Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Neuroscience/Archive 6

Referred to this space by a wikipedia editor (in the public chatroom)

I created this page and submitted it about 4 weeks ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Allan_Combs

Perhaps someone can tell me if this meets the criteria for publication, as the regular page editors are unsure. Any feedback would be more than helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allan Combs (talk • contribs) 20:33, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

I have "accepted" the draft -- it's clear to me that he is notable enough for an article. I would suggest that you add an infobox to the article (probably using template:infobox scientist). Looie496 (talk) 21:37, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

I've also left a message for the editor about WP:COI. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:20, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Facto Post – Issue 2 – 13 July 2017

Issue 2 – 13 July 2017

Facto Post – Issue 2 – 13 July 2017 Editorial: Core models and topics Wikimedians interest themselves in everything under the sun — and then some. Discussion on "core topics" may, oddly, be a fringe activity, and was popular here a decade ago. The situation on Wikidata today does resemble the halcyon days of 2006 of the English Wikipedia. The growth is there, and the reliability and stylistic issues are not yet pressing in on the project. Its Berlin conference at the end of October will have five years of achievement to celebrate. Think Wikimania Frankfurt 2005. Progress must be made, however, on referencing "core facts". This has two parts: replacing "imported from Wikipedia" in referencing by external authorities; and picking out statements, such as dates and family relationships, that must not only be reliable but be seen to be reliable. In addition, there are many properties on Wikidata lacking a clear data model. An emerging consensus may push to the front key sourcing and biomedical properties as requiring urgent attention. Wikidata's "manual of style" is currently distributed over thousands of discussions. To make it coalesce, work on such a core is needed. Links WikiFactMine project pages on Wikidata, including a SPARQL library (in development). Fatameh tool for adding items on scientific papers to Wikidata, by User: T Arrow. It has made a big recent impact. Offline for maintenance as we go to press, it is expected back soon. As of July 2017, Zotero has a Wikidata translator. A personal Zotero library acts as an intermediary in managing and storing citation metadata. GLAM Newsletter June 2017, Wikidata report. This is a good monthly round-up to follow, and welcomes contributions. Exciting and Impressive! The Initiative for Open Citations (I4OC) was launched in April: Infodocket on the first three months. Olivia Solon in San Francisco, Why the net neutrality protest matters, opinion piece in The Guardian on 11 July. Editor Charles Matthews. Please leave feedback for him. If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Opted-out of message delivery to your user talk page. Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery

Facto Post – Issue 4 – 18 September 2017

Issue 4 – 18 September 2017

Facto Post – Issue 4 – 18 September 2017 Editorial: Conservation data The IUCN Red List update of 14 September led with a threat to North American ash trees. The International Union for Conservation of Nature produces authoritative species listings that are peer-reviewed. Examples used as metonyms for loss of species and biodiversity, and discussion of extinction rates, are the usual topics covered in the media to inform us about this area. But actual data matters. Dorstenia elata, a critically endangered South American herb, contained in Moraceae, the family of figs and mulberries Clearly, conservation work depends on decisions about what should be done, and where. While animals, particularly mammals, are photogenic, species numbers run into millions. Plant species lie at the base of typical land-based food chains, and vegetation is key to the habitats of most animals. ContentMine dictionaries, for example as tabulated at d:Wikidata:WikiFactMine/Dictionary list, enable detailed control of queries about endangered species, in their taxonomic context. To target conservation measures properly, species listings running into the thousands are not what is needed: range maps showing current distribution are. Between the will to act, and effective steps taken, the services of data handling are required. There is now no reason at all why Wikidata should not take up the burden. Links What Makes a Good Collaborative Knowledge Graph: Group Composition and Quality in Wikidata (paywall) Wikimedia and the free knowledge ecosystem by Maria Cruz Another Year Again: 2017 this time (long), blog by Joe Wass of CrossRef Attack of the 50 Foot Blockchain, blog by User:David Gerard WikiTribune in beta Editor Charles Matthews. Please leave feedback for him. If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Opted-out of message delivery to your user talk page. Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:46, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Facto Post – Issue 5 – 17 October 2017

Issue 5 – 17 October 2017

Facto Post – Issue 5 – 17 October 2017 Editorial: Annotations Annotation is nothing new. The glossators of medieval Europe annotated between the lines, or in the margins of legal manuscripts of texts going back to Roman times, and created a new discipline. In the form of web annotation, the idea is back, with texts being marked up inline, or with a stand-off system. Where could it lead? 1495 print version of the Digesta of Justinian, with the annotations of the glossator Accursius from the 13th century ContentMine operates in the field of text and data mining (TDM), where annotation, simply put, can add value to mined text. It now sees annotation as a possible advance in semi-automation, the use of human judgement assisted by bot editing, which now plays a large part in Wikidata tools. While a human judgement call of yes/no, on the addition of a statement to Wikidata, is usually taken as decisive, it need not be. The human assent may be passed into an annotation system, and stored: this idea is standard on Wikisource, for example, where text is considered "validated" only when two different accounts have stated that the proof-reading is correct. A typical application would be to require more than one person to agree that what is said in the reference translates correctly into the formal Wikidata statement. Rejections are also potentially useful to record, for machine learning. As a contribution to data integrity on Wikidata, annotation has much to offer. Some "hard cases" on importing data are much more difficult than average. There are for example biographical puzzles: whether person A in one context is really identical with person B, of the same name, in another context. In science, clinical medicine require special attention to sourcing (WP:MEDRS), and is challenging in terms of connecting findings with the methodology employed. Currently decisions in areas such as these, on Wikipedia and Wikidata, are often made ad hoc. In particular there may be no audit trail for those who want to check what is decided. Annotations are subject to a World Wide Web Consortium standard, and behind the terminology constitute a simple JSON data structure. What WikiFactMine proposes to do with them is to implement the MEDRS guideline, as a formal algorithm, on bibliographical and methodological data. The structure will integrate with those inputs the human decisions on the interpretation of scientific papers that underlie claims on Wikidata. What is added to Wikidata will therefore be supported by a transparent and rigorous system that documents decisions. An example of the possible future scope of annotation, for medical content, is in the first link below. That sort of detailed abstract of a publication can be a target for TDM, adds great value, and could be presented in machine-readable form. You are invited to discuss the detailed proposal on Wikidata, via its talk page. Links Jon Udell, blogpost Annotating to extract findings from scientific papers, 15 December 2015 TDM and Libraries, Virginia Tech report Magnus Manske, The Whelming: Scaling up Wikidata editing OCLC and Internet Archive collaborate to expand library access to digital collections, metadata and linking exchange GLOW week in November: Wikidata workshops on politician info Editor Charles Matthews. Please leave feedback for him. If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Opted-out of message delivery to your user talk page. Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:46, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Facto Post – Issue 6 – 15 November 2017

