Medicine WikiProject
General information
Project page	talk
Manual of Style	talk
Reliable sources	talk
Departments  → Assessment (Log) talk  → FA review talk  → Featured topics proj. talk
Task forces (talk) Cardiology talk Dermatology talk Emergency and EMS talk Gastroenterology talk Hematology-oncology talk Medical genetics talk Nephrology talk Neurology talk Ophthalmology talk Pathology talk Psychiatry talk Pulmonology talk Radiology talk Reproductive medicine talk
How to help  → Collaboration of the Week talk  → Nominations for deletion  → Pages needing attention  → Needing expert attention  → Requested articles  → Cleanup listing (top imp.)  → Article alerts talk  → Stub sorting talk  → Popular pages talk
Missing Article Trophy	talk
Participants	talk
Portal	talk
Categories  → Project  → Articles by quality  → Articles by importance
This box: view • talk • edit  · changes

Contents 1 older entries 2 Genetic medicine? 3 Medical Disorders stub 4 Tourette syndrome 5 genetic testing 6 Tagging talk pages and assessing articles 7 Gene Modulation 8 Maghazaji syndrome deleted 9 New categories? 10 Preimplantation genetic diagnosis 11 Ascertainment bias 12 Merging articles? 13 Project directory 14 WP:MEDMOS needs YOU! 15 SLITRK1 16 Chimera (genetics) needs this project's attention 17 Where is everyone? 18 FAC for DNA 19 Wikipedia Day Awards 20 Article review 21 Lesch-Nyhan syndrome 22 WP:MEDMOS 23 Re-assess 24 Featured List Candidate 25 FAR 26 Proposed deletion: Center for Genetics and Society 27 Genetics FAC 28 Genetic Expansion 29 Need an editor 30 Two major pigmentation-related articles missing 31 Post-transcriptional regulation desperately seeking editor 32 MCOTW 33 Wikipedia:WikiProject Genetics 34 Wilson's disease 35 Wikiproject autism 36 Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme 37 Articles flagged for cleanup 38 Merge articles on Sex-linked disorders? 39 Portal:Gene Wiki 40 Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Medical genetics 41 Myriad Genetics 42 Move to WPMED task force? 43 Welcome to WPMED! 44 Coordinators' working group 45 MCOTW is a medgen article 46 Taskforce-imp ranking 47 HNPCC/Lynch 48 Gulf War syndrome

[edit] older entries

Should we care about multifactorial diseases? Mitocondrial ones? NCurse _work 20:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Any genetic influence on disease should ideally be recognised, it depends on the resources of the project as to the extent of cover. --apers0n 08:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Genetic medicine?

The article Medical genetics says: Genetic medicine is a newer (and some would say more fitting) term for medical genetics. The difference (if there is one) should ideally be explained on the main project page --apers0n 10:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, my main project in science is medical genetics and genetic medicine, but I can't tell you the difference. :) I think showing that they're similar expressions is enough. NCurse _work 17:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

There is a difference to me. Medical genetics is the study of how genetics affects humans with a particular eye towards disorders. Genetic medicine means (to me) using genetics to treat diseases and disorders: Anti-sense therapy, designer drugs, GMOs, etc. Of course, I come from a genetic background, as opposed to a medical background. Maybe that makes a difference. Ted^Talk/_{Contributions} 17:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

A couple of suggestions for user boxes here - does the project need one, if so does anyone have a preference?

WOW! They're cool! In my opinion all of the three could be used by the users. If you don't mind I put them on the main page of the project. NCurse _work 17:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Medical Disorders stub

