Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine

(Redirected from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/How to edit)
Latest comment: 5 minutes ago by Mathglot in topic New editor hitting the lead of numerous articles: assistance requested
Learn more about this page
Skip to top
Skip to bottom

    Edit with VisualEditor

    Shortcut

    Welcome to the WikiProject Medicine talk page. If you have comments or believe something can be improved, feel free to post. Also feel free to introduce yourself if you plan on becoming an active editor!

    We do not provide medical advice; please see a health professional.

    List of archives

    Non-MEDRS source used to support Air pollution DYK hook

    edit
    Latest comment: 1 month ago20 comments11 people in discussion

    Could anyone take a look at this?

    https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-00053-y

    Is this a MEDRS source? It's only a news article. It's used to support the claim that air pollution increases the risk of dementia in the air pollution article. The same claim is now in the DYK queue, too. WhatamIdoing SandyGeorgia Doc James Johnbod Ozzie10aaaa Headbomb Colin Bon courage Boghog JenOttawa Soupvector CFCF Ajpolino Z1720 Mathglot

    AFAIAC that article has many other problems. I don't have time to review them one by one. A GAR may be needed. 107.178.16.98 (talk) 14:43, 22 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

    That news article doesn't seem like a MEDRS for that claim, but it's not bad to use it as a partial source for MEDRS relevant to such a claim, such as the cited Haghani 2020 review.[1] — soupvector (talk) 14:58, 22 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

    References

    1. ^ Haghani A, Morgan TE, Forman HJ, Finch CE (2020). "Air Pollution Neurotoxicity in the Adult Brain: Emerging Concepts from Experimental Findings". J Alzheimers Dis. 76 (3): 773–797. doi:10.3233/JAD-200377. PMID 32538853.

    — soupvector (talk) 14:58, 22 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

