Talk:Pacemaker

Requested move 23 January 2025

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Closing as moved per consensus below. Considered Dekimasu mention about other contentions to PTOPIC, but given that the target has already been a primary redirect since 2008, that seems not contensted. (closed by non-admin page mover) TiggerJay (talk) 16:13, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

---

Artificial cardiac pacemaker → Pacemaker – per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CONCISE. The vast majority of people searching for a "pacemaker" will go to this article, and the long title name may throw them off. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 03:07, 20 January 2025 (UTC) This is a contested technical request (permalink).  — Amakuru (talk) 11:05, 23 January 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. TiggerJay (talk) 16:11, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

[contested RM/TR entry reason: @Jeffrey34555 This has been through an RM before , so this move would have to go through an RM. Toadspike [Talk] 08:48, 20 January 2025 (UTC)]

• Support per nom. The WP:COMMONNAME for this topic is simply "pacemaker", and I think it's a fairly clear primary topic too (as evidence by the fact that Pacemaker already redirects here). If there are other types such as "brain pacemakers" mentioned in the previous RM, those are lesser topics that can go in a disambiguated page.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:07, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
• Pacemaker (running) is also a reasonable possibility for searches for the plain title. Dekimasuよ! 11:57, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support per nomination.

Rafts of Calm (talk) 15:07, 23 January 2025 (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.

Glassfibre Photovoltaic micro electrodes Combat Pacemaker

Glassfibre provides a option for magnetic non effected Probes cable, while several elements allow precisely located stims either potencially or circuited. Changings in reflection from electric currents allows laser measuring of the sinus pace wave. and exact intervention like in cardiomyopathia the squid incoersion. by firing small impulses at the surround tissue for average contraction. better is a neurostroma therapy to prevent the cmp hyper impulses. Tritium in corund can support a lightsource and may be insulated thermally to do so. This concept was ignored by german people oppressing cader army. but offers a survival option for Transparathions from HF Tyre cleaner and E605 Identitary Takeover Preps Vigilants commonly spread in us and europe by christian hippolyte methamp. aflatoxin-epinephrin Insurgencies gathered around racial supremacy of wagner operas. 84.154.118.47 (talk) 12:10, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Glassfibre Photovoltaic micro electrodes Combat Pacemaker

Glassfibre provides a option for magnetic non effected Probes cable, while several elements allow precisely located stims either potencially or circuited. Changings in reflection from electric currents allows laser measuring of the sinus pace wave. and exact intervention like in cardiomyopathia the squid incoersion. by firing small impulses at the surround tissue for average contraction. better is a neurostroma therapy to prevent the cmp hyper impulses. Tritium in corund can support a lightsource and may be insulated thermally to do so. This concept was ignored by german people oppressing cader army. but offers a survival option for Transparathions from HF Tyre cleaner and E605 Identitary Takeover Preps Vigilants commonly spread in us and europe by christian hippolyte methamp. aflatoxin-epinephrin Insurgencies gathered around racial supremacy of wagner operas. 84.154.118.47 (talk) 12:11, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Requested move 27 July 2025

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. There is consensus against the move, with editors opposing citing WP:COMMONNAME. There was some discussion of alternatively moving to Artificial pacemaker, however this failed to get any consensus. Additionally some editors argued that Cardiac pacemaker should be moved to Natural pacemaker. If editors wish to pursue the latter proposal, I would encourage them to start a discussion on the appropriate page. (closed by non-admin page mover) TarnishedPath^talk 03:25, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

---

Pacemaker → Artificial cardiac pacemakerArtificial cardiac pacemaker – This article should clearly be moved per WP:PRECISION. In addition, calling this article "pacemaker" and the article for the natural pacemaker cells "cardiac pacemaker" does not make any sense whatsoever, especially because that doesn't even distinguish the two. If "pacemaker" usually refers to the artifical cardiac pacemaker rathar than the natural one, it redirecting to this page is fine. Cyrobyte (talk) 02:29, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Medicine has been notified of this discussion. Cyrobyte (talk) 02:44, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Medicine/Cardiology task force has been notified of this discussion. Cyrobyte (talk) 02:46, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

• Artificial pacemaker would be enough to distinguish this article. Is there a reason to prefer the longer artificial cardiac pacemaker? Jruderman (talk) 04:57, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

  Artificial pacemaker would be as good as the long title. Cyrobyte (talk) 05:35, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

