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.

Medical articles with missing sources

I wonder if there's a way to find all (or a subset of) medical article with sources requests. So far I only see a category "All articles with missing sources", and to dig among them alphabetically is worse than looking for the proverbial needle. Victoria (talk) 08:45, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Try this link: https://petscan.wmcloud.org/?language=en&wikidata%5Fsource%5Fsites=&ores%5Fprob%5Fto=&larger=&categories=All%5Farticles%5Flacking%5Fsources&format=&ns%5B0%5D=1&show%5Fredirects=both&templates%5Fno=&show%5Fdisambiguation%5Fpages=both&output%5Fcompatability=catscan&langs%5Flabels%5Fno=&outlinks%5Fno=&depth=0&search%5Fmax%5Fresults=500&max%5Fage=&templates%5Fuse%5Ftalk%5Fyes=on&after=&langs%5Flabels%5Fany=&since%5Frev0=&templates%5Fany=&max%5Fsitelink%5Fcount=&sortby=title&minlinks=&namespace%5Fconversion=keep&sparql=&min%5Fsitelink%5Fcount=&common%5Fwiki=auto&edits%5Banons%5D=both&referrer%5Fname=&labels%5Fno=&ores%5Fprob%5Ffrom=&common%5Fwiki%5Fother=&links%5Fto%5Fno=&active%5Ftab=tab%5Foutput&project=wikipedia&show%5Fsoft%5Fredirects=both&wikidata%5Fitem=no&outlinks%5Fyes=&outlinks%5Fany=&wikidata%5Fprop%5Fitem%5Fuse=&sitelinks%5Fno=&labels%5Fyes=&combination=subset&rxp%5Ffilter=&smaller=&links%5Fto%5Fall=&search%5Fquery=&cb%5Flabels%5Fyes%5Fl=1&interface%5Flanguage=en&manual%5Flist=&doit=Do%20it%21&subpage%5Ffilter=either&ores%5Ftype=any&links%5Fto%5Fany=&labels%5Fany=&templates%5Fyes=WikiProject%5FMedicine&sitelinks%5Fany=&search%5Fwiki=&manual%5Flist%5Fwiki=&source%5Fcombination=&before=&langs%5Flabels%5Fyes=&cb%5Flabels%5Fno%5Fl=1&page%5Fimage=any&sortorder=ascending&wikidata%5Flabel%5Flanguage=&pagepile=&negcats=&edits%5Bflagged%5D=both&ores%5Fprediction=any&maxlinks=&cb%5Flabels%5Fany%5Fl=1&min%5Fredlink%5Fcount=1&output%5Flimit=&edits%5Bbots%5D=both&search%5Ffilter=&wpiu=any&referrer%5Furl=&sitelinks%5Fyes=#num_results

For the "abbreviations" article, see the sources I used in List of medical abbreviations: A#References. The nursing textbook is easier to use (and is visible in Google Books) and has something for almost every letter of the alphabet, but the other book has a much longer list. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:57, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Great, thank you! Victoria (talk) 12:37, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Seems from the answer to

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Unreferenced articles#Suggest medical articles are prioritised

that the guys there would really appreciate your project's help with Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced articles/Backlog drives/August 2026/Participants

As far as I know there are only 20 totally unsourced articles in your project at the moment Chidgk1 (talk) 12:12, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll put them on top of my To Do list. Victoria (talk) 09:54, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Someone has tagged most of the Lists of diseases as needing sources. If anyone wants to help out, then I've been finding that https://rarediseases.info.nih.gov/diseases is a useful source for the red-linked eponyms. (I thought that focusing on the red links would be more important than the others.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:35, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

Peer Review of My Edits to Mycoplasma Pneumonia

Hi all,

I've just made a large change to the treatment section of mycoplasma pneumonia, and would love if some other editors looked it over. I am fairly confident in the claims I've made, but I would appreciate if it got a quick fact checking. Additionally, I'm not sure I correctly followed the style guide. All in, I just want someone else to look it over to double check my work.

Thanks all, -M WestParkNeuropathy (talk) 18:26, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

1. The recommendation about taking into account risk factors looks like a medical advice (an instruction what to do), see WP:NOTGUIDE. And it has no source specified, which is required by WP:MEDRS.
2. As per the MPP abbreviation, I had to search for its explanation by Ctrl+F, I think that the full term is a better choice here for those who are not familiar with this abbreviation.
3. In the description of the corticosteroids treatment practices, the "other studies" phrase doesn't look consistent with the previous sentence.
4. The "Antimicrobial resistance" section is a bit like being out of place. It is not a child section of the Antibiotic treatment section, and it's more about statistics than about treatment.
5. Wikipedia uses the sentence case style for titles, see MOS:SECTIONCAPS.

I didn't do fact-checking, so I cannot say whether your edit has any original research (for example, synthesis of information from multiple sources) or misleading information. D6194c-1cc (talk) 15:25, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello,

Thank you very much for the time to review my work! I appreciate your feedback, and I’ll work to make the revisions to address it.

1. ”Taking into account local resistance rates” was mentioned in both the CDC guide and I believe the UCSF guide I cited, although I can cite them again explicitly. Do you believe that would satisfy the requirements for NOTGUIDE, if I reworked those sentences to say something like “the US CDC/UCSF recommends taking into account relevant risk factors when deciding on an empirical antibiotic strategy?”
2. Good note about the MPP abbreviation. I had added it to the lead, but I was trying to find a balance between clarity and not making it too wordy/clunky, which is something I struggle with in the majority of my scientific writing. I’ll try and rework to improve that.
3. Heard re: corticosteroids and I’ll look that over.
4. Antimicrobial resistance was in a prior version of the article, and in the sandbox I was working in, I didn’t include the entire article. Perhaps antimicrobial resistance is best served by its own section in the article, or perhaps a shared section between this article and the article on the bacteria?
5. Thanks for the note on sentence case. I hadn’t seen that policy yet, as I’m still pretty new

