Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine

Edit with VisualEditor

This page has been mentioned by a media organization: Sarah Shamim, Dwayne Oxford (June 14, 2024). "Wikipedia war: Fierce row erupts over Israel's deadly Nuseirat assault". Al Jazeera English. Retrieved June 14, 2024. Wikipedia was able to address the issue of misinformation about the virus spreading on its platform, however, with projects like Wiki Project Medicine, a community of doctors and scientists,working to correct wrong information.

Martha Hughes Cannon 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) 01:23, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for post--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:36, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a consensus that using PCORI is an acceptable WP:MEDRS source? There is a six-year old discussion about using PCORI that was pointed out to me. -Whywhenwhohow (talk) 00:48, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I place PCORI in the same category as CDC or NIH. But I have seen edit wars centered on whether or not an NIH medical dictionary was WP:MEDRS, and the resolution was not(!), so I suppose these sources in whole or in part may not be WP:MEDRS. But if none of their work product is, one starts to get very close to the conclusion that nothing is WP:MEDRS. Jaredroach (talk) 11:08, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One of the challenges with "MEDRS" is that there is the ideal (e.g., a peer-reviewed review article published in a highly reputable journal within the last five years) and then there is the good-enough (you don't need an "ideal" source to say that the common cold is caused by a virus). Even if PCORI isn't "ideal", it might be "good enough", depending on what's being said. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:26, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I think that it is depending on what is being shared from the source and if it is a medical claim or paraphrased background information that fills an important gap in an article.JenOttawa (talk) 22:30, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, a friend at Wikimedia UK suggested it could be wise to post about this here: I have a piece just out in Thinking Person's Guide to Autism, on 'How Wikipedia Systematically Misleads People About Autism'. It describes some of my experiences editing relevant pages here, and argues that Wikipedia's autism coverage is badly out of date. I don't use the term in the article, but effectively Wikipedia's guidelines tend to enshrine a strong status quo bias. One consequence of this is that a biomedical framing of autism is largely taken for granted, despite the attitudes and insights of contemporary autism specialists, not to mention autistic communities.

I understand that similar biases have affected Wikipedia's coverage of marginalised groups across the board, but it seems that to date, there has been far more coordinated and institutional investment in correcting systematic gender bias, LGBT exclusion and racial prejudice.

I bring this up here because my impression is that Wikipedia's main Autism entry has inherited a framing and structure that is ubiquitous in our coverage of diseases and disorders, but which is questionably relevant and arguably unhelpful when it comes to something like autism - with pathophysiology, management, prognosis, epidemiology and so on.

Its physiology is much-studied, but still poorly understood, and many would question the appropriateness of the 'patho-' prefix; 'management' is not really an appropriate way of thinking about a difference that affects someone's entire way of being; 'prognosis' can be summed up in the single word 'lifelong'; 'epidemiology' …I mean, there are some reasonably interesting things to be said about the statistics (variations in which inevitably reflect the limitations of the data more than objective real-world differences) but there are so many other things that are more important.

So I guess I'm posting here partly to just give people a heads-up about the article, and partly to enquire about how attached people are to this general structure… and why?

I note that gender dysphoria is a separate article from transgender, allowing one to focus on the formal, medicalised interpretation of trans experience, while the other is more about being trans. Stuff that non-clinicians are actually likely to want to know, or benefit from knowing. Not sure that's an ideal solution, but it's an interesting one that's been discussed a couple of times in Talk:Autism as well; there are various helpful parallels that are worth considering, I think. Oolong (talk) 18:12, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, all:

We've been working this month on getting at least one source into unreferenced medicine-related articles. There are now less than 100 unsourced articles on the list! A few years ago, that list was over 400 articles. Less than a year ago, it was over 200 articles. We have made really good progress this year. Please take a minute and see if you can add a source to at least one article.

We are doing this now to support the Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced articles/Backlog drives/November 2024 and also because we think that sources are particularly important for anything medicine-related on Wikipedia. The backlog drive has officially resulted in about 7,000 of Wikipedia's unsourced articles getting a new source (i.e., with #NOV24 in the edit summary), plus all the pages that got new references but which weren't tagged.

