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.

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 auto-archived by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 5.

A tool to monitor and improve images in this Wikiproject

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)

Neuroscience and race

Might be worth reviewing. I know nothing about the subject but it seems at least incomplete. Doug Weller talk 18:26, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I added some tagging, and have put it on my watchlist. I think there's some encyclopedic content in there, but it might perhaps be better as parts of another page, and it strikes me as a WP:Coatrack. I see it was started as a student project, a long time ago. I hope other editors in this WikiProject will also take a look at it. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:52, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated. Doug Weller talk 07:12, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Neurodiversity has an RfC

Neurodiversity has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Plasticwonder (talk) 16:42, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Legal history of cannabis in the United States

Legal history of cannabis in the United States 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) 18:41, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Inactive participants

I propose to define an active participant of WikiProject Neuroscience as a user who has:

(a) put herself/himself on the list of Participants, AND
(b) within the last 12 months edited at least one Wikipedia article in the scope of this WikiProject, or a talk page of such an article.

I also propose to change the name of section "Inactive users" to "Inactive participants".

Regards,

Ion Soggo (talk) 16:52, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I don't really have any objections to that, although I also don't see what good it really accomplishes. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:47, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tryptofish Thank you for your response.

To clarify the rationale of my proposal:

I thought, this way, the information on the Project's page woukd be closer to reality. Additionally, I hoped a narrower group of active participants would emerge with whom to discuss specific issues that pertain to the entire scope of the Project such as the standards of article importance, or inconsistencies in the tree categories.

Best regards,

2600:4040:7946:6A00:A16E:225C:23E9:21FD (talk) 14:43, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. The above message (from 2600:4040:7946:6A00:A16E:225C:23E9:21FD) it was me. I forgot I was not logged in on that device.

Ion Soggo (talk) 14:49, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Citations needed

Neural pathway is tagged as high priority for this group, and it's got a lot of {{citation needed}} tags. Could someone look into it? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:58, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Psychotic drugs" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Psychotic drugs has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 September 27 § Psychotic drugs until a consensus is reached. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 21:48, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AI written event-driven pharmacology: Expert needed

The recently created page Event-driven pharmacology appears to be LLM written. While there are no obvious DOI errors, it needs an expert check that the claims in the article are really supported by the sources. Ldm1954 (talk) 10:15, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for flagging this. I haven't yet done an in-depth examination for LLM (and I hope someone else will do it), but I've put it on my watchlist. I'll also put a note at WT:MED, where there are more eyes than here or at the pharmacology project. I consider myself a subject matter expert on this, and what stood out to me right away is that the pagename sounds like some kind of jargonny label for a WP:Coatrack of perfectly good science that otherwise isn't that closely related (basically a pretentious name for medicines that are taken only for a brief period of time). I looked quickly at several of the sources cited early on the page, as sources for the page title, and those sources do not even use that phrase. So my initial reaction is that this page may fail WP:GNG, but that needs to be checked more carefully before going to AfD. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:02, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting that there are related comments at WT:PHARM. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:06, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was just going to mention the other project. In terms of LLM, both Quillbot & Scaling.ai marked it as 100% LLM, so I think that is clear. However it does not seem to have fake sources so CSD looks inappropriate -- unless the sources dont verify the text. This is way out of my competence, so I will leave that to you, Boghog and others. Ldm1954 (talk) 22:13, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I won't mind starting an AfD, but as a WP:BEFORE I'm going to see what other editors say, in case there's stuff I'm not yet aware of. I've put a note now at WT:MED. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:16, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I copied the first 3 paragraphs (without ref numbers) into ZeroGPT. It reports the text is 100% AI-generated. Zefr (talk) 23:22, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"It was written by LLM" isn't a reason to delete an article. LLM articles are only deleted if they contain unreviewed bad information (e.g., fake sources). If a human uses an LLM and reviews the content to make sure that it's good, then "written by LLM" is irrelevant in terms of our deletion policies.

The relevant question here, therefore, is: Is this a bad article? For example, does the subject actually exist in the real world? Is it possible to clean it up into something appropriate? Do the sources verify the claims, even if they choose a different name for the subject? Synonyms are a fact of life; see also the ArbCom case in which various decorative-tree-shaping folks fought tooth and nail to have their brand name be anointed by Wikipedia as the One True™ Name and their competitors' preferred names relegated to the dustbin of history. We can use sources that prefer different names for the same subject. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:31, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Having recognized a 100%-written entry by LLM, a notification/warning is possible for the user. It states "An edit that you recently made to "xxx" seemed to be generated using a large language model (an "AI chatbot" or other application using such technology). Text produced by these applications is usually unsuitable for an encyclopedia, and may contain factually inaccurate statements, fictitious citations, or other problems. You should instead read reliable sources and then summarize those in your own words."

