Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Neuroscience

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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


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

Nevermind, I've obtained them. Seppi333 (Insert ) 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)

WJM Poster (hyperlinked).pdf

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)


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 (talkcontribs) 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 ) 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 ) 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 ) 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 ) 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 ) 21:59, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Resolved: Closed as keep. Seppi333 (Insert ) 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 ) 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 ) 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

Please take a few minutes to help make these more useful to our readers.— Rod talk 17:38, 3 December 2017 (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: – makes no mention of a "trigger zone" at all; the textbook reference is about the chemoreceptor trigger zone). Based upon - 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:

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 ) 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 ) 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.VENIVIDIVICIPEDIAtalk 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 ) 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)

Facto Post – Issue 9 – 5 February 2018

Issue 9 – 5 February 2018
Facto Post – Issue 9 – 5 February 2018
Content mine logo.png

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.

Mandel zoom 07 satellite.jpg

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 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.


  • 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)

Retrieved from ""
This content was retrieved from Wikipedia :
This page is based on the copyrighted Wikipedia article "Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Neuroscience"; it is used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA). You may redistribute it, verbatim or modified, providing that you comply with the terms of the CC-BY-SA