Please join in and do your bit. We'd really appreciate it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:31, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Spinal disc herniation#Requested move 13 November 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Raladic (talk) 21:26, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:35, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the valvular heart disease article in the section on treatment of Aortic valve disorder, it is said that treatment is normally surgical, with catheter treatment for special cases. I have just been told by a cardiologist that catheter treatment is now preferred for all patients. 38.55.71.51 (talk) 18:59, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Why_MEDRS ?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 02:28, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If someone with the relevant expertise could look at this baffling language in the Fatigue article, that would be wonderful. MartinPoulter (talk) 14:02, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Jaredroach (talk) 15:14, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I noticed that there are no articles on Retinal tuft or Vitreomacular traction syndrome, common eye conditions that can lead to retinal detachments. I have never started an article before and decided to try it out. I would love some help expanding to the level where I can submit it. Suggestions super welcome. I am also curious how much I should expand it before I submit it. Are stubs accepted? If so, can I submit now?

• Draft:Retinal tuft
• Draft:Vitreomacular traction syndrome

Thank you so much! JenOttawa (talk) 14:27, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While I encourage you to write more, both of the articles look acceptable for WP:AFC. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 20:57, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Both of these articles are in the mainspace now. Thank you for your work! WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:27, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone, in an attempt to get Neurocysticercosis to FA status I have begun a WP:Peer review on the topic which can be found at Wikipedia:Peer review/Neurocysticercosis/archive1. Any input is welcomed! IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 22:04, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've created 2024 unknown Democratic Republic of Congo disease outbreak. I hope this isn't premature, but it seemed to me like there was enough to start an article. The name will probably have to change as learn more. Input from others very welcome. Bondegezou (talk) 11:35, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

lab results pending doubtful it's 'unknown'--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:45, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I missed there was already 2024 Kwango province disease outbreak. Will merge. Bondegezou (talk) 12:43, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It's not unusual to get a couple of people simultaneously starting articles on events. The ocean-near-California earthquake yesterday had half a dozen people starting articles that all got merged up. I treat it as proof that someone else also thought the subject was notable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:50, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I recently created a draft for Delay, Deny, Defend (practice), which has recently gotten a lot of press in the aftermath of the Killing of Brian Thompson. There is currently an article for the book Delay, Deny, Defend, but I believe the practice is notable enough for its own article. I'd appreciate any help with sourcing. Thank you, Thriley (talk) 20:22, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

it needs more text and sources...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:06, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Assisted suicide#Requested move 30 November 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Raladic (talk) 05:47, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We at Wiki Project Med Foundation are supporting an illustrator. Do folks here have drawings they wish to see created? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:16, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In 2015, an illustrator made this diagram for us. Perhaps this will spark an idea for someone. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:10, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I came across this article from the list of uncited articles. It has some very very very outdated citations! I looked briefly on pubmed and also did some hand searching on google for anything anywhere near a MEDRS source. I am now out of time and figured I would post it here in case someone else wants to try this challenge! Perhaps there is a more common name for this condition of a distorted pelvis that is being missed? Not sure how they got the incidence quote etc. Happy editing!

Pelvis justo major

JenOttawa (talk) 13:42, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

this is the only thing I found--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:14, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Ozzie10aaaa:. I found a book on amazon that was written from the Wikipedia article. Yikes! https://www.amazon.com.au/Pelvis-Justo-Major-Fernande-Antigone/dp/613793196X Not using this source- ha! JenOttawa (talk) 15:38, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

yes, that happens alot,Ozzie--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:49, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the discussion for anyone interested. Urchincrawler (talk) 16:23, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for post--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:06, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone,

I hope that you are in good spirits. My name is Serine Ben Brahim and I am a part of the Let’s Connect working group - a team of movement contributors/organizers and liaisons for 7 regions : MENA | South Asia | East, South East Asia, Pacific | Sub-Saharan Africa | Central & Eastern Europe | Northern & Western | Latina America.

Wikimedia has 18 projects, and 17 that are solely run by the community, other than the Wikimedia Foundation. We want to hear from sister projects that some of us in the movement are not too familiar with and would like to know more about. We always want to hear from Wikipedia, but we also want to meet and hear from the community members in other sister projects too. We would like to hear your story and learn about the work you and your community do. You can review our past learning clinics here.

