Talk:Attention deficit disorder

Where should this link?

We have lots of sources that state that ADD is simply the old name for ADHD. And that it comes in two different types "ADD with hyperactivity" and "ADD without hyperactivity" [1][2]

This ref [3] on page 32 does not state that ADD just refers to the inattention type and thus is not justification for redirecting this to just to the subtype article.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:45, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I didn't say it "states"; I said "seems to categorize", which follows from the fact that the term "hyperactivity" was never used in that section that discussed inattentiveness and ADD. The descriptions, diagnostic criteria, and number of "ADD" (2) subtypes in the old version of the DSM are not equivalent to the ADHD (3) subtypes in subsequent versions anyway, so ADD is obviously not synonymous with ADHD per the DSM definition of these disorders. Since the DSM itself doesn't support your assertion that "ADD is simply the old name for ADHD", that reasoning is not justification for redirecting this to the ADHD article either.

As there is no concordance between ADD and ADHD subtypes and since we don't agree on a redirect, this should either be a DAB of the 2 articles or a set index of ADHD and its subtypes. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 18:44, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I guess we can have a RfC. All the subtypes are part of the main type. "ADD with hyperactivity" should not redirect to ADHD-PI because that would be wrong. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:26, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Seppi333 and others, we recently discussed what to do with this redirect in a move discussion. Seppi333, had you unintentionally missed that discussion? Either way, now seeing the above debate between you and Doc, and the proposed WP:RfC below, I'm bowing out of this topic since it just might give me a headache. I will state that I don't think that this dab page helps. Attention deficit disorder is still a widely used term that is commonly not ambiguous, as this and this Google search show. And, per WP:Primary topic, readers should be directed to the article that they will most likely be looking for in this case. From what I see of the sources on this topic, that article would be the Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder article. As an alternative, per WP:Broad-concept article, this page could cover attention deficit disorder in the "it may refer to more than one thing" manner because it can be ambiguous. Flyer22 (talk) 03:44, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I disagree about the ambiguity in the term. Even so, a set index article isn't a DAB - this is the option I prefer, as there isn't a 1-1 correspondence between ADD and ADHD subtypes ("ADD" was only defined with 2 subtypes - combined type was introduced with "ADHD"). Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 06:46, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Names of diseases change over time. Subtypes of diseases change over time. The underlying condition stays the same. We should not have a new article for each historical name every used. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:13, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Propose redirect of Attention deficit disorder to Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The CDC provides a nice history of the terminology used to refer to ADHD over the years here. In the DSM2 it was known as "hyperkinetic reaction of childhood". In the DSM3 it was known as ADD and was divided into two types "ADD with hyperactivity" and "ADD without hyperactivity". In the DSM3R the term ADHD was introduced. In the DSM4 the term ADHD was kept and it was divided into a subtypes: "predominantly inattentive", "predominantly hyperactive-impulsive" and "combined type". The "ADHD predominantly inattentive" type is the new term for "attention deficit disorder without hyperactivity" with this ref says "the predominantly inattentive type is analogous to attention deficit disorder without hyperactivity" [4].

There was a brief period of time during the DSM3R were there was "undifferentiated ADD" and this version referred to "predominantly inattentive type".[5]

The proposal based on the above evidence is:

• "Attention deficit disorder" without qualifiers should redirect to "attention deficit hyperactivity disorder"
• "undifferentiated attention deficit disorder" and "attention deficit disorder without hyperactivity" should redirect to "attention deficit hyperactivity disorder predominantly inattentive" as they do now
• "attention deficit disorder with hyperactivity" should redirect to "attention deficit hyperactivity disorder" we we do not have a specific article on "attention deficit hyperactive disorder combined type" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:04, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Support

• Support as proposer. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:27, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support. Like I just stated above, we recently discussed what to do with this redirect in a move discussion. I'm bowing out of this topic since it just might give me a headache. I will state that I don't think that this dab page helps. Attention deficit disorder is still a widely used term that is commonly not ambiguous, as this and this Google search show. And, per WP:Primary topic, readers should be directed to the article that they will most likely be looking for in this case. From what I see of the sources on this topic, that article would be the Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder article. As an alternative, per WP:Broad-concept article, this page could cover attention deficit disorder in the "it may refer to more than one thing" manner because it can be ambiguous. Flyer22 (talk) 03:44, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support ADD and ADHD are used to refer to the same neurodivergence. Sure some might use to describe ADHD-PI and ADHD-C alone but ADHD-PH and ADHD-NOS was covered under the DSM-III diagnosis of "ADD." Andrea Carter (at your service | my evil deads) 06:27, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
• support yes, the term ADD is somewhat old--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:13, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support. ADD is an outdated term. In its old definition, it included both the subsets with or without hyperactivity. It is analogous to the modern ADHD. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:40, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support - might as well ride the bandwagon since no one cares for the set index option. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 14:59, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support. As far as I can tell, this is how the terms are generally used now. Maproom (talk) 07:15, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support As this use of terms is consistent with common usage and reliable sources. -- Scray (talk) 05:00, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

• Oppose - given #my statement above, I see no reason for this to be a redirect. It's not exactly equivalent to either article proposed in this RFC, hence it should either be a DAB of the 2 (as it's not an unambiguous to either, as noted in my previous statement) or a set index of all subtypes. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 06:31, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

• This is not a Wikipedia:Set index articles as ADHD and its subtypes is not a "set of items of a specific type that share the same (or similar) name". What we have here is a main article followed by a list of subarticles for each type. We do not do this for other "alternate names" for conditions. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:07, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

• They all share the term "ADHD" and all are types of ADHD - either as ADHD itself or an ADHD subtype. What I did is no different from chem indices of positional isomers that share a common chemical name, like DMPEA or methylphenethylamine. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 06:31, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Imagine if we did this for every alternative name of every disease? We created a new page for the alternative name where we list the primary name and than we list all the subtypes. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:11, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

We already do that for every disease - if a related term is a reference to 1 disease article, it's a redirect; if it's a reference to more than 1 related set for whatever reason, it's a set index article. E.g., runner's knee. We created a new page for the alternative name where we list the primary name and than we list all the subtypes - yes, we followed an editing guideline called WP:Set index articles. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 10:30, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Ah that is not this case. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:14, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.