Talk:Preterm birth
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Preterm birth article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 12 months  |
 | A fact from Preterm birth appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 24 December 2004. The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
 | This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Preterm birth.
|
Wiki Education assignment: Psychology of the Family
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 18 January 2023 and 4 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ousooners23 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Jordan.steck15.
— Assignment last updated by Gishubtr (talk) 22:01, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
Template:Update inline
According to the introduction, from 1990 to 2015, pre-term birth deaths fell by nearly 50%. In the eight years since then, it's possible that they've fallen significantly more. As a result, the penultimate introduction sentence (rates of survival per week), which reports data from 2016, may be out of date — if deaths continue to fall, chances of survival per week will necessarily change, so we need something newer. Even if the statistics haven't changed, we ought to use a much newer source to say this. Nyttend (talk) 03:29, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
WP:IDONTLIKEIT
Regarding this removal of cited content by Avatar317, no, historical misunderstandings by leading representatives of the cultural traditions of ~40% of the human population are relevant. If there are other articles with similarly relevant content, you should be leaving those alone too. (That said, yeah, of course WP:FRINGE ideas shouldn't be given WP:UNDUE—or sometimes any—mention. This ain't that, though.)
Also, of course, that's just my opinion and you're welcome to do a WP:RFC to see if more editors agree with your take on this particular one. — LlywelynII 20:30, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
- It is UNDUE. My edit summary summarizes my point: "there have been lots of misconceptions regarding every topic in medicine" - there is no reason to list every fringe or idiotic idea humans have had about any topic. ---Avatar317(talk) 23:28, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
- Again, it ain't, owing to its importance. Here's the actual link to WP:UNDUE again, so you can notice the "tiny minority" wording and how that very much doesn't apply here.
- That said, sure, let's let future editors fix your blanking of relevant cited material and/or move it with the rest of the historical material if people think those misconceptions and developments belong on a forked page. — LlywelynII 22:53, 2 May 2025 (UTC)