We want to invite community members who are:

• Part of an organized group, official or not
• A formally recognized affiliate or not
• An individual who will bring their knowledge back to their community
• An individual who wants to train others in their community on the learnings they received from the learning clinics.

To participate as a sharer and become a member of the Let’s Connect community you can sign up through this registration form.

Once you have registered, if you are interested, you can get to know the team via google meets or zoom to brainstorm an idea for a potential learning clinic about this project or just say hello and meet the team. Please email us at [email protected]. We look forward to hearing from you :)

Many thanks and warm regards,

Let’s Connect Working Group Member

Serine Ben Brahim Serine Ben Brahim (talk) 09:14, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting input on this topic here at WikiProject Pharmacology. Thanks. – AlyInWikiWonderland (talk, contribs) 10:47, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:33, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I started this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Molecular Biology, and it was suggested that I inquire here. Basically, Wikipedia has tens of thousands of articles on individual human genes, many bot-made and maintained with very little human attention. TNIK caught my eye because a happened to read about clinical trials underway for inhibitors thought to be cancer-preventative. As noted in the other discussion, Wikipedia coverage of gene-directed trial therapies ranges from something like USP1 (which currently contains no information on investigative efforts), to CD47 (which is reasonably well-covered in this respect). BD2412 T 20:34, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

added some recent papers, general research--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:04, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you - I will get around to adding some specifics. Cheers! BD2412 T 15:57, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The WHO has released their first-ever Global Report on Drowning Prevention. It has national statistics, risk factors, evidence-based prevention recommendations, and more.

Pbsouthwood, Belbury, Ex nihil, Scriptir EMsmile, would this interest any of you? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:27, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I will take a look. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 02:54, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WikiProject Medicine,

The Lancet has a kind of article called a 'Personal View' that is peer reviewed. It has a lot of the formalities of a review article -- description of search strategy and selection criteria, extensive citations for claims, etc. Does this count as a review, and if not, does it still count as a suitable secondary source for biomedical information? Daphne Morrow (talk) 11:12, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I forgot to add. 'Personal View' articles come up when you search The Lancet for review articles only, so clearly The Lancet's editors consider them as part of the Review category. But does WikiProject Medicine? Daphne Morrow (talk) 11:34, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should be fine for non-contentious knowledge and non-novel claims. Novel personal views may be due and should probably be attributed. Any examples in mind? Bon courage (talk) 11:37, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this.

I was asking in general but here is an example:

Hashimoto’s disease has a widely discussed issue with persistent symptoms in about 10-15% of patients despite euthyroid status. There’s a number of commonly discussed hypotheses for why this might be. An article like this https://www.thelancet.com/journals/landia/article/PIIS2213-8587(22)00004-3/abstract

discusses one of the more common hypotheses, that some patients lack peripheral tissue conversion of t4 into t3. I feel something like this makes for a suitable source in context? Daphne Morrow (talk) 13:03, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that an article like this would be sufficient for paraphrasing a background section of an article, if a higher quality review/textbook etc is not available. In my own editing I would not share the hypotheses of a mechanism responsible for persisting symptoms from a commentary article without higher quality supporting MEDRS sources.JenOttawa (talk) 13:13, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Jen, that makes perfect sense. Daphne Morrow (talk) 13:17, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Zoonotic origins of COVID-19#Requested move 14 December 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 14:24, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The proposal is to move the page Zoonotic origins of COVID-19 → COVID-19 zoonotic origin theory. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:42, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of new SPAs at Talk:PANDAS; more eyes needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:38, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could some people please put this article on their Watchlists? In the last month, only nine registered editors with this on their watchlists have checked this article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:42, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I added it to my watchlist. Is the article itself getting vandalized? If so it might need page protection. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 21:36, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's getting well-intentioned efforts from people who believe the article has the wrong POV. They may not be 100% wrong, so we need good editors here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Correct; and it is a difficult topic complicated by multiple factors. The topic has long been plagued by canvassing that occurs at popular tic-related message boards and online support groups for parents -- a phenomenon mentioned in multiple sources -- so editors who understand policy and guideline as well as medicine have been lacking to keep up with that. Some dated sections need rewriting (not so much for changed content, but to update the citations used that usually say same), but motivation wanes when much educating about policies and guidelines has to be done along the way, along with answering a lot of misinformation or overinterpretation of sources. Summary: more eyes needed, still and always. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:43, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a lay article that provides an overview of the territory:

