I see that it is probably more appropriate here. Please consider the following; I'd love to hear what people think:

The previous discussion seemed to be directed toward "US vs Commonwealth" terminology but the issue runs deeper than that. It should be pointed out that "-ic" and "-al" are each an adjective suffix used for the identical purpose of rendering a noun or subject into an adjective. Almost anytime you see "-ical" it is actually incorrect (grammatically, at least). Biological, anatomical, physiological, pathological, are all grammatically incorrect (I feel bad for the American Association of Anatomists and their journal "The Anatomical Record"--but you'll also notice that this is an American publication using the incorrect "-ical" suffix--so the issue is not merely "US vs Commonwealth). I realize that "-ical" has fallen into common usage for centuries but it is still wrong (!) and perhaps this article title should be amended to reflect that fact. The only time "-ical" is correct is when "ic" are the final two letters of the word root (as in, physical or chemical, whose roots are "physic" and "chemic" and the combining forms are "physico-" and "chemico-" and thus require "-al" to render them adjectives). All that being said, "anatomic" is the correct form and the article should be titled correctly regardless of the most widely used form. WP policy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(use_English) states:

"Use the most commonly used English version of the name of the subject as the title of the article, as you would find it in verifiable reliable sources (for example other encyclopedias and reference works)."

I find that Ackerman's Surgical Pathology uses the form "anatomic" and it seems to me that this source is as "verifiable" and "reliable" as you can get since this text is basically the bible for a practicing pathologist. Also, Stedman's Medical Dictionary uses the form "anatomic" but does not include an entry for "anatomical." This is also a verifiable and reliable source.

The title of this article really should be changed to "Anatomic Pathology." 76.20.178.54 (talk) 21:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC). Sorry, wasn't logged-in for some reason.MorbidAnatomy (talk) 21:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Offering access to histology images (public domain)
I have equipment and access to government histology and pathology slides, and can provide public domain images of most tissues and many common pathologies at large size and good resolution on request.

I would be delighted to provide as many images as possible to this and other interested projects, but I don't have the time to check individual talk pages across many projects. If you'd like microscopic images of tissues, please send an email to histology.request@gmail.com with the request in the subject line (ex: "artery wall" or "tuberculosis granuloma"). Happy regards, Glacialfury (talk) 14:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Archived some threads
I've archived some inactive threads to subsections which were notifications about discussions that have since been closed. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 22:57, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Images and Support from Pathology Laboratory
I work for as a systems administrator for a small Pathology laboratory and recently decided that I wanted to make use of my position here to help out Wikipedia. I have spoken to my employer and they have offered steep discounts, and to possibly do free work, to help improve pathology related articles. Any costs that they will not cover I will eat. I am planning to look around the Pathology related articles and try to find articles in need of improvement (especially images, we have a nice imaging setup here), but if anyone has any suggestions or things that I could help with in general, I would absolutely love to hear them. ''Possibly COI Disclosure: My employer is Alizee Pathology which is owned by Dr. Serge Rousselle. I do not intend to edit any articles in a way that could be considered biased, but I ought to put it out there anyhow.'' Zell Faze (talk) 20:21, 4 February 2014 (UTC)