    • I am not well versed in MEDRS (I think it's more strict than the regular reliable sources policy). I do not have any concerns with the source, but would give more weight to responses from editors with more experience in this topic. After a quick skim, I wouldn't nominate this article at GAR, but I have not taken a close look at the sources. Z1720 (talk) 15:28, 22 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • It's not a strong MEDRS source but could be okay for non-controversial knowledge. Much more worrying is the spinning of an association in the source into a cause-and-effect statement in the DYK's Wikivoice. Needs to be dropped like a hot stone. Bon courage (talk) 16:02, 22 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
      The "spinning" of an association into cause-and-effect can also be found in the journal sources. PMID 32538853 opens with Epidemiological studies are associating elevated exposure to air pollution with increased risk of Alzheimer's disease and other neurodegenerative disorders it goes on to claim air pollution accelerates many aging conditions that promote cognitive declines of aging. The linked PMID 36028225 does the same, jumping from Epidemiological studies increasingly associate air pollution with multiple neurodevelopmental disorders and neurodegenerative diseases, findings supported by experimental animal models to This breadth of neurotoxicity across these central nervous system diseases and disorders. PMID 32738937 says We now add three more risk factors for dementia with newer, convincing evidence. These factors are excessive alcohol consumption, traumatic brain injury, and air pollution. So I don't think it is editors jumping from association to cause-and-effect. The only doubt is whether the voices claiming that it is a risk factor have consensus. It is up to the experts to decide when the association is convincing enough. -- Colin°Talk 16:51, 22 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • There are many MEDRS-compliant sources (recent literature reviews) for the claim, so I'm surprised that Femke and Jens Lallensack would not use/expect them, much less at the GA level. Talk:Air pollution/GA1. I'm somewhat versed in the Alzheimer's literature and have never before seen this claim, so I'm unsure on the due weight issue, and would have expected a less surprising hook. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:34, 22 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
      Have replaced this with the 2024 Lancet review this Nature article was based on. Given that it's published now twice in the Lancet in a high-profile review article implies to me there is consensus on this, but happy to be pointed towards dissenting literature. Another 2024 meta-analyses shows something similar (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39223534/), but a older third one from 2023 puts caveats in the results [1].
      Sloppy of me, should have replaced that source earlier, and pushed back against those asking me to retain more of the old article. Will replace it elsewhere when more awake. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:57, 22 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
      In the 2024 Lancet review, they say "Continuing research interest is reflected by the publication of at least nine further systematic reviews and meta-analyses since 2019, which have all reported that air pollution is associated with increased dementia risk". To me, that sounds convincing. The type of evidence is moving from purely epidemiological and animal studies to also include Mendelian randomisation and to more causative studies (what happens when you reduce air pollution in some locations but not others). —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:10, 22 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
      Lower income is also associated with dementia and also with living in areas with poor air quality. Overstating an association into a cause is a bad idea, because the 'real cause' could well be anything else associated with poverty. MrOllie (talk) 19:20, 22 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
      Agree, that's why the 2020 Lancet report (mostly based on epidemiology), is not as strong in its statement compared to the 2024 Lancet report (multiple lines of evidence). I'm open to weakening the statement and replacing it with more established relationships in the DYK.
      Not sure what the best wording is: a minority of sources says 'may', more state it as a fact. Normally, I'd go for wording such as 'is likely' as a compromise, but not yet found a source that uses wording like that. Alternatively, I could do in-text attribution to the Lancet Commission. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:27, 22 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
      "Overstating an association into a cause" isn't our job to judge. Do high quality sources take that step, adding in the other studies Femke lists? I think the Lancet review authors are clever enough to know about confounding variables like poverty. They are the ones with the statistical skill to say, yes, cigarettes really do cause cancer. I know we are all well trained here to spot the correlation does not imply causation mistake that newspapers make, but we also have to recognise when those claiming causation (at least at the level of "increases the risk" per the DYK) are solid sources. -- Colin°Talk 19:41, 22 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
      I would also suggest avoiding disparaging epidemiological studies too much Femke, as there are many ways in which to determine whether associations imply causation. You might look at the Bradford Hill criteria in lieu of also modern criteria for making causal inference based on epidemiological data. CFCF (talk) 19:56, 22 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
      Hah, interesting! Thanks for sharing :). —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:59, 22 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
      So I'm no longer concerned, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:31, 22 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
      I'm not so concerned if the other sources on the table / cited, but from the OP it looked like everything was hung off the Nature news piece. Bon courage (talk) 00:36, 23 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
      I'm the OP and sorry for being late. I'm not so concerned about the claim itself. I'm most concerned that, as Sandy said, there are many MEDRS-compliant sources (recent literature reviews) for the claim. Femke and Jens Lallensack would not use/expect them, much less at the GA level.
      The Nature article has now been replaced with the 2024 Lancet report PMID 39096926 by Femke, without waiting for this discussion to first reach a clear consensus.[2] It's still not the best source. It's likely not even MEDRS-compliant. It is not categorized as "Review" by Pubmed, This couldn't be an accidental mistake.
      As a comparison, the 2020 Lancet report PMID 32738937 is marked as "Review" as the publication type by Pubmed. Just looking at the two Pubmed pages, the main difference between them is that, the 2024 paper has a new and lengthy "Conflict of interest statement" section. I don't know what that means.
      There are many MEDRS-compliant reviews for the claim, why they insist on using non-compliant source?
      That is not the only issue. Some tags were removed from the article without first reaching a clear consensus on talk. Some tags were removed without any discussion.[3][4] For instance, they insist to use a 2014 source for air pollution in China, while there are so many newer sources. I'm very concerned that the loose and hasty editing style of Femke will lead to the compromise of our GA and DYK standards. Darth Stabro 2803:D700:CECC:96C0:4A70:8218:119B:ED09 (talk) 17:07, 24 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
      I don't think there's any doubt that "Dementia prevention, intervention, and care: 2024 report of the Lancet standing Commission" is a review. It is part of an ongoing series of Commissions from The Lancet Group where they select "academic partners and leading experts" to review a subject and in this subject they have been reporting regularly for a long time. The intro says "We have summarised the new research since the 2020 report of the Lancet Commission on dementia, prioritising systematic reviews and meta-analyses". It isn't just a review submitted to The Lancet, but one where The Lancet "commissioned" a review from people they regard as experts. This is among the best sort of source we could wish for. The conflict of interest declaration is part of increasing openness, and not a concern in itself.
      If there's a DYK pending then that may explain the "haste" you see. WT:MED isn't really the place to file complaints about editors. Colin°Talk 18:29, 24 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
      OP again. I am not disputing that it is not a review. Normally, if an average editor used it as a source, I would probably not have much of an issue with it. But the current situation is that the Nature article is being questioned, and the other source used to replace it is still controversial. The person who added the source is the one who submitted the article to GA, who should be most familiar with the topic and most of the sources. This is a GA with a DYK pending. Shouldn't it be more cautious? There are so many other fully-complaint sources available. I don't want to speculate why Pubmed didn't mark it as a review, or whether they were worried about conflicts of interest. I just think that this loose editing style does not suit GA and DYK. As I've said, the article has other issues that are caused by such style, too. Moreover, having a DYK pending should not be an excuse to act hastily and sacrifice the quality of the article. 2601:58B:200:9FB0:203D:405B:DEA3:B93C (talk) 20:00, 24 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
      I'm really not interested in continuing an argument presented like this. You seem to have misunderstood me and are repeating. Colin°Talk 19:42, 25 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

