This page is to discuss anything related to WikiProject Neurology.
Threads older than 20 days are automatically archived (see list on the right).

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 We are up and running! 2 Article assessment 3 Stroke 4 Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme 5 Articles flagged for cleanup 6 Sense of time 7 to punish doctor., 8 Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Neurology 9 Brodman Area 21: MT 10 Neurology and Nervous system categories 11 Eeew 12 Foerster's syndrome 13 What is the difference between neuronal circuitry and neural circuitry? 14 Quality problems with section Dream theories of the Dream article 15 Coordinators' working group 16 Areas of Brain 17 Neurolex etc 18 Neurolex (copied from user talk space) 19 pyschomotor function 20 Edward Taub 21 Hippocampus is at FAC 22 Mesial temporal sclerosis and Hippocampal sclerosis 23 Help! neurological expert help required at the wiki dyslexia project 24 Proposed Policy concerning Photosensitive epilepsy 25 Huntington's disease at FAC 26 I wish join the Neurology task force 27 Giant cell glioblastoma 28 Grading of the tumors of the central nervous system 29 Comments needed on a source for the Alzheimer's disease article 30 Brain GAR notice 31 Seizures linked to Endometriosis??? 32 Sleep & sleep disorders 33 WP:JOURNALS need help 34 ConnectomeWiki Released 34.1 A discussion about this bot at the Village pump 35 Combining neuropathy articles

[edit] We are up and running!

Took about a day of hard work but the WikiProject is now pretty much fully working (with a few exceptions!)

Feel free to comment on here about improvements (let's face it, we need a lot of them!)

Thanks! Regards, CycloneNimrod^Talk?_Sign? 21:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Several subprojects have been started, many of them dried up in spite of great contributors (see for example, WikiProject Gastroenterology). Nevertheless, it's better to have a vision than to be chasing the facts; all the best with this initiative! --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 13:14, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I added a hierarchy of parent wiki-projects at the top, and a list of related WikiProjects (currently only two) in the middle. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 20:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Article assessment

I don't know how useful this is, since this project hasn't really attracted other contributors so far. If this is done, at least consider using the "multiple wikiprojects" template. I don't think most of the assessments should differ from the Medicine WP assessment (such as it was the case on Talk:Seizure). --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 14:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

My apologies. The reason for this is that I got a fellow user's bot to automatically assign {{WikiProject Neurology|class=|importance=}} and then filled in automatically using AWB to make all articles have the assessment of Start class and Mid importance. My efforts now are to scan through all of these and reassess all articles to their correct parameters. If you have a quick-fire way of changing them to mimic WP:MED's assessments, then that'd be grand. Regards, CycloneNimrod ^talk?_contribs? 14:31, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know enough about automatic assessment to help you with that. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 14:35, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I'll post a bot request later to see if anyone can help out. Regards, CycloneNimrod ^talk?_contribs? 14:36, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

You have two conflicting templates at Talk:Myelencephalon. I'd delete one for you, but I don't know which is the correct one. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:24, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Stroke

Although the main stroke article is in really good shape, articles about types and subtypes of stroke are minimal and sometimes redundant. We have a bunch of stubs out there like intraparenchymal hemorrhage, cerebral hemorrhage, and intraventricular hemorrhage that can probably ALL be merged into only 2 articles: intracranial hemorrhage and brain ischemia. It might take some scouting to find all of the individual articles hiding under synonymous article titles and inappropriate redirect pages, but it would be really nice to have all of the stroke material reorganized and condensed into a couple of detailed articles.

I've been working with stroke research in a hospital for about a year now, and one of the toughest things for me to figure out was all of the terminology. I think wikipedia should be able to help people like me. In its current structure (one strong, central article and several scattered stubs), it's still a bit confusing. I'd love to hear other people's comments on this topic too, of course.--Jmjanzen (talk) 19:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. To be honest i'm not brilliant at that sort of thing so i'll leave it to you or someone else :P Be bold!. — CycloneNimrod ^talk?_contribs? 19:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

May i offer my help on this one? Stroke should really be a GA (good article). Where do we start? PizzaMan (talk) 06:48, 22 October 2009 (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) 21:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Articles flagged for cleanup

Currently, 959 articles are assigned to this project, of which 254, or 26.5%, 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 a template on your project page.