• https://www.gavi.org/vaccineswork/when-infection-sparks-obsession-pandas-and-pans

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:31, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A good deal of the talk discussion at PANDAS is now about PANS, which was AFD'd 12 years ago (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pediatric acute-onset neuropsychiatric syndrome). Is it time now to create that article? When PANS first came up, it was just another in a string of hypotheses (PANDAS, PITANDs, PANS, CANS); now it seems to be the prevailing one. I'm unsure of the technicalities of overriding that AFD, or even if that's the best course of action; if someone clues me in on how to proceed here, I could stub up the new PANS article. Ajpolino? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:11, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would be reasonable, but step one is going to be finding some good sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:17, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary reviews since the 2012 AFD, at least:

1. PMID 39334578 2024
2. PMID 34197525 2021
3. PMID 33041996 2020
4. PMID 32206586 2020
5. PMID 31111754 2019
6. PMID 30996598 2019
7. PMID 29309797 2018

... at least. So if someone advises on the process for overwriting an AFD'd article, I can separate out the relevant content. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:16, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, I think that just boldly replacing the redirect with a decent article would be fine. It might be convenient to draft it in your sandbox, so you can replace it in a single edit. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:53, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I could do that as soon as I get a free moment; I just wanted to be sure a bold replacement over a previous AFD wouldn't be problematic. I should be able to get to that later today, unless someone tells me doing so is unwise. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:31, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We could take it to Wikipedia:Deletion review if you'd like to avoid any possible risk of a {{db-repost}} complaint. (I could take it there for you, if you'd like.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:19, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am drowning IRL ... maybe we could wait 'til after Christmas? I'm not sure anyone would object to the article being recreated, as I was the only one opining in the past! Whatever you think, I'm just SO out of time ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:09, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:There's no deadline. In the meantime, here's a virtual life preserver: 🛟 WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:06, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we need a second article. A google shows most coverage is on PANS/PANDAS together. If PANDAS is a subset of PANS then what is needed perhaps is to move the existing PANDAS article to PANS and cover PANDAS within that. That allows us to use sources talking about "PANS/PANDAS" together but also sources covering just one where appropriate. -- Colin°^Talk 10:02, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can't think of any reason to oppose that; would like to see more feedback, though. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:57, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re Is the article itself getting vandalized?, another question is whether the talk page is being used appropriately or disruptively? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:36, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If someone has an or two eyes on that - new account promotes findings of a review regarding associations of IQ and fluoridation (what is missing: decrease in IQ points). This review is flawed - Garbage in, garbage out - as it solely relies on the flawed papers from the past. --Julius Senegal (talk) 18:54, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note.

This is a political 'thing' in the US at the moment, so having a decent article will be the best way to prevent well-intentioned but imperfect attempts to improve it. In particular, I think that the claims that have been in the news for the last year should be directly mentioned and addressed. Usually, if we put in something that says "____ was claimed, but this is wrong because..." then that will work, but if we remove it, then people assume that it's accidentally missing, and that we would consider if helpful for someone to add "____ is true!" to the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:45, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That ist true, but the SPA is now even removing all criticism at all. I didn't delete it just moved it.

that is why this is highly flawed and needs attention by more members here. The SPA is just reverting in a nonconstructive way.--Julius Senegal (talk) 22:13, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@The Anome, I see you were editing that page recently. @Doc James semi'd the page indefinitely years ago. What do you think about raising that to WP:EXTCONFIRMED? Or tagging it as part of WP:AP2, since that's what's driving the edit wars? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:18, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Better sooner than later.

You see that also on the discussion page. --Julius Senegal (talk) 17:49, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! While reviewing at AfC, I recently came across several AI-generated medical articles, some of which are still in draftspace and some of which have been accepted and moved to mainspace. These articles do not immediately come across as AI-generated, but when run through Wikipedia GPTzero, they have high AI-generation scores.