Once again, thank you very much for the time you took to review my changes, it means a lot. I hope you have a good day! WestParkNeuropathy (talk) 16:18, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

1. If a reliable organisation (like WHO) recommends something, it's OK to explicitly mention it, if the information is valuable (like wearing masks during some epidemiological global events), or the recommendation is the official opinion of that organisation on the topic. If it's a common practice, I usually write something like "it is recommended ...", or "it is advised ...", "... makes sense ...", "it is reasonable ...", or "there are recommendations ...", or something like that. These phrases are not imperative at least.
2. Wikipedia doesn't use paper, so we can be a little more wordy, if needed. The main aim is to make the text easy to read for the readers. So commonly known abbreviations are OK (like CDC, WHO), but short disease-specific abbreviations are usually not known to the wide audience (unless it's something like COPD). Abbreviations are really good for long names.
3. Also, I should mention that I'm not a native speaker, and what sounds awkward for me might sound natural for others. But in that case, the first sentence didn't explicitly mention any studies.
4. I don't think that detailed antimicrobial resistance mechanisms should be mentions in the treatment section. But in the context of treatment this section can be a good idea. I'd move some of the information to the paragraph about macrolides, and the details and statistics to the separate high-level section, or to the article about the bacteria (keep in mind, that moving information between the articles needs attribution, i. e. a permanent link to the article where it was taken from in the edit summary, and a note on whether the information was changed or included as is).

D6194c-1cc (talk) 19:45, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

1. Thank you for the sentence framing suggestions, those are exceptionally helpful.
2. Good point.
3. No worries on first language issues. We're all working together
4. Perhaps then a brief overview of antimicrobial resistance within treatment (I think mentioning the lack of cell wall as a reason for resistance is important here, even if the information might be more useful to providers than patients) but moving some of the detail on antimicrobials in a different section? Perhaps a list of effective and ineffective antibiotics, taken from other sources?

WestParkNeuropathy (talk) 19:59, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Something like "... are ineffective because the bacteria lack the cell wall" fits perfectly well in the treatment section. But "in a study in the ... city of ..., ... % of resistant bacteria were found with the mutation in ..., which causes ..." is mostly undue. Also, the source that was used is a primary source for that information (see Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)#Avoid primary sources), I didn't get why this information was included in the article. No review sources on resistance, the first evidence on a mutation in that gene? Usually primary sources are used if no other information on the topic is available, and it is worth mentioning such facts (because they are considered important). D6194c-1cc (talk) 07:33, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

To be clear: I agree with you. I want to move that part elsewhere, and completely rewrite it. I did not originally write that, and it was part of the reason I wanted to rewrite the treatment section. I didn’t remove it because I was afraid that my edits would be reverted if I completely rewrote everything and deleted all of what was originally there. I do really agree with your points here, but would you mind checking the article history to see the earlier versions of the article? WestParkNeuropathy (talk) 16:07, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Did you mean this one: special:diff/1353484613? It lacks medical sources (see WP:BURDEN, WP:MEDRS). And you wikilinked "walking pneumonia" to "Atypical pneumonia". I don't know whether it is a good idea not to use the redirect Walking pneumonia in this case, but I prefer using redirects. In some cases redirects could become articles, or an article might be split. But it's not the case here, as I think. D6194c-1cc (talk) 17:11, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

That was one of the last major versions of the article, yes. I wasn't sure what to do with that information, so I left it hoping somebody else would help me clean it.

Do you mean I'm lacking a medical source in the lead? Because that can be easily remedied with a CDC source I have on hand. Although I had believed the policy was to not cite things in the lead unless they were controversial?

This is approaching the point where the article needs much more background information/groundwork/a larger introduction, before jumping straight into signs and symptoms. I'm also only making edits slowly, because I'm still very new to Wikipedia and this is the first article I'm editing on this scale. So I also wanted to thank you for the help in understanding what to do and how to do it. WestParkNeuropathy (talk) 18:01, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Oh well, WP:BURDEN says that all content must be verifyable, WP:MEDRS says that all biomedical information should be based on reliable sources, and WP:WHENNOTCITE/MOS:LEADCITE allows omitting the sources in the lead section if the facts are covered by sources in the article body.
As for me, it's a vulnerability of the project, that can lead to something like that: simple:special:PermanentLink/10826984. Have you ever seen fish with bean-shaped kidneys? A bird? I don't think so. At least that part is harmless. And it's just one article of many more. Lead sections without any sources specified are vulnerable for original research.
Also, in your case, the information about "walking pneumonia" isn't present in the article's content. So it's not a summary, it's just a fact. D6194c-1cc (talk) 20:11, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Just a reminder that Wikipedia:Glossary#verifiable means that someone able to verify in a source, and the ability to do this does not depend on whether a source is already cited (though obviously that makes it much easier). WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:19, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

It doesn't mean that someone can't remove the uncited information even if he is encouraged to find the sources himself. And then the information should be restored with the sources cited. But this policy can fail really hard: special:diff/1087016373, special:diff/1087021103 (appeared in special:diff/585725386). I had to write a few articles to show that there were false facts in the main definition of that article. D6194c-1cc (talk) 06:31, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I'm just trying to highlight the distinction between what the policy says ("All content must be verifiable") and what the policy doesn't say ("All content must be cited"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:08, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Well, the spirit of the policy is "All content should be cited" (WP:REDUNDANTPOLICY). It's something in the middle. D6194c-1cc (talk) 17:39, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Citing everything really isn't the goal. If we actually meant "all content should be cited", then WP:V would say that. What we chose is to make a "must" statement instead of a "should" statement, and to make the requirement be about being verifiable (←you could find a source if you really tried) instead of being about being cited (←someone has already put a little blue clicky number in the article), and then to separately and additionally require that four types of content be cited. This nuanced decision was a deliberate choice, and it's been maintained through many, many, many discussions, though I do still see some patrollers telling a Lie-to-children version ("You didn't add a source in the exact same edit, so I was required to revert it").