    Merge proposal at Talk:Stertor

    edit
    Latest comment: 27 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

    There's a merge proposal at Talk:Stertor#Merge to Snoring, Respiratory sounds, or stridor ? that has been open for a few months and could use some input. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 05:59, 25 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

    commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:34, 1 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    Some obvious missing articles

    edit
    Latest comment: 1 month ago6 comments3 people in discussion

    We have no articles on and no apparent in-depth coverage anywhere of:

    • Incision AKA incised wound, and various obvious redirects. The first of these goes to a disambiguation page that mentions this kind of wound as the second meaning (should be the first, since "incision" is rarely applied to doing things like cutting paper or cloth, carving a turkey, splitting a gemstone, or doing some other cutting thing with a sharp object). In the DAB pages, it links to Wound#Open wounds (and not just to Wound only because I improved the DAB page entry). There, we have a one-liner about this wound type, and that's it. We have no article on it, despite it being one of the most common superficial wound types, and there's all sorts of basic information to cover, like how this is distinguished from puncture wounds, etc., what the treatments are, and so on. The second is just a red link, despite being a common medical-terminology alternative to "incision" (because a surgical incision is also an incision). The lack here is especially strange to me, since we have in-depth articles on, e.g., pretty much every discrete form of subcutaneous bleeding (bruise/contusion, hematoma, petechia, internal hemorrhage, etc., etc.). The article should probably be at incised wound, for disambiguation, though incision wound, incision (wound), and so forth should redirect there.
    • Laceration. Just redirects to Wound#Open wounds, where as with "incision" there's a one-liner, and a statement that it's distinct from "incision" without any depth on how the two wound types are distinguished (though such information is very easy to find on external medical sites, i.e. sourcing for this is easy).
    • Sharp force trauma (obvious redirects: sharp-force trauma, sharp trauma, to go along with blunt force trauma AKA blunt trauma. The two are among the most common wound/damage classifiers in emergency diagnostics and in forensics, but we only have an article on one. While an article like blunt trauma is apt to be essentially a set-index article, being a general classifier of things we have more involved articles about, it would still be useful to have.

    While I could just go dig up some sources and put together basic WP:Stub articles on these things, it would be better if this were done by a medical-expert editor to avoid any obvious-to-experts errors like misuse of terms or reliance on sources that have been superseded by newer and better ones.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:22, 25 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