Issue 6 – 15 November 2017

Facto Post – Issue 6 – 15 November 2017 WikidataCon Berlin 28–9 October 2017 WikidataCon 2017 group photo Under the heading rerum causas cognescere, the first ever Wikidata conference got under way in the Tagesspiegel building with two keynotes, One was on YAGO, about how a knowledge base conceived ten years ago if you assume automatic compilation from Wikipedia. The other was from manager Lydia Pintscher, on the "state of the data". Interesting rumours flourished: the mix'n'match tool and its 600+ datasets, mostly in digital humanities, to be taken off the hands of its author Magnus Manske by the WMF; a Wikibase incubator site is on its way. Announcements came in talks: structured data on Wikimedia Commons is scheduled to make substantive progress by 2019. The lexeme development on Wikidata is now not expected to make the Wiktionary sites redundant, but may facilitate automated compilation of dictionaries. WD-FIST explained And so it went, with five strands of talks and workshops, through to 11 pm on Saturday. Wikidata applies to GLAM work via metadata. It may be used in education, raises issues such as author disambiguation, and lends itself to different types of graphical display and reuse. Many millions of SPARQL queries are run on the site every day. Over the summer a large open science bibliography has come into existence there. Wikidata's fifth birthday party on the Sunday brought matters to a close. See a dozen and more reports by other hands. Links Wikidata statistics I4OC progress in its first year, with 47% of scientific citation data now open (announced two days ago) The flowering ORCID, Magnus Manske blogpost on identifying authors of scientific papers @querybook, a Twitter feed devoted to SPARQL queries Massive progress on Wikidata coverage of the UK parliament Reminder: WikiFactMine pages on Wikidata are at WD:WFM Editor Charles Matthews. Please leave feedback for him. If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page. Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:02, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Facto Post – Issue 7 – 15 December 2017

Issue 7 – 15 December 2017

Facto Post – Issue 7 – 15 December 2017 A new bibliographical landscape At the beginning of December, Wikidata items on individual scientific articles passed the 10 million mark. This figure contrasts with the state of play in early summer, when there were around half a million. In the big picture, Wikidata is now documenting the scientific literature at a rate that is about eight times as fast as papers are published. As 2017 ends, progress is quite evident. Behind this achievement are a technical advance (fatameh), and bots that do the lifting. Much more than dry migration of metadata is potentially involved, however. If paper A cites paper B, both papers having an item, a link can be created on Wikidata, and the information presented to both human readers, and machines. This cross-linking is one of the most significant aspects of the scientific literature, and now a long-sought open version is rapidly being built up. The effort for the lifting of copyright restrictions on citation data of this kind has had real momentum behind it during 2017. WikiCite and the I4OC have been pushing hard, with the result that on CrossRef over 50% of the citation data is open. Now the holdout publishers are being lobbied to release rights on citations. But all that is just the beginning. Topics of papers are identified, authors disambiguated, with significant progress on the use of the four million ORCID IDs for researchers, and proposals formulated to identify methodology in a machine-readable way. P4510 on Wikidata has been introduced so that methodology can sit comfortably on items about papers. More is on the way. OABot applies the unpaywall principle to Wikipedia referencing. It has been proposed that Wikidata could assist WorldCat in compiling the global history of book translation. Watch this space. And make promoting #1lib1ref one of your New Year's resolutions. Happy holidays, all! November 2017 map of geolocated Wikidata items, made by Addshore Links WikidataCon: Giving more people more access to more knowledge, report by Peter Kraker of Open Knowledge Maps This is a story of my knowledge adventure in New Zealand moths via Wikicommons, Wikipedia and Wikidata, @SiobhanLeachman Wikidata and Arabic dialects, research paper, DOI: 10.1109/AICCSA.2017.115 c:Commons:British Library/Mechanical Curator collection/georeferencing status, Mechanical Curator project on Commons hits 50K maps milestone Historical dataset on the provenance of Wikipedia text: Who wrote this?, by Tilman Bayer, WMF blogpost "Anyone can edit", not everyone does: Wikipedia and the gender gap (PDF), journal paper, Heather Ford and Judy Wajcman Alpha Zero’s "Alien" Chess Shows the Power, and the Peculiarity, of AI, MIT Technology Review, by Will Knight, December 8, 2017 To subscribe to Facto Post go to Wikipedia:Facto Post mailing list. For the ways to unsubscribe, see below. Editor Charles Matthews, for ContentMine. Please leave feedback for him. Back numbers are here. Reminder: WikiFactMine pages on Wikidata are at WD:WFM. If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page. Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:54, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Facto Post – Issue 8 – 15 January 2018

Issue 8 – 15 January 2018

Facto Post – Issue 8 – 15 January 2018 Metadata on the March From the days of hard-copy liner notes on music albums, metadata have stood outside a piece or file, while adding to understanding of where it comes from, and some of what needs to be appreciated about its content. In the GLAM sector, the accumulation of accurate metadata for objects is key to the mission of an institution, and its presentation in cataloguing. Today Wikipedia turns 17, with worlds still to conquer. Zooming out from the individual GLAM object to the ontology in which it is set, one such world becomes apparent: GLAMs use custom ontologies, and those introduce massive incompatibilities. From a recent article by sadads, we quote the observation that "vocabularies needed for many collections, topics and intellectual spaces defy the expectations of the larger professional communities." A job for the encyclopedist, certainly. But the data-minded Wikimedian has the advantages of Wikidata, starting with its multilingual data, and facility with aliases. The controlled vocabulary — sometimes referred to as a "thesaurus" as term of art — simplifies search: if a "spade" must be called that, rather than "shovel", it is easier to find all spade references. That control comes at a cost. SVG pedestrian crosses road Zebra crossing/crosswalk, Singapore Case studies in that article show what can lie ahead. The schema crosswalk, in jargon, is a potential answer to the GLAM Babel of proliferating and expanding vocabularies. Even if you have no interest in Wikidata as such, simply vocabularies V and W, if both V and W are matched to Wikidata, then a "crosswalk" arises from term v in V to w in W, whenever v and w both match to the same item d in Wikidata. For metadata mobility, match to Wikidata. It's apparently that simple: infrastructure requirements have turned out, so far, to be challenges that can be met. Links 1lib1ref campaign starts today, see m:The Wikipedia Library/1Lib1Ref: also #1lib1ref introductory video by Felix Nartey Funders should mandate open citations, article 9 January 2018 in Nature by David Shotton From snowflake to avalanche: Possibilities of using free citation data in libraries, translation from the German original of Annette Klein, Mannheim University Library outreach:GLAM/Newsletter/December 2017/Contents/WMF GLAM report Why Mickey Mouse’s 1998 copyright extension probably won't happen again: Copyrights from the 1920s will start expiring next year if Congress doesn't act, Timothy B. Lee, 8 January 2018, Arstechnica To subscribe to Facto Post go to Wikipedia:Facto Post mailing list. For the ways to unsubscribe, see below. Editor Charles Matthews, for ContentMine. Please leave feedback for him. Back numbers are here. Reminder: WikiFactMine pages on Wikidata are at WD:WFM. If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page. Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:38, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Proposed merge