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) 17:21, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sense of time

There's a dispute about the last sentence at Sense of time (currently sort of on the talk page). If someone who actually understands the science could please take a look, I'm sure it would be appreciated. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Might be best to ask at WikiProject Neuroscience or WikiProject Psychology, we only really deal with disease processes here. —Cyclonenim^T@lk? 18:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] to punish doctor.,

R/Sir,

My elder brother who was alcoholic was admitted in semi govt. hospital to maintain his sodium & potassium level, Doctors to that hospital has raised his level from 105 to 152. Soon he went in Coma, we shift him to a private hospital[Wockhardt], they told that he is suffering from CPM ie.Central Pontine Myelinosis. We the middle class family doesnot understand what to do, Now he is in Government hospital under nursing care which my father & mom do, not a single doctor or nurse take care of him. for further treatment we don't have money. please help me Sir. at ceatner@gmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.96.176.23 (talk) 11:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Please see Central pontine myelinosis for more information. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Neurology

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 23:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Brodman Area 21: MT

The middle temporal area is also involved in visual perception. Specifically its neurons are tuned to the direction and speed of moving contrasts in luminance. Is there a reason the article does not mention this? Falk (talk) 21:35, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Probably better to bring this up at WP:NEURO, the project for Neuroscience. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 11:19, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Neurology and Nervous system categories

I have been working on restructuring anatomy- and medical specialty-related categories. I just made a first pass through Cat:Neurology, and I wanted to explain my edits. Basically, the root category can be seen as Cat:Organ systems. This contains Cat:Nervous system, which is then a parent of Cat:Neuroanatomy and Cat:Neurophysiology, as well as Cat:Neurology (and Cat:Neuroscience, which I haven't really touched). With this structure, categories within Cat:Neurology should contain articles specifically to neurology. Anatomy and physiology are kept outside of the neurology structure, since they apply to everything within the nervous system. I also tried to separate out the neuroscience fields from the neurology fields. If you take a look at the category tree of Cat:Nervous system, the hierarchy is much easier to navigate now. Let me know what you think and if I missed anything. --Scott Alter 04:58, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Nice work :) —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 11:18, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Added category tree here.

[−] Nervous system [+] Central nervous system [+] Intelligence [+] Motor control [+] Motor skills [+] Neuroanatomy [+] Neurology [+] Neurophysiology [+] Neuroscience [+] Pain [+] Peripheral nervous system [+] Sensory organs [+] Sensory system

[−] Organ systems [+] Cardiovascular system [+] Digestive system [+] Endocrine system [+] Exocrine system [+] Immune system [+] Integumentary system [+] Musculoskeletal system [+] Nervous system [+] Reproductive system [+] Respiratory system [+] Urinary system [+] Wikipedia:Books on organ systems

SriMesh | talk 19:02, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Eeew

I was going to ask whether any of you had seen Consciousness recently -- but I'm perfectly certain that no competent editor has given it more than a passing glance in recent months. It's heavily weighted towards philosophical considerations, and desperately in need of a decent copyeditor as well. If you have an interest in it, please feel free to take a look. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:29, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I think there are many varying perspectives in that area. I think neurologists hang out more in articles relating to level of consciousness rather than the philosophical tangent. JFW | T@lk 21:47, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Foerster's syndrome

This article could do with an expert eye - I have rescued it from the CAT:HOAX bin, but though it correctly describes a use of the name by Koestler to describe compulsive punning, I think he may have adopted a term which medically had another meaning. Details on the talk page. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 21:27, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What is the difference between neuronal circuitry and neural circuitry?

