This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Psychology High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Medicine: Reproductive / Psychiatry Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Reproductive medicine task force (assessed as High-importance). This article is supported by the Psychiatry task force (assessed as High-importance). Women's Health High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's Health, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's Health on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HealthWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HealthTemplate:WikiProject Women's Healthwomen's health High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Hello, I am a newbie, and learning. I noted that references no. 46 and 63 [as on Feb 2, 2025] refer to Osiander's work. In reference 46, we can read the following - "These cases have been translated in reference 86, p19-30." The reference number 86 is different as on this date [it is number 63 as far as I can work out], but I believe the numbering must have been correct, when this edit was made. There must be some way to make this numbering "dynamic" so it remains relevant all the time. I could not figure it out, so I thought I should bring it to be notice of community. Somebody would surely fix it, and I would like to see how it is done.Thanks. Neotaruntius (talk) 07:32, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If there is no automatic way to do it, may I do it manually? It would at least be a correct reference for next few weeks. Kindly advise.Neotaruntius (talk) 03:15, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]