Jump to content

Talk:Polio/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

CNS infection incidence contradiction

At the start of the article it says only 1% of cases lead to CNS infection, then a few sections later is says 3%. Someone who knows should clear this up, and preferably reference this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.99.117 (talk) 00:01, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Slight contradiction

"major polio epidemics were unknown before the 20th century.....Polio had existed for thousands of years quietly as an endemic pathogen until the 1880s, when major epidemics began to occur in Europe" a contradiction as the 1880s are before the 20th century. I will change to "unknown before the late 19th century". If someone can put it better please do. Carlwev (talk) 00:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Extreme Bias

I feel that the section on the vaccine should at least mention the millions of people killed by it and that survived but suffer the extreme side-effects from the mercury --68.185.93.155 (talk) 03:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Fortunately or unfortunately, your feelings don't govern what goes in Wikipedia articles. Neither Pasteur Meriux Connaught's inactivated polio vaccine (IPV) nor Lederle Laboratories oral polio vaccine (OPV) contain any thimerosal (and certainly no mercury). So perhaps it's a good thing that the article doesn't mention the "millions" of people killed and suffering "extreme side-effects" from the mercury in "the vaccine", because there is no mercury in polio vaccines. - Nunh-huh 06:01, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I tried to be civil, but I see now that the only "facts" allowed on Wikipedia are the ones that agree with the hivemind. If you'd bothered to to your research, you'd have found that 6,543,000 people have been killed by the vaccine since its inception and another 4.3 million have been crippled or maimed by it, Get your facts straight next time before you engage in personal attacks. --68.185.93.155 (talk) 03:57, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
You can't "personally" attack an IP number, and you've failed to note that it's you who have gotten the facts wrong: there's no mercury in polio vaccines. Our article on polio vaccines is, in fact, quite explicit about the real risks. - Nunh-huh 06:58, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Polio eradication in India

This link has a curious reason why polio is not eradicated in countries like India: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1540477,00.html =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

POV-ish sentence

Polio epidemics have crippled thousands of people...

Seems that I want to emphasize with the people who have people. Pie is good (Apple is the best) 15:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I dunno, but how about "disabled" in place of "crippled"? Jefffire (talk) 16:03, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I disagree, crippled is fine. The definition is "Pertaining to someone with a less than fully functional limb, or has injuries which prevent full mobility; Pertaining to any difficulty or impediment which can be likened to a crippling injury", which is very much the case in poliomyelitis. It's not really an empathy thing, it's more of a factual definition of the effects of poliomyelitis. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs) 16:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Cyclonenim. As someone who has lived with the aftereffects of polio for over 53 years, the verb "crippled" is more accurate than "disabled". Stating that an event or disease cripples someone can be an accurate statement without being offensive. What is offensive to people who are disabled is to label them as cripples. It is preferable to use the term disabled, disabled person or mobility impaired.--Dan Dassow (talk) 16:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME?

I think the heading sums up my question. --T-rex 21:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Strongly disagree since medical articles are usually titled by their scientific name. By your logic, we should rename infectious mononucleosis to "mono" or "glandular fever".
Additionally, 'polio' relates to the infection, 'myelitis' relates to it's effects. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs) 21:59, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, infectious mononucleosis should be changed to "mono" as the majority of people will actually recognize that title --T-rex 23:17, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
No, it shouldn't. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs) 23:38, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Most dictionaries point out that polio is merely an abbreviation of poliomyelitis and leave the definition to the longer full name. So we are not really deviating from standard practice. Encarta, for example, does the same. BTW: I have never heard of "mono" -- I'm from the UK. Colin°Talk 08:05, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
I know, I'm British too, that's why I put "glandular fever" down too. Read infectious mononucleosis's lead :) —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs) 10:40, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Well apparently mono is an american thing, but I'm still pretty sure that "Polio" is internationally better known than "Poliomyelitis" --T-rex 14:49, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment As Cyclonenim has already noted, albeit indirectly, the current article name is consistent with Wikiepedia's Manual of Style, per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(medicine-related_articles)#Naming_conventions. There is therefore nothing in particular to debate here. Debate 木 15:46, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Just came to this article and thought the same thing. Policy trumps manual of style, and WP:COMMONNAME is policy. I mean, for some disease which is not widely known, common name is arguably not important since it's by definition not, uh, common. But polio? Yeah, that's clearly the most common name, and so should be the title of this article. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
You're thinking about things the wrong way, policies don't "trump" MoS. Policies, in fact, are determined by consensus, the exact same way as MoS are developed. Wikipedia works by consensus whether you are discussing a policy or MoS, and consensus has been very clearly developed over medical naming conventions laid out at WP:MEDMOS. If you want to see those discussions, see [1][2][3][4]. Scientific naming is the proper way to go—you wouldn't see this article in a written encyclopaedia under Polio, but instead at Poliomyelitis. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  17:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