So, as I read it, the article on Mitochondrial Eve would not fit in as a medical disorders stub. In my mind, it could fit as a medical genetics stub. What about antisense therapy? viruses? antibodies? transplantation? Ted^Talk/_{Contributions} 17:18, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Mitochondrial Eve is a genetics stub. Antisense therapy should be medical genetics stub. But viruses, antibody will never be genetics stub, or topic. I ask for a medical genetics stub type, if you show me at least 10 articles. I couldn't find as much... NCurse _work 20:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I added my comment on the stub page, but genetic conditions works far better for me. Sandy 18:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I expressed there, condition is too wide. Disorder is between disease and condition. NCurse _work 20:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The Asperger's people get pretty touchy about the terminology. Lots of TS people object to disorder, but they have a weaker case than "Asperger syndrome", since the DSM name is "Tourette's disorder". The Asperger's people may reject the disorder term. Sandy 21:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Impossible to have everyone agreed. :) NCurse _work 21:58, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

It is for stubs. The Asperger syndrome people will never see it. Ted^Talk/_{Contributions} 13:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tourette syndrome

Just wanted to add a note that I need a couple of more weeks to work on it: it's not quite ready for review. I have to finish some copy-editing, some referencing, and writing some large missing chunks (I was going to add a thorough discussion of comorbids under "Screening", as it's important to pick them up when tics are present). Pathophysiology needs to be beefed up. Guidance on anything else I need to do would help. I'm also not sure on the copyright/Fair Use status on images: that is not an area I understand well.Sandy 18:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] genetic testing

As genetic counceling is in the list of main articles, chouldn't Genetic testing be as well ?? Leevanjackson 10:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I fixed it. :) NCurse _work 11:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tagging talk pages and assessing articles

Hi. If you still have work to do tagging talk pages and assessing articles, my AWB plugin might be of interest to you.

The plugin has two main modes of operation:

• Tagging talk pages, great for high-speed tagging
• Assessments mode, for reviewing articles (pictured)

As of the current version, WikiProjects with simple "generic" templates are supported by the plugin without the need for any special programatic support by me. I've had a look at your project's template and you seem to qualify.

For more information see:

• About the plugin
• About support for "generic" WikiProject templates
• User guide
• About AWB (AutoWikiBrowser)

Hope that helps. If you have any questions or find any bugs please let me know on the plugin's talk page. --Kingboyk 14:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gene Modulation

Does gene modulation with artificial transcription factors come under 'medical genetics'. --Username132 (talk) 19:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Sure. Why do you ask it? NCurse _work 21:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Maghazaji syndrome deleted

This genetic disorder stub was recently deleted after a prod: "Possible vanity article, single medical paper written in 1983, sole link's webmaster appears to be related to Prof. Maghazaji or is Prof. Maghazaji." Most Google hits are from the deleted Wikipedia page. Should we reinstate the page? The contents were as follows (from the Google cache):

Maghazaji syndrome is a human genetic disorder that is characterised as the combination of two congenital disorders hemifacial microsomia and partial gigantism. It was described in an Iraqi family by Professor Haider Maghazaji.

Reference

Maghazaji HI. 1983. Hemifacial microsomia associated with congenital partial gigantism. Dev Med Child Neurol. 25:798-800. PMID 6653913

External links

Maghazaji syndrome

This genetic disorder article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

This disease article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

Categories: Proposed deletion as of 12 September 2006 | All articles proposed for deletion | Disease stubs | Genetic disorders | Eponymous diseases | Genetic disorder stubs --apers0n 18:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I think yes. NCurse _work 06:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New categories?

There is a suggestion on Talk:Dominance relationship to merge several articles into one, which seems like a good idea but will need a lot of wikilinks redirected. The article is also heavy with lists, I made the following comment there:

"Rather than having endless lists in article with dominant and recessive disorders/conditions, what about creating new categories Category:Autosomal recessive disorders and Category:Autosomal dominant disorders, perhaps even Category:X-linked disorders? Or else move the lists to a list of dominant and recessive disorders article." --apers0n 11:57, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

The article Mitochondrial disease could be the basis for a Category:Mitochondrial diseases --apers0n 08:37, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support. NCurse _work 14:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Preimplantation genetic diagnosis

This article plus Preimplantation Genetic Haplotyping probably should not be in the Genetic disorders category, is there a category to group them together?