In terms of medical content specifically, nearly everything could be claimed to fall under the "likely to be challenged" requirement. However, I'd suggest to you that it's more important to get the content right than to get the content cited. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:38, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Cited content can be fixed. Uncited content can't be easily checked and fixed if any edits were made to it even if it was correct originally (it sometimes takes hours to find a source). So uncited pieces of text might accumulate original research over time. Anyway, "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing one inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." (a quote from WP:BURDEN) == "should". D6194c-1cc (talk) 05:45, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Uncited content can often be checked very easily. I bet you could check "Smoking cigarettes causes lung cancer" by spending 15 seconds or less with your favorite web search engine, assuming you didn't already know that it's a widely published fact. On the other hand, even with a perfectly formatted full citation, paywalled and offline-only sources are not easily checked. The ease-of-checking idea is not a consideration in WP:V.

Uncited passages have the same risk of accumulating unverifiable content over time as cited ones. I don't know if you do much patrolling, but since the introduction of the little blue clicky numbers (c. 2004), we've had a problem with people inserting content like this: "Original sentence. Newly inserted sentence.^{[Original source]}" or simply changing the content and leaving the old citation in place. The existence of the citation doesn't stop people from screwing up article content. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:18, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

It's the case when people should cite, but they don't. The same problems come with cited edits after the uncited text (I usually use a comment to mark the uncited piece). Or when someone prepends cited text with something uncited. D6194c-1cc (talk) 12:06, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

As for removing some information, a good practice is to specify a reason (in the edit summary) why the information is being removed and a link to a rule you are following (WP:UNDUE, WP:BURDEN, WP:NOR, etc). D6194c-1cc (talk) 17:17, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Talk:Müllerian_agenesis#Image

Passionate discussion, if you have an opinion, please join. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 02:22, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

A common approach in the cases of a possible original research with images is to place the Medical source needed template over the text under the image (if the image was published by an MD, Wikipedia:Volunteer Response Team can be used to check if the image was legally published and diagnosis is established), wait for a few weeks or months, then remove the image via WP:BURDEN.
In the case of child images, legal-reports@wikimedia.org (from ) can be used to report a possible law violation.
Also, it's a good practice to put a note in the discussion that this project was notified. I wrote here to draw the project attention to a problem with unsources images within the project scope. D6194c-1cc (talk) 07:44, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Just for the sake of anyone looking at this years later: No evidence has ever been put forward that the image in question is of a child (and it is very obviously not an image of a pre-pubarche female). AFAICT the arguments generally begin with "I hate this image, so what can I say that will get rid of it? Maybe if I claim that it might be an underage patient, or that it might not have been taken with proper informed consent, they'll take it away." WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:23, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Have gotten created a diagram that in my opinion better illustrates the condition in question and moved the prior image lower in the article. I hope this addresses the controversy in question. If folks have other images they want created feel free to request out or request at MDWIKI:WPM:Requested_images Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:10, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Apomorphine side effects

Hi WikiProject Medicine! I made a post on the apomorphine Talk page that may be of interest to editors here, suggesting updates to the Side effects section to make sure that it is as complete and up to date as it can be. Right now it relies on some from my understanding questionable sourcing and is missing some of the side effects. My update uses higher level reviews and completes the side effects list. I would make the changes myself but have a COI and so need volunteer review first. I would love your thoughts! Lexi at Supernus (talk) 14:03, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

thank you for post--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:09, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

HPV vaccination in Japan — GA reviewer needed

Hi all, following up from April — citations fully reverified, AI tag removed, and the article's been renominated for GA since 15 June but hasn't picked up a reviewer. Also curious what parts of the Japan-specific context (e.g. "proactive recommendation," municipal roles under the Immunization Act) read as confusing to non-Japan-familiar readers. Any review or pointers appreciated. Thanks!~~~~ 流山隆一 (talk) 06:31, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

I read the lead section. I started not from the beginning and for a while was trying to figure out what "suspension period" meant. Maybe something like "period of suspended vaccination" would sound better?
The phrase "is projected to result" sounds a bit awkward to me. "Is associated with" or "presumably resulted in"?
And about the start of the lead section. How about telling who regulates vaccination and what its aims are in the first sentence? Next, target population can be mentioned. D6194c-1cc (talk) 08:10, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment！I've revised the wording accordingly.~~~~ 流山隆一 (talk) 18:43, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

The first paragraph of the lead section is still too wordy and has a lot of unnecessary information and details. I had to read it twice to find cervical cancer in it. Also, specifying "in girls" would be fine, too. Please, read Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section carefully. D6194c-1cc (talk) 19:41, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you very much for taking the time to read the article again and for your helpful comments.

I have revised the lead section to make it shorter and more focused. I removed unnecessary details and clarified the subject by explicitly stating the relevance to females where appropriate.I have also reviewed the Wikipedia style guidelines for lead sections and will continue making efforts to improve the article in accordance with them.

Thank you again for your valuable feedback, which has helped improve the readability and accessibility of the article.~~~~ 流山隆一 (talk) 01:38, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

I didn't read the whole article, but some of the flaws are very noticeable. And in fact, you didn't follow my recommendations. When a reader looks at the first paragraph, he wants to know basic facts about the vaccination in Japan. He doesn't want to know at which date it started or when it was suspended. Mentioning that catch-up vaccination is available is fine, but specifying when the catch-up vaccination was introduced is excess. It's just history. I usually describe the history somewhere at the last paragraph of the lead section if it is important enough. D6194c-1cc (talk) 07:26, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

The point about presenting the current vaccination programme before the historical background is understood. I have revised the lead section accordingly by moving the basic information about the current HPV vaccination system, target population, schedule, and administration method to the beginning.