    I am uncertain to what extent it would be possible to create full articles with these specific terms. As you point out incision is a disambiguation that covers surgical incision, which is primarily what the term is used to discuss within medicine.
    I think the argument could be made to expand stab wound with a redirect from incised wound, and to more precisely redirect sharp-force trauma to penetrating trauma.
    Not having redirects is an omission, however, as none of the above are commonly used terms, having articles on niche application of the terms, when they are synonymous terms used for existing articles, would be less than ideal.
    In looking through the articles on this, there is however one major oversight, in that Injury is in a pretty sorry state, and certainly does not fulfill B-class criteria. CFCF (talk) 11:18, 25 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
    But an incised wound is a cut, not a stab/puncture wound, nor a laceration (nor an evulsion, ablation, abrasion, etc.). The rest sounds reasonable, if all forms for sharp[-force] trauma constitute penetrating trauma. (But I'm not 100% sure that's actually correct because of the "a deep but relatively narrow entry wound" nature of our definition of the latter; I guess it depends on what "deep" means in this context: just deep enough to bleed?) All that said, "full article" and "long article" are not synonymous. Many full articles (including some FAs) are quite short, because they can be addressed encyclopedically quite concisely. Honestly, I think more could be written about cuts and how they differ in nature and treatment from stabs, etc., than can be written about bruises and their treatment (when any is needed or practical at all) and their difference from other types of hematoma and whatnot.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:23, 25 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
    To be more precise, "incised wound" is not a technical term in the MeSH, and there is nothing that demands stab wounds to be "deep". For instance needle-stick injuries are classified under stab wounds: [5], and incisions would fall under the definition of "Penetrating wounds caused by a pointed object.", with "punctures" and "skin penetration" often being the same by definition. The technical definition of a stab wound is quite broad as opposed to the lay view.
    Also, I see that our definition of penetrating trauma includes the word "deep", however this is as you say "deep" in the technical sense - as opposed to "superficial". That is opposed to an abrasion (medicine) (a mild laceration [6]) that is not penetrating in that it does not penetrate the skin, but might still cause bleeding. So that is the definition of deep, i.e. does penetrate beyond the skin. (This is however not always used consistently, as you have different skin depth, and a wound that penetrates to the dermis would often be classified as a stab wound anyway).
    These irregularities on Wikipedia, and why I say "not a full article" are because we are likely using multiple contradictory, and not always very precise definitions, probably as a the result of mixing lay definitions, older source material, and a few less-common definitions that occasionally occur in the literature. This isn't a very good strategy to build our corpus of articles.
    My suggestion would be to take the full set of articles and organize them according to something near MeSH. CFCF (talk) 17:51, 25 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
    A terminology section (could be placed at Wound#Classification) might be more helpful than individual articles.
    (Does anyone know whether Needlestick injury [7] includes sewing needles?) WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:42, 26 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
    I would assume that technically speaking, yes. However, they aren't very relevant, because the risk with needlestick injuries are contamination with blood or body fluids and the potential to develop infections or through exposure to medication/drugs. That isn't really the case for sewing needles, which could bring in a minute amount of skin bacteria. It would fall for instance under S61.4 in the ICD-10 "open wound of hand", and additionally W45 "Foreign body or object entering through skin", but not W46 "Contact with hypodermic needle". W45 also covers nails, whether rusty or not - without distinction in coding.
    A further note is that the distinction between penetrating trauma and blunt-force trauma carries some overlap. As pointed out earlier, perhaps on the note of this "Forensic Facts" article penetrating trauma can also be blunt force trauma, and blunt-force trauma can look a lot like incision wounds (as in the examples on laceration or abrasion above) [8]. The reference given there is the Forensic Pathology textbook by DiMaio, which may be a good start for someone who wants to very accurately describe the terminology. (I shall admit I am not terribly inclined to go through those books). CFCF (talk) 20:07, 27 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

    Need eyes

    edit
    Latest comment: 24 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

    I'd appreciate it if someone else could take a look at National Council on Severe Autism and its talk page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:21, 4 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    Request input

    edit
    Latest comment: 22 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