Hi: I'm working on the Wiki article about the essay "Is Google Making Us Stupid?" and I have been unable to determine the difference between the adjectives neural and neuronal. The question has also been posed at WikiAnswers by someone other than me. If you could enlighten me about the differences I would appreciate it. Nicholas Carr, in his essay "Is Google Making Us Stupid?", says "Over the past few years I’ve had an uncomfortable sense that someone, or something, has been tinkering with my brain, remapping the neural circuitry, reprogramming the memory." However, in an email, he told me that "Given what we know now about neuroplasticity, it seems certain that internet use is changing our neuronal circuitry." So he even seems to use the terms "neural circuitry" and "neuronal circuitry" interchangeably. The same goes for "neural network" and "neuronal network", as well as "neural level" and "neuronal level"—terms which are used on page 117 of Norman Doidge's book The Brain That Changes Itself without any apparent differences. I can't see any at least. Sincerely, Manhattan Samurai (talk) 19:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Quality problems with section Dream theories of the Dream article

Hi, this section of the article Dream seems to be overly focused on (mostly very old) philosophical theories of dreaming and ignore the more recent scientific findings. It would be nice, if an expert could rewrite it accordingly. --84.178.77.48 (talk) 07:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Please try WikiProject Neuroscience. This WikiProject deals with neurological disease. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 07:56, 23 February 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 06:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Areas of Brain

In case you missed it Huntington's Disease is the current WP:MCOTW... I keep looking for images of different sections of the brain... We don't seem to have a thorough 'map' of the brain, by that I mean a common image with numerous derivatives highlighting a different section each, maybe some with connected systems. File:Brain human sagittal section.svg seems to be increasingly popular as a base image, but I'm not sure about other projections - there doesn't seem to be an equivalent top/front/isometric. So my questions/suggestions are

1. What is the best way to represent an area of the brain, top-down, sideon, faceon, or some 3d projection - or maybe all three. Some areas will be better shown using one projection or another, but a complete view could be all projections in 4-panes of an image (like a technical drawing).
2. These base images need to be defined or created. If created then we could either start with a complicated image with all areas outlined - which can then be coloured in for derivative images of sections, or a simple base image which is duplicated with each area filled in - these could be composited to show several areas at once.

Not a simple question or task and I'm no expert in brain anatomy - but I think this system would improve the look and comprehension ( through consistency) of a number of articles, I can be handy with the art and a bit of a gnome, so point me in the right direction and we'll get it sorted out ( assuming I haven't missed some glaring thing like 'category:3d pictures of the brain by region' ) ! LeeVJ (talk) 11:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe something like this would be the best option, but we'd need to find either a public domain image, or someone needs to create an image. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 13:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I had in mind a way of showing the smaller parts (nearer the centre) as well -which would require at least two images - as for the isometric project bit was thinking along the lines of File:Striatumcortex1.jpg but without the face/skin and in line drawn format... 23:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

There really is no single "best" way. Especially when dealing with curved structures such as the caudate nucleus or hippocampus, it takes a certain amount of artistry to make their shapes apparent. Some critical areas such as the Raphe nuclei are tiny areas in the brainstem, other extend across major parts of the brain. "One size fits all" just doesn't work. Looie496 (talk) 21:34, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Neurolex etc

Can someone with a background in taxonomy have a look at what's going on with http://neuinfo.org/ and http://neurolex.org/ please? New WP user User:NifCurator1 (talk) has been spamming external links to these sites through many neurology articles, e.g. Hair cell. It looks like we'd be better off with one or two infobox parameters.LeadSongDog come howl 16:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

He LeadSongDog, We were not trying to spam w/ external links - we are trying to find a way to reference external semantic/ontological sources of information related to articles on Wikipedia. This would allow users then to gain access to tools being built on-top of these referenced informatics activities.