I have proposed to merge Auditory evoked field into Evoked field; discussion is at Talk:Evoked field#Proposed merge. Cheers! bd2412 T 12:27, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

  Y Merger complete. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 17:31, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

RfC: Should the WP:TALK guideline discourage interleaving?

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines#RfC: Should the guideline discourage interleaving?. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:30, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

And this has what to do with neuroscience content? --Tryptofish (talk) 00:26, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

I thought it was obvious that the RfC has to do with Wikipedia as a whole, which means it affects the members of this WikiProject just like it affects every other Wikipedia editor. Explained further on my talk page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:33, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

I disagree, and I've replied at your talk. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:18, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Would appreciate input on a potential article merge

See Talk:Reticular activating system#ARAS vs RAS.

In a nutshell, the question at hand is whether to (1) merge Reticulospinal tract into Reticular activating system, (2) merge both those articles into Reticular formation, or (3) neither. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 15:56, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

  Y Merger complete. (2nd option) Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 05:08, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Type of sources to use at the Sex differences in intelligence article

Opinions are needed on the following: Talk:Sex differences in intelligence#Primary source after primary source. Concerns what type of sources to use when reporting on the intelligence studies. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:41, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

WP:NEURO: a part of WP:MED?

I just noticed that WP:NEURO is included in Category:WikiProject Medicine. Is this a correct categorization? Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 21:48, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

• I hadn't realized that there are categories for WikiProjects, but I guess I should have expected it. Oh well. My gut reaction (as a PhD) was "bleep, no!!!!!". But after looking at all the categories here, I don't think that it makes this project subservient to other projects, but just serves to show relationships between them. Since we are also categorized with Biology and Psychology, and neuroscience unquestionably does have major applications in medical science, I don't have any problem with leaving us within that parent category. It's OK with me to leave it as is. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:03, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I also think it should be left in the category per its ties to medicine (including anatomy, psychology, and psychiatry). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:44, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

I wholly agree with Tryptofish, including the initial "bleep, no!!!!!". These are categories, not power structures. --Mark viking (talk) 23:01, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Does anyone have institutional access to textbooks on the McGraw-Hill Medical website?

Resolved

I need these three textbook chapters: [1][2][3]. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 00:01, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Nevermind, I've obtained them. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 00:38, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Merge discussion

Editors here may perhaps be interested in Talk:Single-unit recording#Merge Extracellular field potential. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:53, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

2017 best article prize (WikiJournal of Medicine)

There are 8 weeks left to submit an article to the WikiJournal of Medicine for it to be eligible for the 2017 prize. For more information, see this advertisment from January or visit this author information page.

• Original articles on topics that don't yet have a Wikipedia page, or only a stub/start (example)
• Wikipedia articles that you are willing to see through external peer review, either solo or as in a group, process analogous to GA / FA review (example)
• Image articles, based around an important medical image or summary diagram (example)

T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 04:23, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Neurophysics

I just found out that this page exists. Is it really a thing? Any thoughts about taking it to AfD? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:55, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Why, sure. Neurophysics is the study of neuroscience using ideas and techniques from physics. No different in principle than neurochemistry. On the theoretical side, physicists created early models of neural function like Hopfield networks and associated spin glasses. Plenty of folks study neural systems as classical dynamical systems or even classical field theories. Natural scene statistics and sensory neural adaptations thereof are also an example of a neurophysics approach. On the experimental side, biophysics techniques for neural imaging (PET, MRI, etc) are also sometimes considered neurophysics. That said, I am stating common knowledge among physicists in the neuroscience field, rather than from reliable sources, so RS should probably be looked into. --Mark viking (talk) 22:19, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, you are very likely right. But aren't those things really described as being within areas like computational neuroscience and neuroimaging? I'm wondering if those are the terms that are actually used, whereas coining the term "neurophysics" (as opposed to biophysics) was original research. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:15, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Here are PubMed results for it being in the title: [4], or anywhere: [5]. (I'm amused by "Did you mean: neurophysins?") The word exists, but compared with neurochemistry: [6], 862 in title versus 8, it seems a lot less widely recognized. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:26, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree that there is no doubt that neurochemistry is the better established cross-disciplinary field. Neurophysics also sounds cool, so there a a number of fringe works out there claiming to be neurophysics. Still, there are secondary sources like the books Methods and Models in Neurophysics and Electric Fields of the Brain: The Neurophysics of EEG. It's probably notable. --Mark viking (talk) 00:00, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

The existence of those books does count for something, I agree. In any case, I don't intend to take any action until after the SfN meeting, if at all. In the mean time, further comments here are welcome. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:40, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Given that the article has essentially no content, I don't think it would be a tragedy if it went away. Looie496 (talk) 01:00, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Connecting To Psychiatry Portal

Hey, I just noticed that this project is included under the list of related projects in Psychology portal. I am currently working on remaking the Psychiatry portal. Wanted to know if it's right to include this under Psychiatry too (As Psychiatry is already included under the project's scope) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gadha1998 (talk • contribs) 11:22, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

I personally think working on portals is mostly a waste of time, because there is no mechanism to motivate readers to look at them. The neuroscience portal, for example, gets less than 50 page views per day (some of them no doubt from robots), whereas the nervous system article gets almost 3500. But to address your question, there is no problem with treating neuroscience as an area of psychiatry -- the medicine project already does something similar. Looie496 (talk) 16:33, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Neural network

I don't understand why this topic redirects to artificial neural network instead of biological neural network. In fact, I'm surprised that biological neural network isn't located at the page title "Neural network". Do others think it's worth creating a proposal to address this at WP:redirects for discussion? Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 22:50, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