    Hello – could someone more familiar with MEDRS take a look at maggot therapy? My source-flagger is throwing up some big red crosses with some of the journals, which doesn't look right. Cheers – ImaginesTigers 21:53, 6 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    Hierarchy of evidence

    edit
    Latest comment: 21 days ago4 comments4 people in discussion

    I have identified a serious anomaly in the widely used Hierarchy of evidence pyramids and published in a peer reviewed journal. My basic contention is that the hierarchy of evidence for therapeutic studies is different from that of etiologic studies and should be not combined as is being done now. The existing pyramids also totally ignored the essential Hill's criteria for causation. Francis, Paul T.. Hierarchy of Evidence: Is One Pyramid Sufficient?. Amrita Journal of Medicine 21(3):p 147-148, July-September 2025. | DOI: 10.4103/AMJM.AMJM_23_25 I designed a twin hierarchy of evidence based on the above observation. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Twin_Pyramid_of_evidence.jpg However the editors feel there is need for further discussion before the image can be allowed in the Hierarchy of evidence page. I request the panel of experts to have a look at the issue. Paultfrancis (talk) 04:27, 7 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    A piece of novel research is unlikely to be relevant to the WP:PAGs but in any case application of Bradford Hill criteria would be something that would have to be done in WP:MEDRS sources, as if Wikipedia editors did it themselves, that would fall afoul of the prohibition on original research. (Also, that image embodies a category error as it mixes up publication types with criteria, which makes no sense.) Bon courage (talk) 06:46, 7 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Inherently, this argument does hold a lot of sway, and I am generally very pro the Bradford Hill criteria. I also do think that one can apply them without engaging in original research, for instance by considering them when determining what is WP:DUE and by citing interpretation of causality that are made by researchers themselves based off these criteria.
    However, there are more modern methods for causal inference, and the Bradford Hill criteria are not the sole methods we can use to infer causality today. Further, I think we have an issue with basing a revamp of any policy based off of a single short communication. The current references for hierarchy of evidence in WP:MEDRS reference consensus statements of large research organizations. While the coverage could be improved in MEDRS, I think we would need stronger sources - and we still run into the same hierarchy, where a systematic review of etiological studies is placed higher than any individual etiological study (regardless what criteria are applied). CFCF (talk) 07:11, 7 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    I wonder if MEDRS should make it clear the pyramids we have are more concerned with reviewing a treatment or intervention than looking at whether your non-stick frying pan gives you cancer. Maybe it is too early for a different pyramid for etiologic studies and I agree we need to consider that Wikipedia has additional rules for sourcing where interpretation of that evidence should be done by our sources, not ourselves.
    I have also seen it claimed that because "Clinical Practice Guidelines" are at the top of one pyramid, they are infallible and top MEDRS. My counter to that is that it is a pyramid for a reason, not a rank scale. That unless those guidelines are based on the systematic reviews and other high ranking evidence, they fall down to being merely consensus expert opinion. For example NICE often grade their guidelines with a scale indicating the extent to which is is evidence-based. That's honesty. They admit for some health issue and treatment options, the evidence isn't very good (or terrible) and that expert consensus is still to recommend X or discourage Y. Whereas a guideline that ignored or dismissed the best evidence would not be at the top of the pyramid, though might still be notable as the consensus opinion of some body or other. -- Colin°Talk 08:10, 7 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    Requested move at Talk:Cardiac pacemaker#Requested move 4 August 2025

    edit
    Latest comment: 20 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion
     

    There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Cardiac pacemaker#Requested move 4 August 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPathtalk 09:10, 8 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    thanks for post--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:09, 8 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    How do I subscribe to this project