The historical development, including the suspension of proactive recommendations and the subsequent recovery, remains in the article because it is an important part of understanding Japan's HPV vaccination policy and the current vaccination coverage. However, I have moved it away from the initial explanation so that readers can first understand the present vaccination programme.流山隆一 (talk) 14:57, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

What about some basic information about cancer statistics, death rates and vaccine coverage in the second paragraph of the lead section? () And male vaccination can be briefly mentioned there too (how it could help and why it is not done).
Also, the background section should come right after the lead section.
As for the suspension period, consider creating a separate article about this period. It's a good practice to have a section about a subtopic with a link to an article about the subtopic. So that the topic would be decomposed into smaller but more concise parts. Such strategy helps to prevent what programmers used to call the "spaghetti code". I wonder whether there is an analogous term for text. D6194c-1cc (talk) 16:26, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestions. Doc James has recently streamlined the lead to make it more concise and focused, so I do not think it would be appropriate to expand it further at this stage.

The paper you suggested was very interesting, and I have used it as a reference while expanding the section on male HPV vaccination within the vaccination programme.

Regarding cervical cancer statistics, I decided to keep the detailed epidemiological information in the Background section rather than moving it into the lead, as it is already discussed there.

Regarding the history section, I understand your suggestion. For the time being, however, I have decided to keep the current structure because I think it helps readers understand the overall development of Japan's HPV vaccination policy.~~~~ 流山隆一 (talk) 18:41, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

The lead section is the summary of the article. Background is like an introduction. It is usually more detailed (think of them like of an abstract and introduction). This article is about vaccination, so the paragraph I suggested helps readers to understand why this topic is important. Also, the transmission route can be mentioned there. I suggested to mention male vaccination because male vaccination can indirectly reduce transmission (besides the fact that it protects males too). D6194c-1cc (talk) 18:53, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Also, I think that the vaccine coverage map can be moved upper, and the timeline can be moved to the appropriate section. The timeline is mostly not representative, since it just shows that there was a big gap between the vaccination periods. D6194c-1cc (talk) 19:08, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Oh, and those images should be smaller. On my screen they take half of the article's width. D6194c-1cc (talk) 19:09, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that the image size could be adjusted, but I've updated it accordingly.~~~~ 流山隆一 (talk) 03:17, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

As for the history, you have a history section that describes the suspension period, the Impact and consequences section, the Ministry directive restricting individual notification section, the Responses by local governments section. And a lot of other section are related in one or another way to the suspension period. The history and the information about the suspension period are mixed up across the article. Looking through the article, it creates an impression that it is a way to convey a message to the reader about how bad this suspension was rather than describing the current state of affairs. I don't see any clear sections structure in the article. D6194c-1cc (talk) 19:33, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed feedback — I've expanded the lead and reordered the sections accordingly, moving current status and international comparison ahead of the historical narrative, and separating out the media-related content and male vaccination into their own sections. Appreciate you taking the time to look at this. ~~~~ 流山隆一 (talk) 09:40, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Currently, the first sentence is more about HPV vaccination rather than about HPV vaccination in Japan. As I said before, according to MOS:FIRST, it should encompass what it is, where it is done and who regulates it.
This week I don't have much time for the review process, and the results look like "fixed here and broke there", so I'm going to withdraw this review process (it wasn't a GA review, but a review to make the article able to be nominated). I think that article is far away from the GA nomination. I still recommend you to move the information about the suspension period into a separate article with a separate section describing it (for example, the "Public communication and media" and "Impact and consequences" sections are mostly about this period rather than the vaccination itself). I think that a small-to-medium concise article would be much better than a big article with a lot of excess information that is hard to navigate and understand. For example, the Catch-up program section has some information that seems to be belonging to the International comparison section. The Vaccination programme section, surprisingly, describes side effects of the vaccines. International comparison, as I think, should be named more like "Comparison with other countries". I don't get what the Scientific evidence and controversy section is about by looking at its title (efficiency of the vaccination program?). And even by using Ctrl+F I can't find any information about paid vaccination. And I have doubts about the topic title: "HPV vaccination in Japan" vs "HPV vaccination program in Japan". It's the question of the weight of the information in the article and of the possibility of having two different articles about the subject (if both are notable). I'd suggest to check this possibility. D6194c-1cc (talk) 10:56, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

I think there is a fundamental issue about the scope of the article that needs to be clarified before deciding that the historical material should be moved to a separate article.

I do not agree with the assumption that the context of HPV vaccination in Japan is primarily the current vaccination programme rather than the history of HPV vaccination in Japan. As WhatamIdoing pointed out, what is the basis for that interpretation? Is it simply an inference from the article title?

The suspension of active recommendation from 2013 to 2021 is not an incidental historical episode. It is arguably the most distinctive and internationally relevant part of Japan's experience with HPV vaccination, and it explains both the exceptionally low uptake during that period and the subsequent efforts to restore vaccination coverage. Removing most of this material from the article would, in my view, make the Japanese case much harder to understand.

I have already raised the question of the appropriate scope and title on the talk page and asked whether HPV vaccination in Japan or another title would best represent the subject, whether the decline and recovery of uptake should be a major focus, and whether there are comparable country-specific vaccination articles that could serve as models. So far, I have not received an answer to those questions.

I am therefore not convinced that splitting off the suspension period is the appropriate solution. I am willing to reorganize and reduce material where it is genuinely redundant or misplaced, and I agree that some of the section structure needs work. But that is different from changing the fundamental scope of the article.

As for the GA assessment, I understand that this was not a GA review. However, I disagree with the characterization that the article is “far away from the GA nomination.” I subsequently read all 23 articles listed under History of medicine in order to better understand the level expected of GA articles. Some are excellent, particularly the pandemic-related articles, but several also have substantial issues that I have pointed out on their talk pages. I do not think this article is obviously inferior to that group.

My aim is not GA for its own sake. I want the article to be reliable and widely read, and DYK is actually a more immediate goal for me. GA would be useful as an indication that the article has reached a high editorial standard, but it is not a prerequisite for the work I am doing.