polio is a real killer

runnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn godzilla is coming......................... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.79.10.238 (talk) 14:35, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was do not move Anthony Appleyard (talk) 19:39, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Poliomyelitis → Polio — - For the following reasons:

  1. Polio is clearly the most common name use to refer to this topic.
  2. WP:COMMONNAME is policy.
  3. WP:MEDMOS arguably calls for the current title, but also states at the top: "Use common sense in applying it; it will have occasional exceptions".
  4. This is an "occasional exception". For the most part only medical specialists know and use the term, "Poliomyelitis". Wikipedia is not improved by having this title at a name only specialists know and use.
  5. If nothing else, see WP:IAR. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:18, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose — You're thinking about things the wrong way, policies don't "trump" MoS as you stated in a discussion above. Policies, in fact, are determined by consensus, the exact same way as MoS are developed. Wikipedia works by consensus whether you are discussing a policy or MoS, and consensus has been very clearly developed over medical naming conventions laid out at WP:MEDMOS. If you want to see those discussions, see [5][6][7][8]. Scientific naming is the proper way to go—you wouldn't see this article in a written encyclopaedia under Polio, but instead at Poliomyelitis. The same logic applies to every single medical article, always has done. I see no real reason why the article should be moved, either, seeing as Polio redirects to Poliomyelitis. I don't deny that polio is the common name; I deny the idea that it is the correct term for an encyclopaedia. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  17:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Additional comment — To expand, 'polio' is not precise. Polio refers only to the poliovirus. The myelitis part of the name is essential to describe the disease, an inflammation of the spinal cord. It is therefore damaging to remove that part from the title. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  22:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose Since Polio is a redirect anyway, I don't see the need to move. Yes, using the common name is often helpful to readers, but if there is an authorative technical name for what is a specialist subject, then the full name should be used. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 18:00, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose Polio is just an abbreviation, not a word with its own origin. Our Wikipedia:Naming conventions policy rejects abbreviations for article names. We have influenza not flu. Colin°Talk 18:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree. Graham Colm Talk 22:13, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
That makes three. The topic of this article, the disease, is clearly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "poliio", as is established by the redirect. That Polio has other uses is like arguing that Paris should not be at Paris because there is also Paris, Texas (not to mention the mythical figure). Arguing that polio should not be the title of this article because it is "unspecific" reveals a fundamental misunderstanding about Wikipedia article naming. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:59, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Yes, COMMONNAME is 'policy', but that policy was just massively re-written with the claim that COMMONNAME is merely one principle among many. The full policy says, in the second sentence, that it's "supplemented by guidelines that advise on how to apply the principles set out here and on managing conflicts between them." We have a conflict between COMMONNAME and WP:NC#Precision, which (to hear the story that the people re-writing the policy were putting forward) is a co-equal principle with COMMONNAME. Importantly, the "guidelines that advise" include WP:MEDMOS, which advises us that the existing name is the correct one. Also, Colin's point about abbreviations is highly relevant. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
    • I don't understand the conflict with WP:NC#Precision, which states, "When additional precision is necessary to distinguish an article from other uses of the topic name, over-precision should be avoided.". No such additional precision is necessary (as Polio redirects here), and so "over-precision should be avoided" --Born2cycle (talk) 20:40, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
      • It's not overly precise. Polio is also a shorthand for poliovirus. In the larger picture, however, the relevant bit of that policy is its repeated deferral to specific discipline-related guidelines, which it considers preferable to picking your favorite single principle and insisting that it trumps all other considerations.
        Note that when common names are appropriate, you will find me supporting them in medicine-related articles. This simply isn't one of those times. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:54, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Another example is The runs. Graham Colm Talk 22:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but you guys are being obtuse. Reliable sources don't refer to gonorrhea as "the clap", or diarrhea as "the runs". But even the entry in Brittanica for this topic is Polio and not Poliomyelitis. Look at all the books about the pathology that use "polio" rather than "poliomyelitis" in their titles. You won't find serious books about "the clap" or "the runs". --Born2cycle (talk) 22:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