However, perhaps a bit of background for everyone. The NeuroLex terminology is part of a project (NIF) that is funded by NIH's Neuroscience Blueprint. The primary goal is to provide an enhanced search portal for the neuroscientist to discover data and information from resources that are many times not easily discovered via current search technologies (e.g. databases and form based web sites that are sometimes referred to as the hidden or deep web). A core part of enabling such an infrastructure is the utilization of domain specific terminologies/ontologies. NeuroLex is the part of the project that looks to bring such terminologies together - that is, NeuroLex isn't building a completely new terminology. Rather it is incorporating open source terminologies when available and developing/updating terminologies where content is not available. For example, terminology related to brain regions is covered in a variety of sources. In NeuroLex (http://neurolex.org/wiki/Category:Cerebellum) we have incorporated the terminology from various sources and formalized this in OWL (Web Ontology Language) while maintaining all the links and references to the source terminologies (e.g. NeuroNames, UMLS, FMA etc...). The use of such ontologies is important in the development of many "semantic" applications. For example, when searching for gene expression in the cerebellum - what should you search for: cerebellum, Purkinje Cell layer, Dentate, etc... By having an ontology, we can then automate this "expansion" of the search to include all relevant "parts-of" the cerebellum. NeuroLex is actually built on MediaWiki with Semantic Media Wiki extensions - allowing the research community to define formal relationships and attributes on terms (e.g. Purkinje Cell is located in Purkinje Cell Layer which is located in Cerebellum) that can be incorporated in formal ontologies.

As mentioned above, in building NeuroLex we provide links back to the source terminology that we have incorporated. We are beginning this process with Wikipedia right now - provide links from NeuroLex to Wikipedia and vice versa. That is why I originally structured the external links section the way that I did - I can actually envision other ontology efforts placing similar links to their ontology content and the "Semantic" heading provided a place for such links to be added without interfering with the rest of the article. However, if infobox parameter(s) are more appropriate a discussion of how to add this type of content would be a good place to start, as you mentioned.

Hopefully, this provides some information for a following discussion... Jgrethe (talk) 20:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Quite useful, thanks. In fact, I think it would be nice to add the explanation above to the lead of the NeuroLex article, because what you wrote here is a lot easier to make sense of than what is written there. Looie496 (talk) 21:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Neurolex (copied from user talk space)

I'm not sure what this neurolex thing is, or why you've invented a new confusing format for external links, but I'm going to roll them all back. If you'd already had a discussion some place about this, please link it here now. Otherwise, please explain what's up. Dicklyon (talk) 03:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Dicklyon: I hope you have some way to get rid of all of them at one fell swoop? I've just run into them, and there are many, many. Since NeuroLex is an article, I added it as a 'See also' to Giant retinal ganglion cells, but I'm not about to follow up on all those articles!

(The NeuroLex article itself is another matter, addressing itself to "you" and with lots of formatting problems.) - Hordaland (talk) 09:36, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

This is mainly addressed to Dicklyon and Hordaland: NIF is a bioinformatics project funded by NIH and being implemented at UCSD. I don't think these links constitute spam, in fact I think the idea of linking Wikipedia's neuroscience articles to a high-quality anatomical database is very exciting. However, the project is in a very early stage of development, and some of what is happening is premature. I've been in contact with Maryann Martone, the coordinator of the project, and I hope all of us can work out some principled way of dealing with this issue. Maybe Talk:NIF would be the best place for a unified discussion? In any case, let's please not war over something where everybody has good motives and the only real difficulty is a lack of effective communication among us all. Looie496 (talk) 16:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

A quick look at it suggests that there is a lot to be gained by cooperating between NIF and Wikipedia:WikiProject Neurology. I've asked at that project's talk page for someone to look into this. It may be we just need a new parameter in an infoboxLeadSongDog come howl 16:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