There was a lot of discussion about this a couple of years ago, not that it precludes a change in consensus, of course. But here are links to the previous discussions, which should at least be taken into consideration: Talk:Biological neural network#Proposal to rename and restart, Talk:Neural network/Archive 2#Merger proposal - sorta, and Talk:Neural network#Proposed merge with Artificial neural network. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:25, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Hmm. What do you think about changing neural network to a {{Set index}} article? There appears to be a mix of articles on neuroscience and machine learning topics that link to that page at the moment, so I don't think any of them need to be changed due to the present state of the links to that article. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 01:01, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

@Tryptofish: Set index articles aren't DAB pages, so those backlinks won't need to be modified. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 01:02, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Edit: neural networks would also need to be redirected to neural network if it's turned into a set index page. Here's the list of the article backlinks to "Neural networks". Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 01:08, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

The idea of a set index article is an interesting one. (It's also a kind of page that I had never heard about before!) I'd like to hear other editors' opinions before really making up my mind about it. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:43, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Transporter reversal (i.e., Wikipedia's article on neurotransmitter efflux & reverse transport)

This article was nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transporter reversal. I'm mentioning this here in the event anyone wishes to comment on this topic's WP:notability. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 21:59, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Closed as keep. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 22:35, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

@Tryptofish: I'd be okay with merging Transporter reversal into Membrane transport protein as you suggested. What do others think about that merger? Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 22:35, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Just to be clear, what I advocated was keeping the page and also doing a WP:Summary style merge into Membrane transport protein, so it's not a redirect-and-merge. I also think it would be a good idea to move it (over a redirect) from Transporter reversal to Reverse transport. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:53, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

I've moved the page to reverse transport. I summarized the concept (i.e., copy/pasted the lead paragraph) in Membrane transport protein#Reverse transport earlier today. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 00:51, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

That looks very good to me, thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:58, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation links on pages tagged by this wikiproject

Wikipedia has many thousands of wikilinks which point to disambiguation pages. It would be useful to readers if these links directed them to the specific pages of interest, rather than making them search through a list. Members of WikiProject Disambiguation have been working on this and the total number is now below 20,000 for the first time. Some of these links require specialist knowledge of the topics concerned and therefore it would be great if you could help in your area of expertise.

A list of the relevant links on pages which fall within the remit of this wikiproject can be found at http://69.142.160.183/~dispenser/cgi-bin/topic_points.py?banner=WikiProject_Neuroscience

Please take a few minutes to help make these more useful to our readers.— Rod ^talk 17:38, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Facto Post – Issue 9 – 5 February 2018

Issue 9 – 5 February 2018

Facto Post – Issue 9 – 5 February 2018 m:Grants:Project/ScienceSource is the new ContentMine proposal: please take a look. Wikidata as Hub One way of looking at Wikidata relates it to the semantic web concept, around for about as long as Wikipedia, and realised in dozens of distributed Web institutions. It sees Wikidata as supplying central, encyclopedic coverage of linked structured data, and looks ahead to greater support for "federated queries" that draw together information from all parts of the emerging network of websites. Another perspective might be likened to a photographic negative of that one: Wikidata as an already-functioning Web hub. Over half of its properties are identifiers on other websites. These are Wikidata's "external links", to use Wikipedia terminology: one type for the DOI of a publication, another for the VIAF page of an author, with thousands more such. Wikidata links out to sites that are not nominally part of the semantic web, effectively drawing them into a larger system. The crosswalk possibilities of the systematic construction of these links was covered in Issue 8. Wikipedia:External links speaks of them as kept "minimal, meritable, and directly relevant to the article." Here Wikidata finds more of a function. On viaf.org one can type a VIAF author identifier into the search box, and find the author page. The Wikidata Resolver tool, these days including Open Street Map, Scholia etc., allows this kind of lookup. The hub tool by maxlath takes a major step further, allowing both lookup and crosswalk to be encoded in a single URL. Links What galleries, libraries, archives, and museums can teach us about multimedia metadata on Wikimedia Commons, Wikimedia Foundation blogpost, 29 January 2018, by Jonathan Morgan and Sandra Fauconnier m:The Wikipedia Library/1Lib1Ref/Connect, 2018 institutional participation in the #1lib1ref campaign Newspeak House queries, created at 3 February 2018 event in London led by Magnus Manske Cochrane–Wikipedia Initiative, Wikipedia Signpost special report 5 February 2018, by JenOttowa What is the Last Question?, 5 February 2018 To subscribe to Facto Post go to Wikipedia:Facto Post mailing list. For the ways to unsubscribe, see below. Editor Charles Matthews, for ContentMine. Please leave feedback for him. Back numbers are here. Reminder: WikiFactMine pages on Wikidata are at WD:WFM. If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page. Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:50, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Trigger zone

This article was recently created.

The cited sources either aren't reliable (i.e., the wiki reference) or don't cover what a "trigger zone" is (i.e., the first reference – full text URL: http://sci-hub.tw/10.1177/1073858409341973 – makes no mention of a "trigger zone" at all; the textbook reference is about the chemoreceptor trigger zone). Based upon https://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/trigger+zone - a "trigger zone" is a region where stimulation can cause pain. That definition seems to be consistent with what most of the articles in this pubmed search are about, but that's not what our trigger zone article describes; the only exception in those search results is PMID 24847046, which doesn't actually use the word "trigger zone" anywhere in the text, but does state "This implies that APs are initially triggered at the AIS, and then propagate back to the soma in the neurons" (full text URL: http://sci-hub.tw/10.1177/1073858414535986).

In any event, I figured I should pose this question here: should this page be deleted or revised? At the moment, all of the content in this article constitutes WP:OR given what it says relative to the references it cites. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 04:52, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Delete. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:21, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Hmm. I would be tempted to tag it instead, because this looks like a case where a Wikipedia article could actually be useful -- the term has been widely used but never comprehensively discussed as far as I can tell. A bit of research indicates that the term was coined around 1915 by Hugh T Patrick, who introduced it in the context of trigeminal neuralgia [7]. For an RS for that assertion, see PMC 1426385. The term continued to be used mainly for trigeminal neuralgia through the 1920s, but then broadened to encompass areas of the body that trigger other types of responses, including pain, seizures, calcium waves, and nausea, and has also sometimes been used to encompass the axon initial segment. Looie496 (talk) 21:25, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

That's reasonable. Maybe I got triggered too easily. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:31, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Hit you right in the trigger zone, huh?