It seems to be done. NCurse _work 10:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ascertainment bias

Is anyone here able to spend some time in ascertainment bias? It is really in dismal shape. Sandy 15:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I've cleaned up the language and added it to the requests for review on the main MEDGENP page. --apers0n 17:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - better already! Sandy 17:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merging articles?

Please have a look at that: User_talk:Petaholmes#Merging_articles. The problem is that Petaholmes wants to merge Chromosome banding with karyotype. But I think they're not exactly the same things. Please comment. NCurse _work 06:31, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Project directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 23:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Our main listing on the Council Directory is under Biology, with a sub-listing under Clinical Medicine - I wonder if it would be better the other way round? I've also added our listing on the Medicine portal to the Council Directory page. --apers0n 05:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:MEDMOS needs YOU!

The Manual of Style (Medicine-related articles) is entering a critical stage: I'm informing people to visit the page, make corrections where possible, and then state there support or disagreements on the talk page, so we can see if there is consensus to turn this proposed guideline into a consensus-supported guideline.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 21:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SLITRK1

Does anyone here know how to deal with the context tag that was placed at SLITRK1 ? Thanks, Sandy (Talk) 22:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chimera (genetics) needs this project's attention

Will this project please take on Chimera (genetics) as one of its monitored pages? The article has been getting a lot of attention lately from people who saw a TV show and who add fairly uninformed junk. It could really use more serious editors' attention. Thanks! — coelacan talk — 19:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Where is everyone?

I'm surprised no one from here has watched what has happened to Down syndrome during its stint on the main page, or discussed some of the changes proposed on the talk page. Sandy (Talk) 10:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FAC for DNA

Hi there. This article is now a candidate for a featured article. Any comments or suggestions would be welcome on its nomination page here. Thank you. TimVickers 23:09, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 17:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Seems we are to an extent ? To be fair we should just put up one article amongst the nominations to give them a chance :) Leevanjackson 18:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, apers0n and me have been busy in real life, but now I'm back in business. :) I nominate some of our articles, then let you know about it here. NCurse _work 18:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article review

Is there somewhere on this project for folk to add articles for review or reassessment? For example, I think Tuberous sclerosis has been wrongly assessed at A (I think it should be B). Am I allowed to change it myself? I assume I only need to edit the talk page and a bot will do the rest? Colin°^Talk 12:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. On most Projects, A-class is a cut above GA, and this article isn't yet GA. (I think you can edit the entry on the talk page yourself, and it will be re-assigned to the correct class.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course, article assessment is absolutely open for everyone. Your contribution is most welcome. Change the template, and the bot will do the rest. NCurse _work 14:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lesch-Nyhan syndrome

LNS is featured, but in bad shape. Does anyone want to help work on restoring LNS to featured status? All of the needed info seems to be there in the links to the references. Unless someone can help me clean it up, I'm going to submit it to WP:FAR, because it's not currently worthy of featured status. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. I'm in. NCurse _work 16:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Lesch-Nyhan syndrome has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:MEDMOS

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (medicine-related articles) is a proposed guideline discussed and developed over recent months. Please visit the talk page to indicate whether you support or oppose Manual of Style (medicine-related articles) becoming a guideline. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re-assess

I added an assessment index to the top of the talk page. There are a lot of articles assessed as A-class which are actually not GA or below GA class, and should probably be re-assessed to B-class. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! I'm going to take a look at it. NCurse _work 20:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I've been plowing through them; a lot of the A-class articles aren't cited, and wouldn't even make GA. Some of them have cleanup tags - I backed a lot of them off to B-class. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Of all the articles I re-assessed back to B-class, Tay-Sachs disease has been the only one whose author has worked to bring it to A-class standard. Can other please have a look in terms of re-assessing it back to A-class (which is higher than GA, almost FA)? Talk:Tay-Sachs disease Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I had to re-assess 4 A-class articles to B-class. In my opinion, Tay-Sachs should be an A-class article as it's rather an A-class than a B-class (it's on the edge, anyway). NCurse _work 20:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

We'd need much much more editors on this field... :( NCurse _work 20:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Featured List Candidate

There is currently a medical genetics-related featured list candidate:

• Timeline of tuberous sclerosis

The opinion of project members would be most welcome. Cheers, Colin°^Talk 22:44, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Colin, for the note! I support it (and already supported in the last nomination). NCurse _work 09:40, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FAR

Asperger syndrome has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.