If a wikipedia project works out a framework for including such links, that will be great. But for the NIF curator to spam them into a lot of external link sections, in a bloated confusing format, is not OK. Dicklyon (talk) 16:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. There's ample precedent. {{DiseaseDisorder infobox}} is used on over 4000 articles. Its parameters include several similar taxonomy tools that greatly contribute to the articles.LeadSongDog come howl 17:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Neurology has been absorbed into WikiProject Medicine. WikiProject Neuroscience is de facto involved already because I've been maintaining it for the past year or so, but there aren't a lot of people contributing to it currently. Looie496 (talk) 18:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi LeadSongDog, the parameter for the infobox would be a very good way to handle these kinds of page annotations. I work with Maryann on the NIF project and I see these annotations not only coming from NIF, but other similar informatics related projects as well. This is our first venture in trying to provide this type of information to Wikipedia and we are focused on cells initially. I can continue the discussion on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Neurology talk page. Jgrethe (talk) 20:05, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

My response was not because the content nor the intent was spamming, but because of the unique, remarkable and as DL says bloated formatting of an 'External link' section where the primary link should have been in a 'See also' section as far as I could see. I never suggested this was spam.

Fine if there's a good discussion on content/intent with good result! People who know how formatting works here must also be involved. Folks like Looie496 can surely take care of that. - Hordaland (talk) 20:16, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I've been asked on my talk page to offer feedback (probably because of my involvement with {{DiseaseDisorder infobox}}, {{Infobox Brain}}, {{Drugbox}}, and {{Chembox}}, and because I've been through variants of this process many times before). I have some concerns about this, but I also see the potential. One way forward may be to: (1) create a new template (to demonstrate the intended parametrization), and use it on a limited number of pages. (2) open a discussion thread on the talk page of the newly created template, providing a central location to discuss use of the link. (3) Notify the relevant wikiprojects of your goals (in this case, probably at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Neurology task force, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anatomy, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Neuroscience) and refer to the template, so there can be a centralized discussion. --Arcadian (talk) 20:19, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

The idea of incorporating the material into an infobox makes a lot of sense. A number of the neuron-type articles already use template:infobox neuron, and it would be straightforward to incorporate an optional "nifidx" (or whatever) field there. This would also allow the way the information is presented to be modified at a single central location, instead of having to edit every single article. Looie496 (talk) 21:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Arcadian for those template references. Actually, the Brain Template at {{Infobox Brain}} does already provide this kind of linkage to two terminologies (MeSH from NLM and NeuroNames from BrainInfo). It would be very simple to extend this and other infoboxes, e.g. {{Infobox neuron}}, with a NeuroLex field. I could also see {{Infobox Brain}} be extended with an FMA (foundational model of anatomy) identifier as well. If we were to try this first with neuronal ontology identifiers through the {{Infobox neuron}}, is this infobox coordinated through this task force? Jgrethe (talk) 16:29, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

See also {{tl:Nervous tissue}}. I notice that many of the articles linked from that tl do not have infoboxes at all, though most have images. Seems to me that it would be a great way for an industrious premed student to get a jumpstart on the topic. Any takers?LeadSongDog come howl 17:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

People following this might like to take a look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Neuroscience#Society for Neuroscience is Coming. Looie496 (talk) 18:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

It appears the revised infobox is up and running. See Hair cell for example. Nice work, Jgrethe. Now if we can just get reciprocal linkage from NeuroLex to the wp article. LeadSongDog come howl 18:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC) LeadSongDog come howl 18:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks LeadSongDog - I have also fully documented the neuron infobox (there was no documentation at all) and made some minor enhancements to the Brain infobox. Not all neurons currently listed have an infobox or have the correct infobox (some had an anatomy infobox without the specific neuron information). We are adding the missing infoboxes (so that others will know to populate them further) and correcting the infobox type when appropriate. Jgrethe (talk) 20:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] pyschomotor function

Erm, we seem to be possibly missing an article- currently psychomotor function redirects to psychomotor learning, and there is pyschomotor retardation and psychomotor agitation, I changed pyschomotor disorders into a disambig to these ( which previously redirected to retardation ). None of these articles are that big or well referenced so they might be well better merged, I'm no expert in the terminology so don't know if there is a fuller article under a different name sitting out there already. L∴V 22:33, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Edward Taub