On a more serious note, what reliable sources should we use to cover and cite what you mentioned Looie? The article currently needs revision; I can do that myself if I have relevant source material. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 03:25, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, my "research" consisted of time-range-limited Google Scholar searches. But as I said above, it looks like PMC 1426385 should be a reliable source for the initial coining. Looie496 (talk) 15:40, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Is wikipedia the right place to discuss the term? Shouldn't that happen elsewhere? It seems that at the moment the term does not describe one single subject, but is used sporadically in various contexts. I see no harm in deleting the article for now. It can be recreated easily when it gains more notability.VENIVIDIVICIPEDIA^talk 13:16, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying, but I don't quite agree with it. I think it is a big win for Wikipedia if we have an article that is a better source of information than anything else available, even if it requires a bit more synthesis than usual.Synthesis is not necessarily a bad thing, if it is disciplined and neutral. Looie496 (talk) 15:40, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

There is certainly an option of, for now, aggressively stubifying the page, by adding a little bit of reliably sourced content and getting rid of the rest. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:39, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I might be able to do some work on this tomorrow. I was bombed today, and am brain-dead at the moment. Looie496 (talk) 01:08, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

I've done some work on it -- maybe it's good enough to survive now? Looie496 (talk) 20:30, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

I took a quick look and I think that it's much better and probably should be kept. If I look for things that are wrong with it: (1) it strings together some disparate things that get a little coat rack-y, and (2) it gets a little close to not-dictionary. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:46, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

If you're using "coat rack-y" in the sense of WP:COATRACK, then I'm very puzzled. Looie496 (talk) 21:25, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

That's what I meant, but it's probably not really a problem. I was just observing how there are multiple examples in multiple systems, as opposed to a single unifying process within the nervous system. Basically, it's that the page is sort of like "trigger zone means this, and this, and this, and this". It's probably an exaggeration to call it a coat rack, and I was just trying to cover all bases (because the question was whether someone might propose to delete the page), but personally I'm not bothered by it. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:56, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Um, I basically agree with all that, but, um, I also think that maybe you should go back and re-read WP:COATRACK. I think you are talking about something more like WP:DISCRIMINATE or WP:EXAMPLES. (In wikislang, a "coatrack" is an article that purports to be about one thing but is actually about something else.) Looie496 (talk) 22:58, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, that was clumsy of me, so please don't worry about it. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:04, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

@Tryptofish: Re: Basically, it's that the page is sort of like "trigger zone means this, and this, and this, and this" – I think trigger zone is likely going to end up being written as a WP:Broad-concept article. If so, that sort of topical coverage (i.e., "X is A, B, and C") is perfectly normal for that class of articles. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 05:41, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

That's true. I feel like I said what I said yesterday rather badly, so please let me make clear that I was thinking about it in terms of whether or not there was still a risk of someone taking the page to AfD, so I was trying to anticipate potential reasons such a person might have, as opposed to expressing my own concerns. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:45, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Neuroanatomy

Hi, I am not a member of your project but do most of my work at Wikiproject Anatomy. At the anatomy project we recently finished classifying our articles and we have more than 2000 articles and redirects related to neuroanatomy (central nervous system including the spinal cord, cranial nerves not includeed).

• Would you like to have these articles tagged within your project?
• How about cranial nerves and their associated ganglia and branches?
• How about the perifial nerveous systems; things like individual nerves, their ganglia, branches and so on?

If you could discuss among yourself what should fall under the scope of your project, I will gladely add your project banner to the articles (in the hope that your project members can find and will work on some of the articles of interest to both wikiprojects). Kind regards JakobSteenberg (talk) 20:35, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Speaking for myself, I would say that if it is any of those bulleted points it does indeed fit here. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:07, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Adding: anything that is neuroanatomy is by definition a subset of neuroscience. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:08, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject collaboration notice from the Portals WikiProject

The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{Transclude lead excerpt}}.

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.

Background

On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

So far, 84 editors have joined.

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.

Thank you.    — The Transhumanist   07:49, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Visual Antipriming

Input invited about this draft. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:32, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I've commented there. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:43, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Memory

As I don't like to do multiple reverts, I wonder if interested editors might take a look at recent edits to this article? Looie496 (talk) 14:20, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

I've revised it, relocated it, and tagged it for a non-primary source. I figure that's a reasonable alternative. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:05, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Cool. Looie496 (talk) 19:38, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Feedback request for nootropic

I'm requesting feedback on article content in nootropic. The issue is described at Talk:Nootropic#Coverage of CNS stimulants. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 07:52, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Feedback request for Template:Infobox GPCR

See WT:PHARM#Infobox GPCR examples; I'd like to have additional input on this infobox before it goes live in articles on GPCRs. This infobox is intended for articles about non-olfactory rhodopsin-like receptors and is intended to supplement {{Infobox gene}} by providing pharmacology-specific data with minimal overlap/redundancy with the information provided in the gene infobox. The discussion is obviously relevant to this WikiProject given the number and significance of the GPCRs in this class that are expressed in the brain (e.g., every monoamine/trace amine receptor except 5-HT3 receptors, among many other neurotransmitter/neuromodulator receptors). Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 03:02, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Eyes on Saltatory conduction

It looks like someone, editing as an IP, is repeatedly spamming the page to promote their own (insignificant) work. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:24, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

I've watchlisted it. Looie496 (talk) 22:58, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Eyes on Biological neuron model

... would be helpful. Looie496 (talk) 22:30, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Ugh, the whole page strikes me as so conjectural that it's difficult to justify what should be included and what should not. But, yeah, it sure looks like refspam. I made two edits that change the wording from being like "this has been shown", to being like "this has been conjectured", working off how other parts of the page use the word "conjecture". Maybe that will take some of the fun out of it. I'd also move it to somewhere else on the page, but I have no idea where. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:46, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Neuroplasticity article

At Neuroplasticity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), we need opinions on how to cover some material with regard to WP:Lead and WP:Due. See Talk:Neuroplasticity#"Recent articles". A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:32, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Clinical neuroscience

I've just started a discussion at Talk:Clinical neuroscience#Page focus, where more input would be welcome. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:01, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Acclimatisation (neurones)

Some fresh eyes would be helpful. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:59, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Request for the Neuromorphic engineering article

Resolved

Hello! On behalf of Intel as part of my work at Beutler Ink, I've submitted a request here to move mention of Intel Loihi from the "See also" section to the "Examples" section, using appropriate secondary sourcing. Given the chip's significance and mention in related Wikipedia articles, a brief mention in the article's prose seems more appropriate than having a redirect in the "See also" section. I've not received any feedback from editors to date, so I'm curious if any WikiProject Neuroscience members would be willing to take a look. The edit request offers more detail, as well as markup for implementation, if helpful. Thanks! Inkian Jason (talk) 18:45, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Inkian Jason (talk) 14:53, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Review needed

Could somebody please review Draft:Innovations in Clinical Neuroscience, specifically as to whether it meets WP:JOURNALCRIT or not? Leave your comments on the draft. Thanks. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:55, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

I wish that Randykitty were still here (sigh). @DGG: maybe this would be something where you would have a feel for it? --Tryptofish (talk) 17:44, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Should we not have rather more material on Karl J. Friston?