[edit] Proposed deletion: Center for Genetics and Society

Center for Genetics and Society (via WP:PROD)

--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice! NCurse _work 05:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Genetics FAC

Genetics is currently a candidate for featured article: Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Genetics Reviews, comments, and suggestions would all be appreciated. Thanks! Madeleine ✉ ✍ 03:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

thanks Madeleine, will check it out! This article isn't tagged Medical Genetics at the moment, but leads me onto ... see next section Leevanjackson (talk) 23:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Genetic Expansion

The article genetics and it's FA review has brought up the point that there is no 'genetics' wikiproject - is medical genetics actually genetics, should we change our name? Failing that should we expand coverage, I 'feel' genetics is part of this project... Leevanjackson (talk) 23:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

That's a big question and is quite hard to answer. We should ask the guys at the Medicine project what they think about it. We launched this project to be a platform for medical geneticists, but there are only a few participants, so we should cover the whole genetic area. That's what you think about it? NCurse _work 20:19, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Strictly speaking medical genetics refers to genetics used to study or diagnose human biology, but the study of non-human genetics aids this study so could be considered part of it. The science behind genetics is really part of biology - but that's also an important part of medicine. They're all inter-related. WP:BIOL lists Genetics as a potential related project but no one has taken it up. I think since there is currently a gap, the project should move to cover it and enable any editors from other fields to get involved. The work we have already done is applicable to a broader genetics field so no - one loses . I suppose the project would come under the combined wings of both medicine AND biology as well. So to me it seems a natural development of the project. I expect there may be other steps to change a wikiprojects name esp. a consensus of opinion?, and quite a bit of work with templates etc Of course I am happy to help out:). Leevanjackson (talk) 21:49, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

After further reading ... from medical genetics article which had some conversations connected

Human genetics differs from medical genetics in that human genetics may or may not apply to medicine, but medical genetics always applies to medicine. The study of Huntington's disease (a progressive neurologic disease) is properly part of both human genetics and medical genetics, whereas the study of eye color (except in situations such as albinism) is part of human genetics but not medical genetics. Genetic medicine is a newer term for medical genetics.

So there is a definite scope to 'medical genetics'! A more fundamental suggestion than I first thought! Leevanjackson (talk) 22:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

When I first started editing Genetics I had lamented the lack of a Genetics wikiproject and considered starting one (Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Biology#Genetics), but I was fairly new to everything at that point, and ragesoss's response there made me decide that there wasn't much need for it -- the stuff it might cover were mostly covered within the MCB and Ev Bio projects anyway, and it does seem best to work within projects rather than create new ones that won't have many members. Between you and User:Richard001's remarks on the FAC, there does seem to be interest in creating such a wikiproject, we could try doing it. Or we could create a "task force" (as ragesoss suggested) within another wikiproject, no idea how these things work but it might be a better idea. Madeleine ✉ ✍ 03:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest making a genetics project as a daughter project of WP:BIOL and preserving this one a a subproject or task force of both medicine and genetics. If a genetics project was created, all the other banners on talk:genetics could be replaced by it. I don't have the time to establish one myself yet, but I'll probably do so in a few months if someone else hasn't already. With the animals project I was similarly going to start one eventually but others got onto it before I got around to it. I'd be happy to help out in any case. Richard001 (talk) 10:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, we do need a new project dedicated totally to genetics. But I think it should be under both biology and medicine wikiprojects. Do you think we are ready to announce it at the wikiproject council? If so, I can do the whole process... NCurse _work 16:03, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support Leevanjackson (talk) 18:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Just noting a newly formed related project Human Genetic History WP:HGH to throw into the pot. LeeVJ (talk) 05:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay... I've added the proposal for a Genetics project here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Genetics, you can add your names to it. Madeleine ✉ ✍ 19:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Conclusion Wikipedia:WikiProject Genetics has been created. LeeVJ (talk) 00:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Need an editor