But more reliable sources here. Graham Colm Talk 22:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Indeed, you can't accuse people of being obtuse when your rebuttal is flawed so deeply. Poliomyelitis has more returns than 'polio' alone, and some of those 'polio' returns likely include a few 'poliomyelitis' or 'poliovirus' (seeing as it's the first constituent of those words). Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  22:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Regardless, it's obvious that simple "Polio" is good enough for Britannica, good enough for textbooks, and good enough for numerous scholarly works. Coupled with the advantages to our readers and novice editors, this article should be at the commonly-known term. Powers T 22:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Wow, there are advantages to the move? Would you mind stating them? I mean, last I heard, there was a redirect from polio to poliomyelitis, so anyone searching for the term will still find the correct article. If you can tell me a decent reason to move other than "it's more common". I see absolutely no need for a move other than two users displeasure. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  22:59, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Certainly. As with all articles on Wikipedia, we try to place them at the best possible title, taking into account a variety of factors. Some of these factors, such as searching and some types of linking, are obviated by redirects. There are several, however, that are not, such as optimizing search engine rankings, assuring the reader they have come to the right place as quickly as possible, and making linking to a topic natural and easy for editors. Powers T 00:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
"Poliomyelitis has more returns than 'polio' alone"??? What are you talking about, Cyclonenium?
  • Results 1 - 10 of about 1,790,000 for Poliomyelitis
  • Results 1 - 10 of about 5,610,000 for polio
The "returns" look like 4:1 in favor of "Polio". --Born2cycle (talk) 23:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Could you link me to that? The books link that you posted before showed (and still does) 17,300 or so for polio. Also, the main points stand. Polio is an abbreviation, it's bound to be a more popular name. No one is really discrediting your idea that it's the common name, we're disagreeing that it's the correct name. It's an abbreviation, not allowed by WP:COMMONNAME. Could you also address my point regarding the specificity of polio compared to poliomyelitis? Myelitis is essential to describe the disease, if you don't have it, you're simply referring to the virus itself. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  23:31, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
"Polio" might have originally been an abbreviation, but it is a word in and of itself now, and has been for a long time, even in dictionaries. Polio and Poliomyelitis are synonyms both used by reliable sources, but polio is used far more commonly. The results above are from a basic google search; within a google books search it's a wash. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:01, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
The Mirriam-Webster link you supply shows their "polio" entry to be just a redirect to "poliomyelitis". Therefore it is not a "word in and of itself now". Colin°Talk 08:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Sure it is. You'll find several perfectly legitimate words in the dictionary whose entries simply direct the reader to another one. That doesn't make them not legitimate words any more than in makes them just abbreviations. Powers T 13:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
I didn't say it wasn't a legitimate word. But clearly the dictionary writers think there's nothing to say about "polio" that isn't covered by the "poliomyelitis" entry. Therefore the word hasn't really grown up and left home. Poliomyelitis is their main entry just as it should be ours. Colin°Talk 13:23, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia policy on entry naming is to be less formal than are traditional encyclopedias and dictionaries; therefore that their main entry at m-w.com is Poliomyelitis and Polio is a redirect/synomym to/of it, is irrelevant here. What else ya got? See #Other comments below. --Born2cycle (talk) 14:40, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
The type of abbreviation "not allowed" by WP:COMMONNAME is the type ending with a period, like rit. for ritardando. I'm quite certain the intent of that prohibition was not to prohibit words that started out as shortenings but are no longer considered strictly abbreviations. (That "polio" is of the latter category is indicated by the fact that no period is necessary to call out that it is an abbreviation.) Powers T 00:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - This why we have redirects. No valid reason to change. Busywork for no gain. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Wikipedia policies and guidelines document what we do, not dictate what we have to do (they are descriptive, not prescriptive). What we do with titles of articles on medical subjects is to use the medical name. This helps to define the subject precisely and avoids the misuse of the colloquial forms prevalent in common usage, such as 'heart attack' for Myocardial infarction (see last para in lead), 'flu' for Influenza (see Flu (disambiguation)) and polio for Poliomyelitis or Poliovirus. No confusion is caused to anyone searching because we have redirects in place. If this were a request to disambiguate polio between the disease and the virus, I'd be a lot more sympathetic. --RexxS (talk) 17:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose, the common name rule has long been overridden in medical articles. Abductive (reasoning) 17:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Indeed, and the whole point of this proposal is to start reversing that overriding of common name because it creates inconsistency in Wikipedia naming. All other article titles named by favoring use of specialist terminology over the terminology of the general population should be moved as well. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:04, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