For that reason, I would prefer to resolve the question of scope and title first, rather than treating the historical material as excess information that should automatically be moved elsewhere.~~~~ 流山隆一 (talk) 19:04, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

As I see, significant part of the article is about vaccination suspension. I think that it's better to split the article, so that the information related to this period would be described in another article. D6194c-1cc (talk) 10:32, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

The suspension period is a major part of Japan's HPV vaccination history and is discussed in detail because it explains the country's unusually low vaccination coverage compared with other high-income countries.The issue of the suspension is precisely the major topic regarding Japan's HPV vaccine policy, and I believe that is the reason this article exists.~~~~ 流山隆一 (talk) 20:19, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

The article's context is about the vaccination itself, not mainly about its history. So it should cover such questions as target populations, vaccination rates, how it is regulated by the law, how people usually get vaccinated (going to a hospital, for example), what would be if they don't get their vaccine shots in time, what vaccines are available, basic successes or failures of the vaccination program, maybe some comparison with the other countries if available (differences or common features), some history, etc. I think, you need a plan first, then you can rearrange the article's content according to this plan. D6194c-1cc (talk) 07:40, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice. I'll give it a try. 流山隆一 (talk) 22:23, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

I wonder what makes you believe that "The article's context is about the vaccination itself, not mainly about its history". Is that just an inference from the article title? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:30, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

I don't see any information about the schedule itself. What ages are the doses administered at? What vaccines are approved for usage? What if someone missed the required age? In my country, for example, a pediatrician have to write an individual plan if no vaccination was made in time (I'm talking about the vaccination in general in my country, not about HPV). In other cases, the vaccination should be continued per the schedule without administering the skipped dose. D6194c-1cc (talk) 11:52, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestions. I've added a brief note to the lead explaining that three HPV vaccines have been approved for use in Japan and that, since 2025, Gardasil 9 has been the only vaccine in routine use.

The routine vaccination schedule and target age are already described in the lead: routine vaccination targets girls aged 12–16 years, with two doses for those aged 14 years and under and three doses for those aged 15 years and older. 流山隆一 (talk) 18:47, 25 July 2026 (UTC)流山隆一 (talk) 18:56, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

In Japan, there is an obligation to make a reasonable effort to receive all routine vaccinations; however, they are not mandatory. Concerns regarding the HPV vaccine, in particular, led many people to forgo it, prompting the government to implement a "catch-up" vaccination program that ran until March 2026. For the Gardasil 9 vaccine, a two-dose series is administered to individuals up to age 14, with an interval of at least five months between the first and second doses. For those aged 15 to 16, a three-dose series is required: the second dose is given two months after the first, and the third dose six months after the first. Vaccinations outside of the routine schedule can be received at one's own expense following consultation with a physician.~~~~ 流山隆一 (talk) 19:24, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Well, that's the information I asked for. D6194c-1cc (talk) 19:32, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

I think that some information about whether the vaccination is free (as I understand, it is) and how it is being done (in schools, kindergartens, or in a hospital) should be present in the lead section. D6194c-1cc (talk) 12:10, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

@D6194c-1cc　It was a matter of course to me, so I hadn't realized it. Thank you for pointing it out. Children receive their vaccinations individually at hospitals, free of charge. I have added this information.流山隆一 (talk) 19:14, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

The International comparison section seems to describe a lot of unnecessary details about other countries. It should be more about Japan, and less about other countries, as I think. I'd just say that in some countries vaccination rates reach 60-90% of coverage, while in Japan <...>. D6194c-1cc (talk) 12:20, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestion. I've trimmed the section to keep the focus on Japan while retaining the international context needed to explain how Japan's experience differed from that of other high-income countries.~~~~ 流山隆一 (talk) 19:48, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Simplified and linked the lead a bit. Also organized the final three paragraphs to cover the situation in chronological order, as all three pertain to the history of the campaign. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:04, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your edits. I appreciate your help in improving the lead section and reorganizing the historical background.~~~~ 流山隆一 (talk) 15:57, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

I have tried to address the comments so far, but I have realized that my main challenge may be understanding the appropriate scope and title of this article on English Wikipedia.

The article was moved from HPV vaccine in Japan to HPV vaccination in Japan. However, I am wondering whether the current title accurately reflects the aspect of the Japanese case that may be most relevant to readers worldwide.

Japan’s experience is often discussed in relation to the decline in HPV vaccine uptake following the suspension of active recommendation, and the subsequent policy efforts to restore vaccination coverage. I wonder whether this policy history should be considered a central aspect of an article about HPV vaccination in Japan, rather than only a historical section within an article focused on the current programme.

Could editors familiar with WikiProject Medicine or the GA process advise what scope and title would best represent this topic?

In particular, I would appreciate views on:

• whether HPV vaccination in Japan is an appropriate title for an article covering this policy history;
• whether the decline and recovery of vaccination uptake should be a major focus or a secondary historical section;
• whether similar country-specific vaccination articles could serve as useful models.

Concrete examples or suggestions would help clarify the most appropriate direction for the article. 流山隆一 (talk) 14:25, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Body weight

Is it really appropriate for Body weight to redirect to Human body weight? Wouldn't it make more sense to have a broader article at "body weight" covering the concept across all animals, with "human body weight" as the main article for the human-specific aspects? "Body weight" is a generic scientific term and is not inherently restricted to humans. ~2026-41659-08 (talk) 00:42, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

An article about animal body weight can be written: . So that redirect can be transformed to a disambiguation page to these articles: Human body weight, Animal body weight, Weight (physics uses body weight as a term too). D6194c-1cc (talk) 09:40, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Jeanna Giese

Would it be possible to have feedback at Template:Did you know nominations/Jeanna Giese regarding the use of POPMED sources at Jeanna Giese? As I discussed at Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Jeanna_Giese_(nom), I have concerns about the reliance on Scientific American for general information on rabies. Thanks in advance. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 21:13, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

I tried to check the fact about flu-like symptoms (it's more correct to say this way rather than flu symptoms), but found another description: . The symptoms mentioned in that article don't look like similar to flu symptoms. As I understand, that article is about her. D6194c-1cc (talk) 08:49, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

I found a review () about this book: . Monica Murphy, one of the two authors, is a veterinarian. I think that source can be used as a more reliable source. Any thoughts? D6194c-1cc (talk) 10:13, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

To be clear, I'm talking about facts about Jeanna Giese and terminology used in the source. D6194c-1cc (talk) 15:36, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Where do Seminars fall within WP:MEDASSESS

Often when I am researching very popular topics I will stumble upon articles that are labelled as a "Seminar", such as this article from the Lancet on cataracts. Pubmed lists it as a review but I couldn't find any recent discussions on where Seminars stand in the hierarchy of sources. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 21:27, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Normally when you see the term seminar, it would basically be like it was a lecture presentation and generally wouldn't be considered a reliable source, especially as something self-published. This doesn't look to be the case though and seems to just be a poor name choice. If you go to https://www.thelancet.com/what-we-publish, they detail Seminar articles at Disease-oriented clinically focused overviews for the generalist, covering epidemiology, pathophysiology, diagnosis, management, and prevention.