X-linked ichthyosis was recently expanded by a new editor. The article needs help with tone and sourcing. If someone here has a few minutes and an interest in this article, I'd appreciate the help in improving it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Done! Medical geneticist (talk) 16:36, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Two major pigmentation-related articles missing

We badly need articles on psittacin and axanthism. They are mentioned at albinism if anyone wants some context. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 12:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Post-transcriptional regulation desperately seeking editor

Hopefully some medically interested geneticists on Wikipedia can add information about the relevance of Post-transcriptional regulation to human HIV to this article. Sorrowfully this article is a one-two sentence stub recently up for deletion! --Blechnic (talk) 03:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] MCOTW

Pectus excavatum was chosen for the Medical Collaboration of the Week and could use some help from people with knowledge in genetics. Hope you can help! §hep • ¡Talk to me! 00:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Genetics

Wikipedia:WikiProject Genetics is a new, related WikiProject. GregManninLB (talk) 02:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wilson's disease

I have finally finished improving Wilson's disease, and would love someone with an interest in genetics to proofread it before I submit it for good article candidacy. JFW | T@lk 16:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiproject autism

i've created a proposal for a wikiproject autism on the project proposal page. i'm looking for editors to back it. Mrld (talk) 18:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

• The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
• The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
• A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 20:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Articles flagged for cleanup

Currently, 480 articles are assigned to this project, of which 167, or 34.8%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 14 July 2008.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. More than 150 projects and work groups have already subscribed, and adding a subscription for yours is easy - just place the following template on your project page:

{{User:WolterBot/Cleanup listing subscription|banner=MedGen}}

If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page; I'm not watching this page. --B. Wolterding (talk) 15:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merge articles on Sex-linked disorders?

Hi everyone. I've left a note on the discussion page at X-linked recessive about possibly merging X-linked dominant, X-linked recessive, and Sex linkage into a larger article on Sex-linked disorders or Sex-linked inheritance. My reasoning is that despite a historical use of the terms 'X-linked recessive' and 'X-linked dominant', there really is a blurring of this distinction when you take into account phenotypes that arise in female carriers later in life or under certain conditions. I would propose putting these ideas into one article where concepts like hemizygosity and X-inactivation can be woven into the discussion.

Thoughts? Medical geneticist (talk) 22:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. --WS (talk) 19:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Portal:Gene Wiki

Just clicking around found a fairly new portal Portal:Gene Wiki, LeeVJ (talk) 18:22, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Medical genetics

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 22:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Myriad Genetics

This biotechnology company, based in Salt Lake City, Utah, holds controversial medical genetics patents, including 9 patents associated with the genomic sequences for BRCA1 and BRCA2. Myriad Genetics makes astonishing claims about what these patents cover. Through litigation and potential litigation, they have amassed a complete portfolio of patents on these two genes, linked to familial breast and ovarian cancer as well as several other cancers. Many others dispute their patent claims, and accuse Myriad of stifling research and innovation by other companies, while charging excessive fees for its own services. Considering the scope and importance of this matter, Wikipdedia has very little information.

The current Wikipedia page has only minimal information about Myriad, so I looked at the page history. I discovered that the article was recently much longer, but that most of its substance had been removed by an person identifiable only by an IP address. I attempted to run both traceroute and DNSreverselookup on this possible troll, but the IP address used was impossible to trace. In addition to removing most of the material in the article, this anonymous person has also erased several messages in the Talk section.

Myriad is a volatile biotechnology stock in which there is intense speculative investor interest. It has a market capitalization of well over $2.5 billion, even after the current stock market meltdown.

Anybody who Googles a phrase such as "Myriad BRCA1 patent" or "Myriad BRCA2 patent" will discover that this is complex public policy question. I naturally wondered whether someone had edited Wikipedia to delete negative information about Myriad. I was especially suspicious because the Talk page had been altered too. However, when I looked at previous versions, none of them seemed to make any serious attempt to present the controversy surrounding Myriad. Indeed, all of the old versions of this page appear to contain nothing more than glossy public relations babble.