Karl J. Friston has been ranked as "the most influential neuroscientist" of our time, and by any measure is at least a highly influential neuroscientist.

However, our article on Friston is hardly more than a stub.

Can anybody add more good content to this article? (Unfortunately I'm not competent to work on this myself.)

Thanks - 189.122.52.73 (talk) 22:18, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

FYI: Category:Neural networks is under discussion at WP:CFD

See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 October 28#Category:Neural networks for the discussion entry. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 01:28, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

What to do with the lotus seed pod image at the Trypophobia article?

Opinions are needed on the following: Talk:Trypophobia#Should the image be removed, retained in the lead but collapsed, or moved down?. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:00, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

I've commented there, and I also think that this has been over-discussed. (I don't mean that as a criticism of posting this here, but just as a comment about the edit history of that page.) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:05, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

I first read that as "Tryptophobia", which I assume could only mean "fear of the Tryptofish;" but, then I realized that wasn't the case. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 01:34, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Be afraid! Be very afraid! I read it that way the first time, too. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:36, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Featured quality source review RFC

Editors in this WikiProject may be interested in the featured quality source review RFC that has been ongoing. It would change the featured article candidate process (FAC) so that source reviews would need to occur prior to any other reviews for FAC. Your comments are appreciated. --IznoRepeat (talk) 21:48, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Social cognitive neuroscience

new article; a cross between social neuroscience and cognitive neuroscience, out of dialogue with both. Jytdog (talk) 12:59, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Do editors think that we really need this article? Is it a candidate for AfD? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:45, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

A quick search shows a few reviews, not entirely independent: [8],[9], perhaps [10]. I think it could possible survive AFD notability criteria. The main question in my mind is where to best place the material: social cognition, social neuroscience, cognitive neuroscience, or its own article? --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 00:13, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I think that's a good take on it. Seems to me that 1 and 2 are the same author, and it's a stretch to say that 3 is the same thing. But AfD is probably not worth the hassle. I kind of like the idea of having a merge discussion, as opposed to having its own page. I'd have to give some thought as to the possible merge targets. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:38, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Actually, it looks to me most like it could be merged instead into Mirror neuron and Default mode network. It's pretty much redundant with those, and not much else. In fact, it kind of looks to me like WP:Synth to combine those two together in a single page, at least per the abstracts of those first two reviews. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:45, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Also, it looks to me like the single primary editor of the page is doing it as part of a class project. Consequently, I think the easiest thing might be to wait until the course is over, and then discuss the merge possibilities. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:49, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Social cognitive neuroscience is often considered distinct from social neuroscience and cognitive neuroscience. This review shows the distinction between social neuroscience and social cognitive neuroscience [11]. Here are a few more reviews, labs, and courses that are specific to the field and are run by independent researchers [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] (if no access Sci-Hub should work). Also I don't think putting mirror neuron and default network (latter is sometimes called "mentalizing network" in social contexts) together is synthesis on my part, there are many papers about the roles of these two networks in social cogniton [19] [20] [21]. But more practically, yes I am doing this for a class project, and it would be easier to wait until the course is over to discuss merging possibilities. Chilledsunshine (talk) 22:31, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Move discussion notice - Talk:Brodmann_area_45#Requested_move_2_December_2018

Hey there! I'm Flooded with them hundreds. There is a move discussion at Talk:Brodmann_area_45#Requested_move_2_December_2018 requiring more participation, please consider commenting/voting in it along with the other discussions in the backlog (Wikipedia:Requested moves#Elapsed listings). Flooded with them hundreds 17:56, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

In relation to this this comment was made about Brodmann areas 44 and 45 on talk:Brodmann areas 44 and 45 (which I am deleting, but to preserve the comment witch is relevant to the above discussion, I am pasting it here. If the decision is made to go ahead with the proposed changes then the page can be restored. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:02, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

This page should not be speedily deleted because it was created to overcome a problematic page change from a wanted page name Triangular part of inferior frontal gyrus and the blocking of a name change to Operculum of inferior frontal gyrus. There is already a long-standing page name of Orbital part of inferior frontal gyrus which is the third part of the inferior frontal gyrus. Brodmann area 44 and Brodmann area 45 have their own pages, which i feel need to be changed either back or to, the anatomic terminology. Somewhere along the line the Brodmann area pages were used synonymously with the anatomic names. Brodmann areas are cytoarchitectural terms that do often but not always match the anatomically termed location. BrainInfo site makes a clear distintion between the anatomic names and the cytoarchitectural names. It makes a confusing mish mash of terms as it is. The page Orbital part of inferior frontal gyrus stands on its own and there is the page Brodmann area 47 that stands on its own. The page Brodmann areas 41 and 42 covers the Brodmann areas for the auditory cortex which has its own name. In the same way the page Brodmann areas 44 and 45 was made to cover Broca's area which has its own page. There is what is referred to as Gyral anatomy and cytoarchitectural organisation. Somewhere along the way these terms have become mixed. By keeping the page Brodmann areas 44 and 45, the separate pages of Brodmann 44 can rename as the opercular part of inferior frontal gyrus and 45 can rename as the triangular part of inferior frontal gyrus. If this is not be then are all the other pages to be transferred to brodmann area pages. Imstead of Visual cortex is there to be Brodmann area 17 and so on.--Iztwoz (talk) 22:20, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Neuroscientists in project scope?

Are neuroscience researchers within the purview of this project? I ask because I'm not sure whether I should tag the talk page of researchers like Kent C. Berridge and Eric J. Nestler with {{WPNEURO}}. They're two of the three preeminent researchers in some aspect (affective neuroscience and molecular neurobiology/clinical neuroscience, respectively) of the neuroscience of reward. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 09:26, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

In my opinion, the answer is yes they are within scope. List of neuroscientists is a good place to look for pages. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:49, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Which version to go with at the Empathy article?