I'd say not as strong of a source compared to full reviews, but likely decent for generalist medical information? Something controversial in a seminar article likely wouldn't be as WP:DUE as higher tier sources at least, but it would appear to at least be a type of secondary source. KoA (talk) 23:39, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Here are explanations on the content types in The Lancet: . They are all been peer-reviewed. Consider "Seminar" as a type of review oriented to clinicians in this particular case. D6194c-1cc (talk) 05:06, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, the view i’m getting here is that it shouldn’t be used for controversial info and to favour meta-analysis and systemic reviews over them but that they are okay for basic information on the disease. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 06:02, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

I think that in cases of the Lancet, there shouldn't be any controversial information in seminar articles, since they are clinician-oriented and peer-reviewed, unless that information is explicitly discussed as controversial. So it's more about the weight of that information rather than about the reliability of the source. D6194c-1cc (talk) 08:21, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

covid 19

• interesting read--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:18, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Disc herniation missing a lot of sources

Hello,

I guess you guys are pretty busy doing your great work. But as 'slipped disks' are so common is there any chance someone who knows something about this could add more cites where the article was tagged in so many places more than a year ago? Chidgk1 (talk) 11:53, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Schizophrenia under fourth FA review

I have nominated Schizophrenia for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria, or help improve the article. 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 regard to the article's featured status (see review instructions). George Ho (talk) 07:33, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Problematic editors at Baggio–Yoshinari syndrome

I found some very badly written text in this article yesterday, and made some significant edits to the article to improve the quality of the prose. Looking into the history, I found that all of the poor quality text had been added by an account registered only four days ago. That account marks most of its edits as minor, leaves very few edit summaries, and has not responded to talk page messages.

After I had edited the article, the account reverted repeatedly to restore low quality content, making no attempt to justify their actions. Then, another account, registered just yesterday, with the same behavioural hallmarks, also began to revert my edits.

I have now reverted the article to before this disruptive account and its sockpuppet appeared. Some of what they added may have had merit. But given the disruptive editing and sockpuppetry, I consider the content added to be inherently suspect. Eyes on the article from anyone with relevant knowledge would be appreciated. ~2026-42770-84 (talk) 21:35, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

More sockpuppets have appeared in the form of temporary accounts. The sock master is repeatedly reverting to add extremely badly written text, which violates many content policies. This really needs some attention. ~2026-42770-84 (talk) 22:09, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Can you give me an example of this "extremely badly written text, which violates many content policies"? I see you edit-warring cited content out, but I don't understand why you think that sentences such as "Articular manifestations are found in around 40% of patients typically involving large joints such as the knee, presenting with considerable joint effusion" are "extremely badly written". WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:28, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Why did you highlight that particular sentence? It is fairly incomprehensible (what are "articular manifestations"? what is "joint effusion"?) but at least grammatically correct and so far from the worst content that the sockpuppets have been adding. Did you notice, for example, that the very first sentence of the article before I began to edit it was the following:

There isn't an universally agreed classification of all of the diverse presentations of the disease, however, it was recently proposed by Yoshinari et al. that the condition features 6 distinct disease expressions

I count five specific writing errors in that one single sentence. Relevant guidelines: MOS:N'T, MOS:RECENTLY, MOS:HOWEVER, MOS:SPELL09. Don't think there is a guideline describing when to use "an" rather than "a"; that's such a basic thing that it would be absurd to have one.

Or how about the sentence that I first noticed (as I was searching for occurrences of "unfortunately")

Unfortunately, treatment of BYS is frequently unsatisfactory, however, relapsing episodes should still be treated, as it was proven to shorten the duration of the episode

Here we have the violation of WP:NPOV, another failure to use "however" correctly, and the unclear referent of "it" in "it was proven.

As a final example, there was the following:

For the early disseminated stage, the treatment consists of doxycycline 100 mg BID, amoxicillin 500 mg 8/8h, azithromycin 500 mg once a day, or cefuroxime 500 mg BID. Independent of the choice, antibiotic treatment should be employed for a month

Relevant guidelines and policies here: WP:NOTGUIDE, WP:MEDMOS ("Do not include dose, titration or pricing information... instructions, advice (medical or otherwise) or "how-to"s"), WP:ACRO.

Like I have said, some of the content added may be of value. I ended up removing all of it because of the obvious sockpuppetry. I hardly think it's wise to trust a brand new account that is adding huge quantities of poorly written unencyclopaedic text; the additions would have needed major editing and significant checking anyway. But when a sockpuppet appears two days later to force poor quality text that had been improved right back into the article, that confirms to me that a full revert is necessary. ~2026-42770-84 (talk) 05:34, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

None of those problems are actually revert-worthy, though the dose information needs to be removed (the drug names and duration may be kept). This is not what "extremely badly written text" looks like. Instead, this is what normal, non-AI-generated English text from a university graduate looks like. Because this is a collaborative encyclopedia instead of a get-it-perfect-on-the-first-try-or-else encyclopedia, what's needed is for those (few) of us who know how to wield a semicolon properly to do so.