• It sounds like the other article, cardiac pacemaker, should be renamed for the same reason (perhaps to natural pacemaker or natural cardiac pacemaker). Jruderman (talk) 04:58, 27 July 2025 (UTC)
• I note that the article was moved to its current name in January with an argument in favour of WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CONCISE. I do think that Artificial pacemaker is the better title for the reasons given by the nominator, but I also expect that the hatnotes quickly get readers to their desired destination whether they land on cardiac pacemaker, artificial pacemaker, natural pacemaker, or just pacemaker. So overall, weak support for move to Artificial pacemaker. Mgp28 (talk) 11:05, 27 July 2025 (UTC)
• Support alternate move to Artificial pacemaker per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CONCISE, as well as Ngrams. I do not see an obvious primary topic here, though, when factoring in pageviews or longterm significance. DAB page should also be moved to primary. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:36, 27 July 2025 (UTC)
• Support for alternate name Artificial pacemaker reasons as above, see no reason to move Cardiac pacemaker Iztwoz (talk) 15:01, 27 July 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose. Clear primary topic and WP:COMMONNAME. But rename Cardiac pacemaker for clarity. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:38, 28 July 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose Renaming cardiac pacemaker seems more sensible, as pacemaker is the common word for this. A rename to a possibly jargonny title will make more people wonder if they're in the right place. 07:12, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose. We have to weigh the five WP:CRITERIA against each other. "Pacemaker" wins on recognizability, naturalness, and concision. "Artificial pacemaker" wins on precision. Consistency isn't really relevant. Thus, we have 3–1 in favor of the current title.

I think I spend far more time thinking about the "natural" cardiac pacemaker than the average reader, and even I expect the primary topic for "pacemaker" to be the artificial, implanted device. Specialist sources agree: A PubMed search for "pacemaker" overwhelmingly or even exclusively shows results for the implanted device, not the SA and AV nodes. Hence, I think the concerns about precision are overblown here. Toadspike [Talk] 15:11, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose as proposed, but suggest cardiac pacemaker to be renamed to perhaps Natural Pacemaker as suggested above. TiggerJay (talk) 05:40, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. Instead, rename Cardiac pacemaker to Natural pacemaker. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 00:32, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Oppose due to clear WP:COMMONNAME. Support renaming Cardiac pacemaker to Natural pacemaker. --Treetear (talk) 08:36, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

I don't think this discussion can result in consensus to move that page (Cardiac pacemaker), as it hasn't been notified. I suggest opening a new RM for that article and pinging everyone here who has commented on moving that page. Toadspike [Talk] 08:41, 2 August 2025 (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.

Proposal to add information regarding Leadless Pacing (COI Disclosure)

Hello, I am User:Pero SEO, and I am disclosing that I am a paid contributor for Children's Hospital Los Angeles (CHLA) on behalf of Pero SEO, Inc.

My previous edit to the "Leadless pacing" section was reverted. I would like to propose a more neutral version of that information for an independent editor to review and consider adding to the article. This addition focuses on a recent technological development regarding pericardial placement for pediatric patients.

Proposed Addition: Research conducted at Children's Hospital Los Angeles and the University of Southern California has explored a leadless pacemaker system designed for placement in the pericardial space. As published in the journal Heart Rhythm, this approach is being studied as a potential alternative for pediatric patients and others with congenital heart disease who may not be candidates for traditional transvenous leadless pacing.

Supporting Source: https://www.heartrhythmjournal.com/article/S1547-5271(25)00106-7/abstract

I have removed the specific titles and names to maintain an encyclopedic tone. I welcome any feedback on whether this meets the community's standards for neutrality and medical sourcing (MEDRS).

Thank you, Pero SEO (talk) 18:30, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Having looked at the Pero SEO Inc. website, I'm sorry, I have to be blunt: Log out of this account, and don't ever come back. Your company exists to do marketing. "SLOPE process: 'Our Search Landscape Opportunity Probability Equation reveals your untapped potential traffic and its value'", "Content Optimization", "Local Marketing", "Paid Search", Social Media Services". "Children's Hospital Los Angeles - 391% Increased Clicks" (oh look, there's Children's Hospital Los Angeles in your proposed addition to wikipedia, what are the odds!), "Medical Device Company Conversions Grow 133% with Narrative Content".

No. Absolutely, positively, no. You are here to game the system and drive profit for your company, using a volunteer, non-profit website. Why? Because of the massive eyeballs Wikipedia has, and the low cost involved in driving those eyeballs.

Go away. Never come back. Do your job without exploiting the volunteer efforts of non-employees of your firm to help you.

I apologize for the tone, but - I've worked for many companies that used SEO to drive engagement. There's nothing wrong with doing so. When you do it via legitimate avenues.

This is not a legitimate avenue. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 19:21, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

+1 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk} 21:04, 17 February 2026 (UTC)