We need some opinions about which version of the Empathy article we should go with -- the current version or the version seen at User:Benteziegen/sandbox. Of course, we don't have to go with either version and could develop the article in another way. But the current one is the current one. Discussion is at Talk:Empathy/Archive 2#Theory and empirical section. The Empathy article deals with a number of medical/health topics, and neuroscience matters, ranging from autism, borderline personality disorder, schizophrenia, psychopathy, and so on. I also contacted WP:Med about weighing in. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:28, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

A new newsletter directory is out!

A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.

– Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

A possible Science/STEM User Group

There's a discussion about a possible User Group for STEM over at Meta:Talk:STEM_Wiki_User_Group. The idea would be to help coordinate, collaborate and network cross-subject, cross-wiki and cross-language to share experience and resources that may be valuable to the relevant wikiprojects. Current discussion includes preferred scope and structure. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 03:04, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

need feedback

Please chime in at Talk:Hearing#Add new section. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:02, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Are Spinal neuron and Spinal interneuron distinct?

I would do a proposed merge, but it looks like neither article has gotten much editing traffic in the past year. Is there some subtle difference between these two classes of neuron, or are they two names for the same thing? ―Thanks, Vahurzpu (talk) 02:00, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Interneurons are a subset of neurons, so all interneurons are also neurons, but not all neurons are interneurons. So they are distinct. But that doesn't mean that these pages couldn't be merged. Looking just now at spinal neuron, it's kind of embarrassing. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:29, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Portal MfD

FYI: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Neuroscience. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:27, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Digital media use and mental health FA nom

Hello! I was wondering if any members of the WikiProject could kindly take a look at the review for this article that I nominated. It has a neuroscience section out of interest. With many kind thanks --[E.3][chat2][me] 13:51, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Selfish brain theory

Perhaps I'm mistaken, but this looks rather wacky to me. Perhaps somebody here can have a look? It has been at AFD in 2011, but criteria have become more stringent, I feel, so another AfD may be called for. --Randykitty (talk) 16:49, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Don't anthropomorphize neural homeostasis mechanisms; they hate that. More seriously, the article looks essay-like with a lot of synthesis and few sources outside Peters' group using this concept. This chapter might be secondary, but I haven't dug deep. I am dubious about notability. One alternative might be to redirect/smerge to Achim Peters, which has a summary of the theory. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 21:10, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Yikes, what a lousy article! It's also badly written and formatted, in addition to being promotional and POV. I'd support just making it a redirect to the Peters page (which can be done without going through an AfD). --Tryptofish (talk) 22:32, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Redirecting is indeed a good idea, I think. I'll be BOLD and go ahed, let's see whether it stands. Meanwhile, the Achim Peters artyicle can use some attention, too... --Randykitty (talk) 15:27, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Help reviewing Megavitamin-B6 syndrome

Would someone with a neuroscience background have a look at megavitamin-B6 syndrome and give me some feedback or edit as necessary? Specifically interested in the Characterization, Potential Mechanism, and Treatment sections. - Scarpy (talk) 23:36, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Is Project Neuroscience entry for Jean Francois Gariepy being considered for deletion?

I will keep this brief and respectful, as I don't know the protocols for your project. Was surprised to see that post-doc dropout and noted white supremacist JF Gariepy had an entry in project Neuroscience. There wasn't a lot of ink on the Talk page, so it may have been pushed through by a fan of his (many of the notability citations are for his negative, non scientific exploits, and one of them links to a proven falsehood about his "leaving" academia.)

I don't want to turn this into a gripe session, as he deserves a fair hearing like anyone else. Just popped in to mention it, because at least in my opinion, its kind of a shocking inclusion into an otherwise scientific and noble effort on Wiki.

Thanks for reading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:406:8280:D500:F016:EC71:1F9B:2095 (talk) 20:35, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

FAR for philosophy of mind

I have nominated Philosophy of mind for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. (t · c) buidhe 22:51, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Request for review of Neal Kassell

Hello, I'm looking for a review of Neal Kassell, a significant contributor to the Gamma Knife and Focused Ultrasound. Should be relatively quick. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ezkrezkr (talk • contribs) 17:04, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Multiple sclerosis Featured article review

I have nominated Multiple sclerosis for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:37, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

i need help with something

i would like to add the method of patch-seq to Wikipedia. for those of you who don't know patch-seq is a method developed about 4 years ago to capture the electrophysiological morphological and genetic information of a neuron in one shot.

the basic method is that a hollow needle-like electrical probe stimulates the neuron to determine its electrophysiology, then sucks the nucleus through the problem for sequencing then injects a tracer dye to image the neuron's morphology.

this video explains it nicely: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8pv84m1U_M

but since its a combination technique I don't know weather it should be included in the article single-cell sequencing , or some neuroscience article or maybe an article of its own

i would like a consensus opinion on this matter since this method is of high importance to solving the "cell types" problem which is a cornerstone of modern neuroscience

on that note, i also did not find an article on the concept of neuron cell types at all or any of its associated theories and opinions at all id like to create such an article but am conflicted: should a create a article for neuron cell types alone or a geenral biology article about cell types?

any input on thi matter is very much appreciated.

thank you in advance to all who contribute RJJ4y7 (talk) 19:43, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/12/201202121939.htm

Peter Ellaway

This stub needs a lot of work to avoid deletion. Bearian (talk) 21:58, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Management of multiple sclerosis Featured article review

I have nominated Management of multiple sclerosis for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:56, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Mikhail Lebedev notability

Can someone please help me prove that Mikhail Lebedev is notable? I need to start Wikipedia article and I am nww. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LotteryGeek (talk • contribs) 22:35, January 24, 2021 (UTC)

The applicable notability guideline is at WP:PROF. We can't make him notable if he isn't, but the criteria to determine it are there. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:54, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sandbox organiser

Sandbox Organiser A place to help you organise your work

Hi all

I've been working on a tool for the past few months that you may find useful. Wikipedia:Sandbox organiser is a set of tools to help you better organise your draft articles and other pages in your userspace. It also includes areas to keep your to do lists, bookmarks, list of tools. You can customise your sandbox organiser to add new features and sections. Once created you can access it simply by clicking the sandbox link at the top of the page. You can create and then customise your own sandbox organiser just by clicking the button on the page. All ideas for improvements and other versions would be really appreciated.

Huge thanks to PrimeHunter and NavinoEvans for their work on the technical parts, without them it wouldn't have happened.