Although accurate content is the main goal, using LLM is also a behavioral issue which should be discouraged, as it represents lazy research and editing, non-skeptical acceptance of the content and sources (which may have errors), and additional work for other editors to confirm, rewrite and recite the entry. Zefr (talk) 17:00, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the field of Targeted protein degradation (TPD), of which Chimeric small molecule therapeutics are a subset, the phrase "Event-driven pharmacology" is fairly commonly used (see Google Scholar). Within the neuroscience field, "Event-driven pharmacology" is also used, but far less frequently. In addition to PROTACs, SARDs, SERDs, LYTACs, TPDs also includes Molecular glues. One solution is to broaden the scope of Chimeric small molecule therapeutics, rename it Targeted protein degradation, and redirect "Event-driven pharmacology" to this new article. Boghog (talk) 03:29, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds plausible to me, but: Should Wikipedia have any article on the neuroscience version? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:33, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. I have just created Single-dose long-acting CNS drug stub as a neuroscience version.

The only use of the term "event-driven pharmacology" for a drug that is not a PROTAC is zelquistinel by Syndeio Biosciences (formerly GATE Neurosciences) in corporate presentations.^[1] I cannot find a single mention of "event-driven pharmacology" to describe "Single-dose long-acting CNS drugs" in the peer-reviewed literature.

The first mention of "event-driven pharmacology" for protein degradation was in 2017.^[2] The first mention of "event-driven pharmacology" for "Single-dose long-acting CNS drugs" was in 2023.^[3] So it looks like Syndeio Biosciences borrowed the phrase from the targeted protein degradation field.

References

1. "Syndeio Biosciences". Retrieved 5 October 2025.
2. Lai AC, Crews CM (February 2017). "Induced protein degradation: an emerging drug discovery paradigm". Nature Reviews. Drug Discovery. 16 (2): 101–114. doi:10.1038/nrd.2016.211. PMC 5684876. PMID 27885283.
3. Buntz B (14 September 2023). "GATE Neurosciences: event-driven pharmacology in depression". Drug Discovery Trends. Retrieved 5 October 2025.

Boghog (talk) 06:57, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tryptofish and WhatamIdoing: After searching existing neuropharmacology articles, I discovered that Psychoplastogen (also known as Neuroplastogen) and Afterglow are very close matches. Boghog (talk) 11:14, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Single-dose long-acting CNS drug and Event-driven pharmacology should probably be merged into the pre-existing Neuroplastogen/Psychoplastogen article. I prefer the Neuroplastogen term since it is more general but Psychoplastogen is more widely used. Thoughts? Boghog (talk) 11:29, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here are my current thoughts:

1. If Event-driven pharmacology is to be made a redirect, the PROD should be withdrawn. I agree that it should not be anything more than a redirect, because the pagename really isn't "a thing". It should be a redirect to Chimeric small molecule therapeutics, not to Psychoplastogen, because that's the more common usage.
2. I like the idea of expanding Chimeric small molecule therapeutics, and then moving it to Targeted protein degradation.
3. I appreciate the good-faith creation of Single-dose long-acting CNS drug, but I don't think it's enough of a unified subject to be a standalone page, so I think it should be merged and redirected to Psychoplastogen.
4. I think it's OK to leave Psychoplastogen where it is, as the more widely-used term, with Neuroplastogen remaining as a redirect to it. (And Afterglow (drug culture) should stay separate.)

--Tryptofish (talk) 21:38, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Tryptofish, for your reply. I agree with everything you wrote. I think the changes are fairly uncontroversial, so I will go ahead and implement. Boghog (talk) 03:26, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Boghog (talk) 04:03, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anything that the two of you agree on is going to be fine with me. Thanks for doing this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:39, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New article draft for professor

Hi, I’ve written a draft article about William D. Klipec (Draft:William Klipec) and would appreciate any feedback or early review if possible. Autoshaping (talk) 04:30, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Autoshaping: and welcome to Wikipedia. I urge you to read the notability guideline at WP:PROF, because I think the page you are drafting may fail our notability requirements. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:49, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge discussion

More eyes would be helpful at Talk:Neuromodulation (medicine)#Proposed merge of Neurotherapy into Neuromodulation (medicine). --Tryptofish (talk) 00:00, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]