I wish that I had the time and energy to give Wikipedia a good page about Myriad, but I do not. However, I feel that I must warn other Wikipedia editors that there appears to be manipulation of this content by interested parties. The Myriad Genetics page should, at minimum, be restricted to editing by Wikipedians with a valid name and login. We need to have further investigation of the possibility of manipulation. Can an administrator help. Metzenberg (talk) 03:38, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks like most of the removed information was commercial and advertising for the company so was correctly deleted. Company policies and patent law are out of the current scope of this project so I'd suggest maybe the business project? If you did wish to add info it would require reliable references since it would be a hard article to write from a neutral perspective and maybe the starting point would be from the Criticism of patents article ? LeeVJ (talk) 17:14, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Move to WPMED task force?

This project looks pretty much 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 WP:MED). 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., fixing your busted listing in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Directory/Science#Medicine).

If you're interested, please post a note on this page, and someone will start the process for you. If you're not interested, then just reply here so I'll know that there are still editors working here. Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:28, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd just as soon keep it separate. I'm not an extremely active editor and I certainly can't manage any of the administrative things but the issues of interest to people in medical genetics are not really going to be very prominent among the greater sphere of WPMED. I'd hate to see it get swallowed up and lost. Medical geneticist (talk) 23:43, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Of course I have no interest in a "forced" merge, but I'm not sure that you'd notice the difference: Task forces get their own pages and generally operate independently, just with significantly less administrative hassle. You might like to take a look at WP:EMS and WP:DERM to get an idea of how it works. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:08, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy to go with the flow, we'd still have a central meeting point and our own subpages.. LeeVJ (talk) 21:40, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I don't have any major objections so long as it retains a distinct identity within WPMED. Medical geneticist (talk) 00:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• Hold on to your hats looks like we're moving as I write! LeeVJ (talk) 16:53, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 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 genetics-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 and/or at WikiProject Genetics 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) 19:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

It's been a couple of months now, and all seems ok thus far, cheers. L∴V 10:56, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 05:57, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] MCOTW is a medgen article

Huntington's Disease has been selected as the WP:MCOTW, time to address the last GA review? feel free to join in the fun! LeeVJ (talk) 10:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

And has now achieved good article status ! L∴V 10:55, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Taskforce-imp ranking

The WPMED template was recently changed so that taskforce importance is no longer inherited from WPMED importance. (i.e. formerly, if taskforce-imp is not specified, then the taskforce importance would be the same as the general WPMED importance. After the change, the taskforce importance is "None" if it is not specified). (See WP:WikiProject Medicine/Assessment#Statistics.)

The old behavior can be restored for those taskforces that desire it. (See template talk:WPMED#Taskforce importance.) Zodon (talk) 07:38, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] HNPCC/Lynch

I have put forward a move request for Hereditary Non-Polyposis Colon Cancer, proposing to move the main content from HNPCC to Lynch Syndrome, and to make HNPCC into either a stub, or perhaps a discussion of colon cancer in Lynch Syndrome. The idea is to have the science consolidate in one place.

I welcome comments on this move.

The HNPCC (soon to be Lynch page) is also in need of a re-write; I can do some of it, but I am not an geneticist. If someone would like to co-revise who has some knowledge of Lynch genetics, I would welcome the collaboration. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Aetiologic —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aetiologic (talk • contribs) 03:28, 5 November 2009

[edit] Gulf War syndrome

Please review this disputed edit which removed several peer reviewed secondary sources, a dispute tag, several mentions of genotoxicity and mutagenicity, almost all mention of birth defects, all mention of immunotoxicity, the entire "Diagnosis" section, and was a 3RR violation from a likely banned user as well. I hope you will please look in particular at the second paragraph in the Epidemiology section removed prior to the table, which I have placed in Talk:Gulf War syndrome#Dispute. 99.27.134.160 (talk) 03:13, 31 December 2009 (UTC)