Talk:Preterm birth

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 As a result, the penultimate introduction sentence (rates of survival per week), which reports data from 2016, may be out of date — if deaths continue to fall, chances of survival per week will necessarily change, so we need something newer.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)

Preterm labour/preterm birth

In symptoms, and in sections past that, it says Preterm labour. I have added a link to preterm labour in the first paragraph of the article. I am here from MeSH C13.703.420 on List_of_MeSH_codes_(C13), which has preterm birth and premature labour (obstetric) and was on this article to look for anchor or rcat from the separate entry. If these are two separate entries (which could be good) then Premature labour and preterm labour rcat to this page.

My point is that if this is the article for preterm birth then symptoms and other titles should be followed with nothing or pagename. Preterm labour may be a separate section or its own article. Catcus DeMeowwy (talk) 15:36, 14 April 2026 (UTC)