• 2-Aminoadipic-2-oxoadipic aciduria
• Alpha-2-plasmin inhibitor deficiency
• Bosma arhinia microphthalmia syndrome
• Bile acid synthesis disorders
• Draft:Colchicine poisoning
• Draft:Al-Kaissi Syndrome

I would really appreciate it someone over here could help go through the articles to ensure accuracy. Thank you! Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 16:42, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Significa liberdade, I looked at Bile acid synthesis disorders. It was created in multiple edits over the space of several hours. All the refs are real. (I know nothing about the subject matter.) Do you have any reason except for the tool to believe that this is LLM content?

I am suspicious of "detector" tools, because they sometimes declare content that I wrote to be generated by an LLM. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:55, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, WhatamIdoing! I ran it through Wikipedia GPTzero. That particular article shows a 99.8% AI-generation score. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 03:01, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Significa liberdade, I ran some of the early revisions through the same tool, and it said human: 0.983, ai: 0.017, and mixed: 0.0. Try putting the version just before your own edits in the tool and see what you get. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:48, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WhatamIdoing: Interesting... I'll have to bring this up to the individual who created the tool. I initially ran the edit before mine through the tool, and it told me 90-100% AI-generated. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 01:15, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Although the tool may be wrong, I do find it telling that when I ask ChatGPT to write a Wikipedia article about Bile acid synthesis disorders, it basically writes the exact article currently published.

Chat's lead reads, "Bile acid synthesis disorders (BASDs) are a group of rare, inherited metabolic conditions caused by defects in the enzymes involved in the production of bile acids. Bile acids are essential for the digestion and absorption of fats and fat-soluble vitamins, as well as for the regulation of cholesterol levels. BASDs can lead to a variety of symptoms, including liver dysfunction, malabsorption, and developmental delays."

Aside from a few slight wording adjustments, this is exactly what is written in the article. The classification section is the same way. The other sections have similar starts. Chat's sections are just about a sentence each, so it's quite possible each section was started and then asked something along the lines of "Could you expand on that"? When I asked GPT to expand on classification, it started adding similar information as to what is in the article. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 01:26, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if it is (now) adapting the Wikipedia article, or if it would have given you the same results before the Wikipedia article was created. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:41, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, Yangqi acupoint has sadly been created by one of my students (sorry). But it also made me suprised - I was going to CSD it but I could not see an applicable criterion? _{Piotrus at Hanyang| reply here} 11:53, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One person's "badly referenced medical content" is another person's WP:TRUTH. I think you did a reasonable thing by moving it to the Draft: namespace. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:23, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the sort of thing that I would think would have a CSD criterion at all. BD2412 T 19:50, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It's not concrete and indisputable enough. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:43, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wikiproject Medicine, seeking a little bit of preliminary input here.

I'm looking at how WP presents information around Thyroxine, Levothyroxine, Levothyroxine Sodium; and Tri-iodothyronine, Liothyronine and Liothyronine Sodium. Thinking a bit about the best way to present the info, because I know how interchangably some of these terms get used even in literature (eg liothyronine used to refer to endogenous tri-iodothyronine, or levothyroxine sodium being commonly referred to as levothyroxine), even though they technically refer to different things.

At the moment:

For T3, there's a page for Liothyronine the drug, and one for Tri-iodothyronine the hormone.

For T4, there's one page called Levothyroxine which is for the drug, and another page called Thyroid Hormones for Thyroxine the hormone (but this page covers both T4 and T3).

For consistency, I'm trying to decide if it would be of benefit to:

A) propose a merger of Tri-iodothyronine into Thyroid Hormones (with the result being three pages -- one for thyroid hormones, one for liothyronine the drug, one for levothyroxine the drug)

B) propose that Thyroxine the hormone gets its own article and the Levothyroxine page becomes more exclusively about the drug (with the result being five pages, one overview of thyroid hormones, one for thyroxine the hormone, one for levothyroxine the drug, one for tri-iodothyronine the hormone, one for liothyronine the drug).

Thoughts? Daphne Morrow (talk) 00:55, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all. I specialize in the field of medicine and wanted to add content to wiki project medicine. However, I am very new to Wikipedia editing. Some hours back, I created a page on Wiki project [User:Neotaruntius/WikiProjectCards/WikiProject Medicine]. But I can't figure out what to do now. Nor can I see my name in participants' full list. Can someone tell me If by mistake I created a wrong page? Or may be suggest me how I can actively participate, if this is the right page. Kindly help. Thanks. Neotaruntius (talk) 13:47, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]