Hi there. I was wondering if someone wouldn't mind creating an article on neuroscientist Edward Taub (known for his work in developing Constraint-induced movement therapy). Right now his name redirects to Silver Spring monkeys which to me seems rather odd. I am not a science person, otherwise I would do it myself. On a side note, I did just create an article on his wife, soprano Mildred Allen.Singingdaisies (talk) 03:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Hippocampus is at FAC

I have just nominated Hippocampus at FAC, and opinions from the people who participate here would be valued. Note while I'm at it that Benzodiazepine is also currently nominated as of May 26. Looie496 (talk) 17:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Mesial temporal sclerosis and Hippocampal sclerosis

..looks like two articles on a single topic.. I'm not an expert, but maybe a merge is needed? --CopperKettle 13:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Help! neurological expert help required at the wiki dyslexia project

Hi

I am helping to edit the Wikipedia:WikiProject Dyslexia set of articles which includes the main Dyslexia which has become a summerised article and now has additional sub articles

• Dyslexia research (Sub category, main article)
  • Orthographies and dyslexia
  • Genetic research into dyslexia
  • Brain scan research into dyslexia
  • History of developmental dyslexia (The history of dyslexia is the history of dyslexia research)
  • Theories of dyslexia (Sub sub category main article)
  • Phonological deficit
  • Perceptual noise exclusion hypothesis
• Management of dyslexia (Sub category, main article)
  • Managing dyslexia: alphabetic orthography
  • Category:Dyslexia support by country
    • Dyslexia support in the United States
    • Dyslexia support in the United Kingdom

there could be more.

Currently we are having problems with developing the Orthographies and dyslexia. The problem is to define the neurological skills required to perform the task of reading in the different orthographies of the different writing systems. Because until they are established it is very difficult to determine which neurological skill deficits will cause problems in which writing system.

We need to explain how a bilingual individual is only dyslexic in one language.

Any help you can provide would be very much appreciated dolfrog (talk) 21:42, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I've sent Orthographies and dyslexia to AFD: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orthographies and dyslexia. The problems in development are that the topic as Dolfrog wants it is entirely original research. Nobody has made a previous analysis of multiple orthographies / neurological skills /dyslexia. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 00:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed Policy concerning Photosensitive epilepsy

There is a proposal being offered to change policy concerning all articles with involuntary health consequences. All interested parties are invited to give their opinion at User:Danglingdiagnosis/Involuntary_health_consequences signed Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 23:30, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Huntington's disease at FAC

I have just nominated it for FA. Since it is an important article for this project reviews are most welcome. Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 09:32, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] I wish join the Neurology task force

Hi all. I am a new entry for the Medicine WikiProject. I wish join the Neurology task force. I write almost exclusively on Neuro-oncology. To start I have prepared a “simplified” WHO classification of the tumors of the central nervous system, based on official WHO documents. Criticism, suggestions and comments are welcome. I need also your help to assess the article according to the assessment scale. Thank you in advance. --Giovanni Camporeale (talk) 07:43, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

By simply talking here you are joining the task force, there is no formal sign-up process, just start contributing! Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  12:36, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Giant cell glioblastoma

Hi. I have just released a “first version” of the article Giant cell glioblastoma. Criticism, suggestions and comments are welcome. Thank you in advance.--Giovanni Camporeale (talk) 13:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Grading of the tumors of the central nervous system

Hi. I have just released a “first version” of the article Grading of the tumors of the central nervous system. Suggestions and comments are welcome.--Giovanni Camporeale (talk) 13:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Comments needed on a source for the Alzheimer's disease article