    edit
    Latest comment: 13 days ago6 comments4 people in discussion

    Hi, is there a newsletter about this project, with recently expanded or added pages, or pages that need more attention. How do I subscribe. I would like to know also what software is used to generate it and to subscribe me to it. If it is not there, then do you need such a feature? Thanks. Gryllida 10:58, 8 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    Hi just add name https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Newsletter/Mailing_list --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:07, 8 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Just a note that the newsletter is not very active. The best way to engage with the project is to watchlist this page @Gryllida. There is also the meta:Wiki Project Med, but the focus there is broader. CFCF (talk) 10:47, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    I tried watching pages. They all come into one large pool of notifications. When they come to email, the subject line of the email is pretty generic, it does not reflect title of a talk page section; then the content of the edit, which is included in the email, includes only first one or two sentences. It is difficult to catch up on anything. Gryllida 11:01, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    For example, for your message i got email with subject "CFCF‬ mentioned you on Wikipedia" and content "CFCF‬ mentioned you on ‪Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine‬ in "‪How do I subscribe to this project‬".
    Just a note that the newsletter is not very active. The best way to engage with the project is to watchlist this page @Gryllida. There is also the..." and then the message did not say any more content, only a link to this section.
    It would be better instead if the subject line said "Re: ‪How do I subscribe to this project‬ @ Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine" and content included the complete diff. Gryllida 11:03, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    @Gryllida, try this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine&action=dtsubscribe&commentname=p-topics-5%3AWikiProject_Medicine
    I think that will give you a separate Echo/Notification every time a new ==Topic== is started on this page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:30, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    Hiding sources in medication templates

    edit
    Latest comment: 13 days ago4 comments4 people in discussion

    I noticed a pattern in these medication templates such as {{Selected biological properties of endogenous estrogens in rats}} where they force you to view the template page to view the citations, rather than just transcluding them into the article. Other templates, such as {{Addiction glossary}}, don't do this either. I believe this should be changed per WP:V as it is unreasonable to expect a reader (i.e., non-"elite") to click on a tiny "v" link in order to view the sources. OutsideNormality (talk) 02:19, 14 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    Don't they show up in the reference list? CFCF (talk) 10:45, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    The don't appear to. See Estrogen. You get Sources: See template. which clearly we can't expect readers to do. Colin°Talk 10:48, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    It's easy enough to reformat those (example), even though we shouldn't expect readers to look at the sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:28, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    Proposed deletion of Associazione Scientifica Interdisciplinare per lo Studio delle Malattie Respiratorie

    edit
    Latest comment: 15 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion
     

    The article Associazione Scientifica Interdisciplinare per lo Studio delle Malattie Respiratorie has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

    Tagged as Unreferenced for almost 11 years. WP:DICDEF.

    While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

    You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

    Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bearian (talk) 02:26, 14 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    Unsourced articles

    edit
    Latest comment: 13 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

    These seven articles:

    contain no sources. Please take a moment to add one source to one of these articles (or more, if you want) and remove the {{unreferenced}} tag from the top of the article. Getting a source on every page is one of our group's long-standing goals, and when everyone pitches in, it doesn't take much work from any individual. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:23, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    Request for opinion on new page

    edit
    Latest comment: 9 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

    Hello,

    There is a discussion at Draft talk:Savant Autism on whether there should be separate pages for Savant Autism and Savant Syndrome, or if the two pages should be combined. It was suggested that it would be useful to have the input from this community, so flagging it here. 7804j (talk) 18:54, 19 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    Infoboxes wanted

    edit
    Latest comment: 9 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

    If anyone likes adding WP:INFOBOXES to articles, please see Category:Medicine articles needing infoboxes, which has several hundred requests. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:05, 19 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    Transgender health care

    edit
    Latest comment: 7 days ago5 comments3 people in discussion

    There is an edit request at the Transgender health care article that could do with more eyes. Thanks. M.Bitton (talk) 13:41, 21 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    M.Bitton a lot of those sources are too old to be relevant. I don't edit transgender pages, as that puts an Arbcom target on one's back, but someone might mention that. Also, it's course editing (student). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:46, 21 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    @SandyGeorgia: thank you. I didn't think "course editing" would be an issue if the ER is valid, but the fact that the sources are too old is reason enough to decline the request and ask them to seek consensus for it. M.Bitton (talk) 13:55, 21 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Course editing sometimes mean they need to chunk up content to a certain number of words for a grade, so context ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:21, 21 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Yeah I definitely wouldn’t recommend that page as a starting point for a student editor. There quite a few other trans/lgbt related healthcare pages that need some work and aren’t currently the center of discourse. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 18:02, 21 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    Input needed at AFD

    edit
    Latest comment: 3 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

    See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of bipolar disorder and schizophrenia.4meter4 (talk) 14:07, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    Input needed at Talk:Systemic vasculitis#Merge proposal

    edit
    Latest comment: 1 day ago2 comments2 people in discussion

    Reasoning: I propose merging Necrotizing arteriolitis into Systemic vasculitis. The definition of Necrotizing arteriolitis is incosistent throughout publications and seems to mostly be a historic term. The current classification system for vasculitis doesn't use the term Necrotizing arteriolitis