You may wish to have a look at Dunning–Kruger effect, and specifically reflect on how people at the top end of the ability range (e.g., you) often think that their skills – whether those skills be for punctuation or brain surgery – are common and ordinary, and thus are surprised that actual ordinary people do so much worse. You may have heard something like "The problem isn't that half the people are below average; the problem is that the average is so low". This is, in my experience, very true for questions of grammar and punctuation.

Your accusation of Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry is unproven, and we've no rule against new accounts adding a lot of information. In fact, when they know what they're talking about and are citing decent sources, it's something we want to encourage as much as we can. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:50, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

• The examples I provided are nowhere near the level of a university graduate. You think five glaring errors in one sentence is not extremely badly written? That is quite extraordinary.
• The edits were not revert-worthy in and of themselves, and as you surely know perfectly well, I did not initially revert them. I corrected the most glaring errors, and then tagged the article as needing cleanup. Only when a sockpuppet appeared to remove the cleanup tag and then restore all the errors did I judge that fully reverting was better.
• The editors were confirmed to be sockpuppets and blocked 22 hours before you falsely claimed otherwise.
• As a result of your friendly attitude to sockpuppets and hostile attitude to me, I'll be less likely to do anything about sockpuppetry next time I encounter it. ~2026-43735-85 (talk) 09:53, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

  • Most of what you called "glaring errors" aren't actually grammatical errors. For example, MOS:N'T, MOS:RECENTLY, and MOS:SPELL09 are all local stylistic choices. Making the opposite stylistic choice doesn't mean that it's badly written. The "an university" is outdated. It appears, e.g., in the title of William Bryson's 1809 "An University Prize Poem" but has been non-standard for a very long time. However, it can also be the sign of a non-native English speaker.
  • I apologize for not noticing that someone blocked the accounts in between my first reply to you and my second. In the future, if you are concerned about sockpuppetry, you should report it at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations.

  WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:16, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Lucas Kolinski Cezar and Freedlhama, welcome to the English Wikipedia. Do you have any idea what prompted this complaint? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:31, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

I've filed a request for page protection, in the hopes of encouraging folks to work toward consensus on the talk page instead of edit warring: Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Increase#Baggio–Yoshinari syndrome. The article would benefit from collaborative work toward expansion. Dreamyshade (talk) 23:48, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Draft:Orthomolecular Nutritional Medicine

Looking for advice on this draft, for a lot of reasons. The seemingly closely related orthomolecular medicine is alternative medicine (per that article). Is this draft basically a duplicate of that article? Is it notable, but with a lot of tone issues? Not worth having at all? Something else? Feel free to review the draft if you have AfC perms, or let me know and I can mark accordingly. Thanks. LittlePuppers (talk) 22:29, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

They're the same thing, according to industry/advocacy sources such as and .

Also, GPTZero believes that it's mixed human–AI, and almost none of the sources mention the subject of the article. It's like having a children's cancer charity say that it deserves a Wikipedia article about their organization, because lots of sources have been written about "children" and "cancer". I suggest a WP:Blank and redirect. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:42, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll decline the draft and use that mainspace title as a redirect. LittlePuppers (talk) 00:00, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Arthrosamid

Do we have an article to which (tradename) Arthrosamid could redirect, or do we need one? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:30, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

I don't think we have such an article, and we do need one. Injectable polyacrylamide hydrogel? Injectable polyacrylamide hydrogel implant? Just Polyacrylamide hydrogel? We have an article on Polyacrylamide. We also have one on Aquamid (trade name for a similar injectable substance). Some approved treatments are brand-specific (e.g., most vaccines) and so properly belong under the brand name instead of the generic. I don't know if that is true for Arthrosamid. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:57, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

How about Injectable filler, or the Medical uses subsection therein? Little pob (talk) 14:30, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Crown (anatomy)#Requested move 10 August 2026

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Crown (anatomy)#Requested move 10 August 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ~2026-44129-32 (talk) 17:36, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Ear deformities

See Talk:Pointy_ears#Ear_deformities. We have decently referenced few sentences that might be useful for a stub or such, off topic content is being pruned from an article about cultural/fictional concept, following a recent AFD. Maybe someone here would like to stub+ it? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:08, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

It's currently a redirect to Otology but Ear diseasesEar diseases may be a better target—as the title would afford itself to a broad concept article. This also keeps ear deformity/ies for future use, if needed, such as for a spin off article. Little pob (talk) 14:28, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Wiki-links for differential diagnosis/therapies question

I'm a (very) new editor and working the clean up list. Currently I'm adding wiki-links to orbital rhabdomyosarcoma. Adding links was suggested and I'm doing so, but how do you wikilink lists of differentials such as:

"These include orbital cellulitis, inflammatory orbital pseudotumor, lymphangioma, neuroblastoma metastasis, Langerhans cell histiocytosis, and other small round blue cell tumors of childhood such as Ewing sarcoma and lymphoma"

I had read that you shouldn't link words next to each other for accessibility, so I left those conditions unlinked.

I have the same question regarding therapy lists such as:

"Multi-agent chemotherapy regimens developed through cooperative group trials, most commonly variations of vincristine, actinomycin D, and cyclophosphamide (VAC), or vincristine, actinomycin D, and ifosfamide (IVA), form the backbone of systemic treatment, as with rhabdomyosarcoma at other sites"

As an aside, I'm a retired cardiologist so I could read the article, but I believe it may be at a too high technical/reading level for general readers.

Thanks! Queque4000 (talk) 09:21, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

We call having one link after another a WP:SEAOFBLUE. The usual interpretation is that even tiny punctuation character is enough to interrupt. Therefore, you can link lists such as "alpha, beta, and gamma". The main thing to be concerned about is "alpha beta gamma", because there isn't even a little comma to suggest whether that's one, two, or three links.

That said, it's sometimes possible to reduce some of this through copyediting. Consider, e.g., "In addition to [one or two of the more common or previously mentioned things], there are also inflammatory conditions such as A and B, and other tumors such as A, B, and C." WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:41, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! Queque4000 (talk) 22:59, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Interest in a MEDRS edit check?

