Talk:Urology

US bias

Some of the information in this article appears to be very US centric, especially as regards routes to qualification. For example "who have done a three-year fellowship after a four-year OBGYN residency." Mhkay (talk) 12:29, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Sections

I have amended the subspecialties slightly, adding references and info to Endourology with a link to the international sub-specialty's website. I have changed the Urologic Oncology Management description, the management mode of cancers correlates with doctor's training, unfortunately, and not the other way round (which would be more logical but is untrue). --Ariolan (talk) 22:08, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Paedophilia

I have removed a link at the bottom of the page to paedophilia with the words (pediatric urology) in parentheses, because the page on paedophilia made no reference to urology. If there is in fact more of a connection here beyond a few chuckles, it must be made more explicit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.135.226.217 (talk) 05:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Male-centric

"Branches of urology" goes on and on about prostates and penes and then at the end there's a paragraph on "gynecologic urology", as if women were a special case of men. While this may reflect the sad state of urology in practice, urology as a medical field is about all urogenital variants alike.--87.162.20.28 (talk) 19:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Lack of Criticism Section

Do you think medical articles on WP should include information on to what extent the current practice is "Evidence-Based"? There is no critique in here on the effectiveness of the diagnostic and treatment methods of modern urology and whether or not urology is practiced strictly according to sound science.Herbxue (talk) 17:14, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

"List of urological topics" section

There is a discrepancy between this list and Category:Urology. What are the list inclusion criteria? --Altenmann >talk 03:37, 26 July 2026 (UTC)