Talk:Cancer

Video

Why is a video with a terrible computer voice narrator even on this page? It doesn’t seem to really add any actual value ~2026-52916-0 (talk) 08:47, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

"Peripheral cancer" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Peripheral cancer has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 February 4 § Peripheral cancer until a consensus is reached. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:01, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

How to clarify Mechanism section?

@Femke added clarification tags due to that part being overly technical. What is the best way to handle this in a way that retains accuracy but also solves the technicality problem? VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 17:05, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

First: decide if the highly technical material follows WP:Summary style. Do we need these details in this article, or are they better placed in a subarticle with a more technical audience? For instance, we might not need more than two paragraphs in the epigenetics section (not a cancer expert, so I'm not sure what share of space should be devoted to it, but almost definitely less than currently).

If you have decided to keep the material, the hierarchy of explaining/avoiding jargon goes something like:

1. Use plain English for technical terms. You might need to wikilink 5 words or so to the technical term, but that's fine
2. Explain it explicitly in the text
3. Give enough contextual hints that people can learn the term without explaining explicitly
4. Wikilink only if you think 90% of readers already understand it, but you want a way for the remaining 10% to also understand it.

One should never introduce technical terms just to teach the audience the technical term for something. They should be introduced for a reason.

One of the ways these articles sometimes become too difficult is the use of academic sources written for a completely different audience. The type of sources you want to use in addition to academic sources are those that are patient-facing (for the basics and for learning how to express difficult concepts in simple terms), and undergraduate sources (which are slightly too difficult, but not as difficult as academic sources). —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:21, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Does this edit help? VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 17:30, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

It does, but it's still quite difficult. The table on The Hallmarks of Cancer is much easier to understand. Not clear if that table is cited, and the analogy column is misnamed, as some of these are simple explanations rather than analogies. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:15, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Would "uncontrollably replicating without command to do so" be a good explanation for "self-sufficiency in growth signals"? I think apoptosis could just be replaced with "programmed cell death" as well, or just left as is with a wikilink per WP:ONEDOWN. VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 18:19, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

That would be an analogy (as I'm not sure we use the word command for things cells do). It might work but not as an explanation between brackets. In general, brackets make sentences harder to understand, as sentences become longer than ~15-18 words people are comfortable reading. Presenting the information in table form is probably the best way forward, as this information is too dense for a paragraph. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:41, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 June 2026

Add internal bleeding and fatigue to symptoms. Agar!! (talk) 22:45, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

 Not done - no WP:MEDRS source. Symptoms vary by the types of cancer, severity, and organs involved. Zefr (talk) 22:48, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Needs copy-editing

"About 33% of deaths from cancer are caused by tobacco and alcohol, obesity, lack of fruit and vegetables in the diet and lack of exercise. "

Isn't this supposed to mean:

"About 33% of cancer-case deaths are caused by cancers resulting from tobacco and alcohol use, obesity, lack of fruit and vegetables in the diet, and lack of exercise". OR, in active voice:

"Cancers attributed to tobacco and alcohol use, obesity, lack of fruit and vegetables in the diet, and lack of exercise account for about 33% of cancer deaths."

As written it leaves room for a direct link, bypassing the cancer itself, from tobacco, alcohol (not their use), etc. to the deaths and that the direct link can follow the development of the cancer. It's just silly to leave room for the possibility of such a misreading of the intent of the author.

If this were the only instance, I would have just changed it. But, I thought there was a copy-editing process to be called on, especially since awkwardness in the lede is strongly predictive of worse to come. DCDuring (talk) 23:24, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

"Anti-cancer" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Anti-cancer has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 August 19 § Anticancer agent until a consensus is reached. 1234qwer1234qwer4 16:26, 19 August 2026 (UTC)