We now have the ability to create our own WP:edit checks. New editors usually meet quite a disappointing start when editing medical articles. They often add primary sources and are reverted rapidly due to the diligent work of reviewers. Reverts are unfortunately quite impactful on new editors, who might not know better.

The edit checks we can create are still somewhat limited, that is, we can write text that is shown shown for everyone who writes certain phrases like "laboratory mice", "phase I clinical trial", but the software doesn't allow us to match text in the source title yet. E.g. we can have something shown for this diff, but only because the person included enough details to identify this as a primary source.

In contrast to edit filters, we cannot do a period of testing either iirc, where hits are logged but nothing is shown to users yet.

Would people be open to having a MEDRS edit check? If people are, would it be worth opening a phab to ask for the development of text matching in titles of sources? I've not done a proper search, but I imagine we might be able to catch 15% of improper additions in the current set-up, and maybe 25% once source TextMatch is a thing.

Pinging Zefr and MrOllie as two of our key patrollers.

Potential keywords that could be matched:

• dose-finding trial
• dose-escalation trial
• mouse model
• murine model
• rat model
• open-label study
• single-blind

In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 12:37, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Does the match allow regex? If so, then picking up recruiting and clinical trial within the same line might be helpful.

My main concern is writing an accurate message. "Analysts say that the startup's Round B funding is dependent upon recruiting enough participants for the upcoming first-in-human clinical trial", cited to an ordinary newspaper or magazine article, is fine. "The company is recruiting participants for a clinical trial" is not so fine, but not necessarily a MEDRS violation. And "The Phase 1 dose-ranging clinical trial proved that the drug safely and effectively cures cancer" needs to be killed with fire, but it's only a MEDRS violation if the source is the original report about the Phase 1 trial, and not a later review that mentions it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:40, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Regex is allowed, we can do a couple of direct text matches and regex matches. My suggestion is that we focus the search terms on the very early stage research. A phase III clinical trial is mentioned often in reviews, and can even be MEDRS under certain circumstances when cited directly. Whereas stage I or preclinical stuff is rarely ready for mentioning. I imagine the false positive rate can be relatively low for those earlier stage bits of research. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 16:59, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

I've made a first attempt at creating this: MediaWiki:Editcheck-config-textmatch-medrs.json. Feel free to add terms and remove ones that might get us false positives. Once we're happy, we can set this to experimental and test it out with some TAs / low-editcount socks. If we're happy it works, I'll enable for new editors. I looked at the last 18 edits Zefr reverted using MEDRS in the edit summary, and this one would have caught 2 of them, with 2 or 3 more caught if we had the ability to textmatch in source titles.

The text is now:

"This phrase might indicate you are using a primary source to make claim about biomedical information. Note that medical claims require recent secondary sources." In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 17:42, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

I've enabled it for testing. When you edit an article in VE, you can add &ecenable=experimental to the url, type in any of the words (like preclinical) from this check and the check appears. Hooray. I'll be going on holiday now, so hope on more feedback before I'm back.

1. What mode do we want to enable (currently it's dismiss, but we can also give users a one-click option to revert their additions)
2. Is the current selection of words good. Anything missing? Anything at risk of a false positive?
3. What should the text say? I've now changed it to "This phrase might indicate you are using a primary source to make a medical claim. To ensure high-quality sourcing, please use a recent secondary sources such as review articles for medical information"

In reviewing Zefr's MEDRS reversions, I noticed a different category of edits are reverted: those citing unreliable journals. Opinions differ on what sources are unreliable, and which are in the grey area, but Zefr, if there are journals that are squarely in the 'unreliable' bucket, we can have these added to a list for a different edit check. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 08:08, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

There are a lot of sources "squarely in the 'unreliable' bucket", but the Frontiers (journal series) and MDPI aren't some of them per Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Journals cited by Wikipedia/Questionable1.

Similarly, you will occasionally see an editor claim that a journal is unreliable because it's not indexed in MEDLINE. However, MEDRS doesn't require MEDLINE indexing. MEDLINE only indexes ~5200 journals, skewed towards US and English-language publications. MEDLINE is meant to be somewhat representative, and although it is a good indicator of better journals, it has also included some amazingly bad journals over the years (e.g., Medical Hypotheses during its AIDS denialism phase) and – importantly for our purposes – excludes some very good ones, often simply due to geography or language. For example, Breathe (journal) is not MEDLINE indexed. It's ranked in the top quarter and is an acceptable MEDRS-quality journal. It's probably not indexed because it's published by the European Respiratory Society, and MEDLINE discriminates against non-US journals.

BTW, if ~5200 journals sounds like a lot, then note that Elsevier alone publishes half that many journals. Popular estimates say that there are 20,000–30,000 science journals and about twice that if you include non-science journals (which would be relevant because of e.g., Medical humanities). Requiring all journals to be MEDLINE indexed would mean rejecting about three-quarters of science journals. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:50, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Mania

I have been finding room for improvement over at mania. I saw this edit, which raises several concerns in my mind, particularly with what has changed at the beginning of the "Prophylaxis following acute treatment" subsection. It sounds like we went from "this is what we know" to "sources differ" to become a WP:COATRACK? It's as if we left facts to a reach for a "Teach the Controversy" vibe? The "sources differ" sentence is vacuous instead of instructive. Also, how do we structure the article to prevent unnecessarily duplication of bipolar disorder content? Thoughts? Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) 13:07, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Now we have an edit adding content about schizophrenia in an article about mania?! Biosthmors (talk) 02:19, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

That looks like it needs a lot of work. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:14, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

This edit is very concerning. Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 16:53, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Sophrology article

I just encountered sophrology, and it looks in a dire state. It is above my paygrade, and I am not really in position to help with this, but it might be in need of WP:TNT. Opinions might differ about this, but I figured I would flag it here in any case. Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 16:50, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Dan Riskin#Requested move 12 August 2026

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Dan Riskin#Requested move 12 August 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 18:40, 26 August 2026 (UTC)