I have asked for imput on the usability of a review as a reliable secondary source for the Alzheimer's disease (Kheifets, L; Bowman, Jd; Checkoway, H; Feychting, M; Harrington, Jm; Kavet, R; Marsh, G; Mezei, G; Renew, Dc; Van, Wijngaarden, E (Feb 2009). "Future needs of occupational epidemiology of extremely low frequency electric and magnetic fields: review and recommendations". Occupational and environmental medicine 66 (2): 72–80. doi:10.1136/oem.2007.037994. ISSN 1351-0711. PMID 18805878) in the Reliable Sources Noticeboard here

Specific concerns have been raised by an editor that states that the author can not be considered an expert according to wikipedia standards of WP:MEDRS; while I disagree. Since the discussion directly affects one of the FA-top importance articles of the project I would greatly acknowledge any comments on the matter. Thanks to everybody in advance.

Although I have also posted this comment in the general talk I want to specifically ask for help to the neurology task force, since it affects one of "our" articles. Comments in the noticeboard would be very very welcomed.--Garrondo (talk) 07:52, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

To be more clear the exact question is if she is "someone widely recognized as a reliable source of technique or skill" in the "Alzheimer's disease" field--Nutriveg (talk) 14:27, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Brain GAR notice

Brain has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:01, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Seizures linked to Endometriosis???

Lately I've been having some problems. My doctors aren't exactly sure what's going on with me, and they're beginning to think that I might have Endometriosis. I was doing a little bit of research for my own benefit and I found that it can cause passing out. I was admitted into the emergency room about a week ago and they said that I passed out, but it looked something like a seizure. When I read that Endometriosis may cause passing out, I started to think and I was wondering whether or not it could cause something more than simply an episode like I had or whether it could neurologically be causing me actual seizures. So, here I am, freaking out slightly and wondering whether or not these "seizures" are something to be concerned with or not. Help?

bethaniiann 20:03, 16 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bethaniiann (talk • contribs)

You really must try not to self-diagnose on the basis of advice from random strangers. Wikipedia gives no medical advice. To my knowledge there is no link between endometriosis and seizures, and I even have difficulty for finding an explanation why endometriosis could cause syncope. To make things more complicated, shaking may occur during syncope. Please discuss your concerns with your own doctor. JFW | T@lk 20:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Sleep & sleep disorders

Sleep and some sleep disorders are within Neurology, no? A good while back I proposed a Task Force for sleep medicine. As big as that topic is, it is too small for a task force of its own.

I hope that this is the right place to drum up interest among knowledgeable people, as many of the related articles do need work. At the discussion linked above I linked to

• my long, more-or-less organized, sleep sandbox/soapbox, which includes lists of relevant articles, and to
• an interesting discussion in an archive: Talk:Major_depressive_disorder/Archive_10#Cause -> Bad sleep?.

I am not scientifically nor medically trained, just a patient with a circadian rhythm disorder who has read a lot about it. Hoping for some interest! - Hordaland (talk) 18:44, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] WP:JOURNALS need help

Copied from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Neuroscience#WP:JOURNALS needs help

There are several neuroscience/neurology-related journals missing in Journals cited by Wikipedia.

Here's the list of the most-cited ones:

Have fun. If you have questions, just let me know. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 05:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] ConnectomeWiki Released

Recently this year (March 2009), there has been a paper published by a number of neuroscientists entitled:
"A Proposal for a Coordinated Effort for the Determination of Brainwide Neuroanatomical Connectivity in Model Organisms at a Mesoscopic Scale".

The ConnectomeWiki is an open and collaborative platform concerned with the goals of this proposal.
Please see User:ConnectomeBot for the discussion! --Unidesigner (talk) 13:57, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] A discussion about this bot at the Village pump

I opened a discussion at the VPR (Village Pump Proposals) about this ConnectomeBot's RFBA. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 03:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Combining neuropathy articles

I've suggested a major rearrangement of the neuropathy articles at Talk:Peripheral_neuropathy. Please let me know your views. Neurotip (talk) 17:54, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Neuropathy rearrangement complete! (see discussion at Talk:Peripheral_neuropathy) Comments and/or further edits welcome. Neurotip (talk) 10:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)