Talk:Parkinson's disease

Citation style
This article had four different citation styles (I've corrected two of them), some harking to a time before the short footnote (sfn) template existed. Unless anyone objects, I will convert the book sources to sfns with page numbers. See Tourette syndrome and Dementia with Lewy bodies; TS has only books in short footnotes, while DLB uses sfns on all sources so that all page numbers or section headings are identified (the current standard for featured articles). Sandy Georgia (Talk)  11:15, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. ~ HAL  333  18:39, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * , I think I'm going to use sfns w/ page numbers as I start rewriting sections. That means there will be a transitory period where some journal articles have sfns and others don't, if that's all right. ~ HAL  333  02:08, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Understood ... I think that's the way to go ... at Dementia with Lewy bodies, I found with some articles (depending on the pagination) it was much easier to use the loc= parameter to specify a section heading in some cases, rather than page nos. I intended to chip away at all the sfns on books, but I have had back-to-back tragedies IRL, so not keeping up ... will help as I am able on the converts, but no promises I can keep a close eye or help as much as I normally would. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  02:26, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Another thing on the rewrite, ... because there is SO much literature on PD, I think a strict summary style to sub-articles will be essential.  We have to draw a line of how much detail can be included here, versus at parkinsonism, Signs and symptoms of Parkinson's disease, Causes of Parkinson's disease, Pathophysiology of Parkinson's disease, Management of Parkinson's disease and History of Parkinson's disease ... really need to be kept to a very broad overview level here. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  02:31, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Will do. ~ HAL  333  15:26, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * . Thanks for your extensive edits. The following two cites that are throwing Harv errors (doesn't point to any citation):,  (should the date be 2020?).  This seem to have been introduced by you.  Do you have the relevant citations?  Thanks. Boghog (talk) 13:25, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Lead image
Is there any chance we could find an alternative lead image? The text on it is barely legible without expanding it — I don't think readers should have to click on an image to see what it represents. ~ HAL  333  23:44, 6 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Not thrilled with what is there. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  00:29, 7 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Here are some candidates. ~ HAL  333  18:54, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * They can be added to the article, but not the lead. A quote from the first link you posted “this volume is a vital reference for neurobiologists, cell biologists, and pathologists pursuing the biological basis of Parkinson's disease, as well as scientists and clinicians”. I don’t think the images are intended for most of our readers. -- Dustfreeworld (talk) 19:07, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * And I really don’t think we need a fancy animation in the lead. -- Dustfreeworld (talk) 19:25, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Different versions
I have been testing with different image combinations and have come up with 3 different versions of infobox, A, B, and C here (it’s the sandbox of another user, used in previous lead image discussion ). The total width was reduced. C is a variation of A, but the 1880s image doesn’t come first. B uses only 2 images (the photos that are now in the article). Long caption has been removed. But they can be added back or edited easily. The space between images can also be changed (by changing a parameter) if needed. -- Dustfreeworld (talk) 08:11, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not opposed to two images (the donkey and fish sizing looks fine), but four is simply too many. I also really don't like the two images we currently have of the gait. They are pretty low resolution and something about it (maybe the low overall quality or pixelated faces) reminds me of a terrorist hostage video. I still think an image of an alpha-synuclein deposit would be the best way to go, but I'm open to alternatives. ~ HAL  333  18:47, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I think the image of alpha-synuclein deposit belongs to the body, but not the infobox. I still think WP:Technical applies:
 * "This page in a nutshell: Strive to make each part of every article as understandable as possible to the widest audience of readers who are likely to be interested in that material."
 * I would like to know more on why you insist that we should have it in the lead though. The edit summary you left when adding the current image was simply “added meaningful image ...” -- Dustfreeworld (talk) 21:41, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I have updated the two images (gait). Hope that addresses your concern. -- Dustfreeworld (talk) 08:34, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I added 3 more versions, so there are A to F now.
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:WhatamIdoing/Sandbox_3&oldid=1189771208
 * Actually any combination of the different images is possible. -- Dustfreeworld (talk) 19:11, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * In this updated sandbox page the infobxes’ width were reduced to 300px, and an image of alpha-synuclein deposit was added below infobox for testing. -- Dustfreeworld  (talk) 08:39, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * This is the latest sandbox page, which contains 8 versions of infobox, with almost all the possibilities I can think of. While I don’t think the number of images in the box is a big problem, considering that we have 7 images and 4 maps in article like this, I’m open to an infobox with fewer images. Discussion welcomed in case anyone is still not happy with infobox A, which have been included in the article already. I’d be happy with any version (A-H) in the sandbox. -- Dustfreeworld  (talk) 19:41, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * As a side, there are two versions of Gowers’ sketch in the sandbox. Both are made from his original drawings. The difference between them is that one has better image quality, while the other has thicker lines and thus resembles the long-standing etching more. I made two because I’m not sure which one people would prefer. The later one is in the article now. -- Dustfreeworld (talk) 20:41, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm cool with what we have now. Nice work. ~ HAL  333  00:43, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, HAL333! -- Dustfreeworld (talk) 04:10, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

2024 revision
Since I'm revising larger parts of the article, I want to explain my further intentions in this talk page. If you have any thoughts on my edits, feel free to add a new paragraph to this discussion and I will try to describe them more detailed.

30 May 2024 restore by @Dustfreeworld (diff)

While I appreciate the inclusion of the fact that non-motor symptoms may precede motor symptoms, most of the paragraph's content is repetitive and too specific for the "lead section" of the symptom subheading. For example, the specification of prevalence and the mention of pneumonia, which is more of a complication linked to prognosis rather than a symptom, are overly detailed for this section. Additionally, two out of the three sources are outdated: one is from 2008 and another from 2016, indicating that the data may no longer be current. The remaining source, from 2023, primarily addresses treatment and intervention options for dysphagia rather than the broader range of symptoms mentioned.

What I did now: Preserving the paragraph in its current form seems neither feasible nor useful imho (WP:IAR, WP:BB). The guideline states "fix problems if you can, tag or excise them if you can't", and I don't see a way to just "fix" this without rewriting it substantially. Nevertheless, I proceeded cautiously. Thus, I altered the paragraph, included one major symptom from each non-motor subheading, made the wording more concise, and shortened some formulations. Regarding the sources, I removed the outdated ones and moved the dysphagia-related source to the section specifically discussing dysphagia. For the rest, I provided up-to-date literature.

I hope you, Dustfreeworld, understand and approve of my approach. If you have any further ideas or objections to my edits, please let me know. –Tobias (talk) 09:45, 15 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Dustfreeworld has been banned from medical topics, so we should not expect them to respond. Perhaps other editors will. NebY (talk) 10:01, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @NebY oh, ok, thank you for the information - we'll see. –Tobias (talk) 10:15, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

contradiction?
under causes and risk factors, it states '85% of cases are sporadic, meaning there is no family history' however directly under that it states 'heritability lies around 22-45%'

is this perhaps just an inconsistency between two studies? 194.193.48.192 (talk) 10:37, 18 July 2024 (UTC)