Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Neuroscience

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Neuroscience and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 6 months

	This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Neuroscience This page is within the scope of WikiProject Neuroscience, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Neuroscience on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NeuroscienceWikipedia:WikiProject NeuroscienceTemplate:WikiProject Neuroscienceneuroscience

WikiProject Neuroscience was featured in a WikiProject Report in the Signpost on 26 February 2014.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Hi there! I am not part of this Wikiproject, but I am a Wikigraphist. I am interested in improving Wikipedia’s visual content and I built a tool that could help detect visual gaps in Wikiprojects.

I called it Visual Content Assessment Tool, or simply VCAT.

A working version of VCAT with data for Wikiproject Neuroscience already extracted by me on 26/07/2023 can be found at VCAT-dashboard. You can always extract fresh data for any Wikiproject using the extraction tool, a command line tool I created for this purpose.

Some of the actions you can do with this tool are:

• Monitoring the visual content coverage in a Wikiproject
• Detecting articles needing images (eg. articles without images)
• Detecting low resolution images to improve (eg. raster diagrams to be vectorized)

Then you can ask for image creation or vectorization on the Graphics Lab.

What do you think? Could it be a useful tool? MingoBerlingo (talk)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Neuromorphic engineering#Requested move 24 August 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. RodRabelo7 (talk) 01:51, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An editor first labeled Legality of cannabis as top-importance for this group, and after I removed the rating, has changed it to high-importance. Please decide for yourselves how you'd like to have it assessed.

I've seen a couple of editors "upgrade" their favorite subjects, perhaps in the mistaken belief that this will result in more editors working on the articles. I specifically suggest taking a look at what's in Category:Top-importance neuroscience articles (CLARITY? Hebbian theory? Tractography?) and Category:High-importance neuroscience articles to see whether it reflects your group's goals and preferences. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:43, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. I changed it down to low for neuro. I don't mind leaving it at high for pharmacology. As for checking the other ratings, I'll leave that to other editors. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:42, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WPMED set a standard years ago of 100 top-priority and 1,000 high-priority articles. The high-priority group has crept up a bit over the years. I glanced through about half the list, fixed some obvious errors, and posted a list of some others for discussion. I'll probably to the same for the rest of the list later. I thought it might be easier if one person organized it. If everyone has a look at "some", there's a risk that we'll all carefully review the articles at the start of the alphabet and nobody will look at the ones towards the end. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:45, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I raised some concerns over a sentence in Childhood dementia saying: "Neuronal ceroid lipofuscinoses, a group of lysosomal storage disorders, are thought to be its most common subtype."

Is anyone interested in joining the discussion?

My hope is that we can reach a consensus on whether the sentence is accurate or not. And if not, then what the best course of action is.

Thank you. Irina Rainbow (talk) 20:09, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brain has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 19:21, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Consciousness has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 16:15, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In Talk:Current sources and sinks we are discussing to move the article to a better name. As it seems like a neuroscience topic I cannot tell what would be the best name. Any help is appreciated. ReyHahn (talk) 14:24, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now at Talk:Current source density analysis.--ReyHahn (talk) 17:36, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Massachusetts Institute of Technology has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 16:42, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Hippocampus 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. Z1720 (talk) 00:14, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]