John Cummings (talk) 11:06, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Free access to sources

If any of the following titles look potentially useful to you:

• The Oxford Handbook of Developmental Neural Plasticity  May 2017
• The Oxford Handbook of Invertebrate Neurobiology  Apr 2019
• The Oxford Handbook of Neuronal Ion Channels  Mar 2018
• The Oxford Handbook of Neuronal Protein Synthesis  Jun 2021
• The Oxford Handbook of the Auditory Brainstem  Sep 2019
• The Oxford Handbook of the Microbiome-Gut-Brain Axis  Jul 2020
• The Oxford Handbook of the Neurobiology of Learning and Memory  Sep 2020
• The Oxford Handbook of the Neurobiology of Pain  Jun 2020
• The Oxford Handbook of Transcranial Stimulation, Second Edition  Feb 2021

then please login to https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/users/my_library/ and look for the "Oxford Handbook" section. Any editor who qualifies for a Wikipedia Library Card (500+ edits) can have free online access. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:07, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Request for help

Hello, can anyone with knowledge on the subject please take a look at recent anonymous edits on the page Lucina Uddin? I reverted some edits recently, because they looked a bit strange to me, but the anonymous editor has now again made the same edits. I don't know exactly what to do. I don't know anything about this subject, so perhaps someone else with more knowledge might take a look. Thanks, --Dick Bos (talk) 14:58, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

I took a quick look, and I wonder whether this might be a page that would qualify for WP:AfD under WP:PROF. But I'm not sure about that, so I'd appreciate it if other editors would take a look. Sometimes, when an IP edits that way, it can be a tip-off that the page is promoting someone who falls a little short of our notability guidelines. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:17, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Planning updates to Neurotechnology

Neurotechnology seems a little outdated, so I'll be working on expanding parts of it over the next few weeks.

Do let me know if you have edit suggestions or any concerns.

Cffisac (talk) 16:55, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello, Please note that Personality, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 18 October 2021 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team

Discussion of possible interest

Editors in this project might perhaps also be interested in Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 October 21#Category:Wikipedian members of the Society for Neuroscience Wikipedia Initiative. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:59, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Science Competition 2021

Hi! I am here to remind you all that Wiki Science Competition 2021 has started in many territories last week. It will last until November 30th or December 15th, depending on the areas.

WSC is organized every two years, and people from all countries can upload files (the goal are the international prizes) but specific national pages are also set up, for example for USA or Ireland or New Zealand. Such national competitions (when they exist) act as an additional incentive to participate.

We expect a sitenotice to show up for all readers here on enWikipedia as well, but probably during the second half of the month when all countries with national competitions are open for submission at the same time. In the meantime, if you are planing to upload some nice descriptive photo, infographics or video to Wikimedia Commons, please consider to submit them using the WSC interface, you might win a prize.--Alexmar983 (talk) 23:47, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Found an interesting article

Even though it's a "pop-sci" source it has links to apparently good sources: "No Functional Differences Between Male And Female Brains, Finds Sweeping Review". IFLScience. Retrieved 5 December 2021. I hope it might be useful for this project. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:09, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Caffeine (data page) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Caffeine (data page) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caffeine (data page) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

DePiep (talk) 14:07, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

RfC re: is addiction a "biopsychosocial disorder" or a "brain disorder"?

New RfC on the talk page for the article, Addiction: RfC re: is addiction a "biopsychosocial disorder" or a "brain disorder"? Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 02:52, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Merge proposal: autism and autism spectrum

An editor has requested for Autism to be merged into Autism spectrum. Since you had some involvement with autism or autism spectrum, you might want to participate in the merger discussion (if you have not already done so). Averixus (talk) 00:24, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sources

Main page: User:Headbomb/unreliable

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

J Neurosci

I'd appreciate fresh eyes at Talk:The Journal of Neuroscience#Cassava Sciences. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:03, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

FAR for Hilary Putnam

I have nominated Hilary Putnam for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:17, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Electrical conduction system of the heart#Requested move 15 August 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Electrical conduction system of the heart#Requested move 15 August 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – robertsky (talk) 04:58, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Psilocybin nominated for Featured article review

I have nominated Psilocybin for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. DigitalIceAge (talk) 07:36, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Project-independent quality assessments

Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:23, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Piaget's theory of cognitive development#Postulated physical mechanisms underlying schemes, schemas, and stages

A request for review: Could some editors who are knowledgeable about neuroscience please take a close, hard look at the section Piaget's theory of cognitive development § Postulated physical mechanisms underlying schemes, schemas, and stages? The same editor who was edit warring over this section two years ago is back (e.g., Special:Diff/1018291061, 17 April 2021).

Here is what the section looked like two years ago before the editor in question started editing it: Special:Permalink/1013759982 § Postulated physical mechanisms underlying schemas and stages. Thanks! Cross-posted to WT:MED. Biogeographist (talk) 21:37, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello, Please note that Electroencephalography, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 19 June 2023 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team

Neuropixels

Would someone mind taking a look at Neuropixels? The article seems to be primarily about a type of probe but perhaps that's what a neuropixel is. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:03, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for posting about this. I took a quick look and put it on my watchlist. This appears to be a particular brand name of a kind of electrode/probe, that is designed to measure from many neurons simultaneously. The problem I think I may be seeing is that there are many kinds of these electrodes/probes being used, and this appears to be just one brand name for one manufacturer's version of it. I would need to give it more time than I have today, but I think there may be a problem with notability here. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:52, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you Tryptofish for taking a look at this. FWIW, I never heard of a neuropixel before and only came across the article via WP:MCQ#File:Neuropixels Probe Allen Institute.png. I have heard of neuron before and thought a neuropixel might something like that. I guess if the article is about a particular product, then WP:NPRODUCT would be applicable; similarly, if about a particular company, then WP:NORG would be applicable. -- Marchjuly (talk) 19:46, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it's definitely a piece of hardware, not a biological structure like a nerve cell. Going from that link you gave, I found the company website here: [22]. We have a page on these types of probes, in general, at microelectrode array. I agree that NPRODUCT and NORG are the applicable guidelines here. The question is whether there is enough independent coverage of this particular product to justify a standalone page, or whether it should just be merged. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:56, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Request for Comment on Polyvagal theory Talk page

Hi, I just wanted to let you all know that there’s a Request for Comment taking place here that concerns a discussion that seems relevant to the interests of this particular WikiProject. The topic of the RfC concerns the characterization of polyvagal theory in that article. Thanks for your attention. Ian Oelsner (talk) 00:14, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

RIP Looie496

He was the founder of this WikiProject. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:45, 17 October 2023 (UTC)