    Interested in others input as I am always unsure about historical medical terms and there place on wikipedia. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 06:57, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    My general rule of thumb is that if something is historical but widely known (e.g., hysteria), then it needs a separate article. If it's historical but turned out to be multiple diseases (e.g., Da Costa's syndrome), then it probably needs a separate article (so we can explain in one place, instead of in four or five places). And if it's historical, not widely known, and mostly one thing, then I'd merge and have a paragraph that says something like "OldName differs from NewName in that OldName was..."
    Information about the history of medicine is important. Someone reading a historical novel, or an old memoir, should be able to look up the names of old medical conditions on Wikipedia and find out what they are. Preventing authors from making sloppy mistakes (e.g., saying a WWII soldier got diagnosed with PTSD, even thought that diagnostic label didn't exist then) is also a valuable contribution to the world. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:49, 27 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    Tumor and neoplasm

    edit
    Latest comment: 1 day ago2 comments2 people in discussion

    Tumor redirects to Neoplasm. Should Category:Tumor then also be merged and redirected to Category:Neoplasms? Marcocapelle (talk) 10:23, 27 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    Let's centralize the discussion at the requests at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:41, 27 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    Gender obsessive compulsive disorder

    edit
    Latest comment: 34 minutes ago6 comments4 people in discussion

    This new article, Gender obsessive compulsive disorder, needs thorough checking. Manu of the sources are commercial, the websites of therapists, not neutral scientific sources. Fram (talk) 07:18, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    PMID 35227395 refers to "gender-themed OCD". Other than that, I find only a few case reports. There are a few reviews on "sexual orientation obsessive compulsive disorder" (eg PMID 39326275).
    The article uses none of these. I don't know why the author moved that article out of Draft space, after Fram moved it there for failure to use MEDRS, and suggest it be moved back to draft space. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:40, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    And cut-and-paste copyvio from the first version. (User talk.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:00, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Can't do that, per WP:DRAFTNO. Mathglot (talk) 04:21, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    I remember seeing a source that said it's sometimes difficult to differentiate between gender as a Special interest (autism) and the interested autistic person being trans. This might be a related subject.
    PMID 39326275 tells the story of someone with obsessive thoughts about being trans and compulsively checking whether there was evidence for being trans, but later says "Lastly, to date, there have been no empirical investigations of gender-related OCD, or obsessions centered on one's gender identity (e.g., doubt regarding one's gender identity, fear that one will become transgender, and/or fearing that other people will perceive them to be transgender), even though there is conceptual overlap with SOOCD". So it appears that it's at the anecdote level.
    Sexual orientation obsessive–compulsive disorder cites a PhD thesis that names "gender identity OCD (GI-OCD)". WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:05, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    Pure obsession OCD

    edit

    That mess led to this mess: Primarily obsessional obsessive–compulsive disorder. Best I can tell, it's more commonly referenced as pure obsessional OCD, and I'm not sure it's a thing at all. The Myth of the Pure Obsessional Type in Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:50, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    New editor hitting the lead of numerous articles: assistance requested

    edit
    Latest comment: 5 minutes ago1 comment1 person in discussion

      Courtesy link: User talk:Nediciki § Sourcing, and altering the lead

    A new editor is altering the lead, often the lead sentence, of multiple articles on bio-medical topics, all to their detriment. This editor appears to be editing in good faith, but isn't ready to edit the lead of any article, let alone those of interest to this project. Compounding the problem, is their zeal to "fix" or improve wording based on their imperfect knowledge of English. I have undone their last few edits, and I suspect all of their contributions thus far merit reversion. However, I can't spend 100% of my time there, and some assistance would be appreciated. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 04:50, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    Add topic
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine&oldid=1308386134"