      • I wondered if that was the underlying reason for this request. The problem you are going to face is that medical topics, unlike general articles, actually have internationally agreed nomenclature in many cases. That represents a very solid reason for using the medical name which has international acceptance, and is why medical article titling is an exception from wiki-conventions on general articles. For poliomyelitis, you are probably going to have persuade the WHO to alter its International Classification of Diseases - see ICD-10. --RexxS (talk) 18:54, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
        • I don't understand why WHO, or any organization of specialists, should have any bearing on how Wikipedia editors name our articles, especially when those names contradict common usage by the general public. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:55, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
          • Yes, I can see that you don't understand why specialists should have any bearing on nomenclature - after all, "Experts are scum". Nevertheless, in this case – given that there is an international body which has taken the time and effort to classify and name diseases unambiguously – Wikipedia editors have quite rationally formed a consensus to make use of that system. So "medical name" is the consensus position for MEDMOS. Some other fields also have an external authority that Wikipedia editors can take naming guidance from. That is one reason why other specific exceptions to COMMONNAME exist, as you can see from the many entries in the "Specific-topic guidelines" infobox at the top of WP:NC. --RexxS (talk) 14:26, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I affirm most of the reasons given above for keeping the old name and not believe they have been rebutted. I also want to state the an effort "to start reversing that overriding of common name because it creates inconsistency in Wikipedia naming" is drama-loaded and almost certainly bound to be disruptive. WP:NAME was edited for the sake of clarity and not to empower a crusade to change article titles. Any drive for "consistency" needs to be understood in the context of "can the user find the article" and not in wikilawyering changes to policies where the ink is still wet. patsw (talk) 20:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This seems to be the first step of a crusade, rather than a legitimate concern with users' inability to find or effectively use this article.--Curtis Clark (talk) 13:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose — This article is about poliomyelitis. Poliomyelitis is the common name in reliable sources for the clinical disease that results from infection with the polio virus. Here, "common name" means most commonly used name, not vernacular name. The page name of this article is consistent with page names applied to other medical articles on Wikipedia, and complies with all relevant Wikipedia guidelines. This requested move illustrates how a reader can misunderstand the word "polio"; thus, I propose that Polio, currently a redirect page, be made a disambiguation page. --Una Smith (talk) 14:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
  • As further example, I expect to the average reader "polio" invokes images of people with some degree of paralysis. Those people are long past poliomyelitis. Also, most people who get poliomyelitis recover completely, free of paralysis; they do not "have polio". --Una Smith (talk) 14:40, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Paralytic polio isn't a separate disease, just one severity/consequence of a disease that has multiple effects, which is not uncommon in medicine. Colin°Talk 19:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. Seems to me like you're trying to fix a non-existent problem, just like the whole renaming thing. Doing so would bring no benefit to the community or visitors, and would in fact overly complicate the situation. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  19:46, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Just because paralytic polio isn't a separate disease does not mean it does not warrant a separate article. The most notable aspect of the disease, in terms of what is well known, is when it manifests itself in a manner that paralyzes someone. That is the topic associate with the "polio", not the technical complete disease that is the topic of this article. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
This article covers paralytic polio (a complication in about 1% of cases). It may be that incoming links (especially via the redirect Polio) could be improved to point to Poliomyelitis#Paralytic polio or Poliomyelitis#Complications, but that's an issue for the linking articles, and not an argument for a renaming here. If the sub-article Paralytic polio were ever created, then we would need to look again at the incoming links here. --RexxS (talk) 20:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
I have created the redirect Paralytic polio, and Polio (disambiguation). The redirect will enable editors to make the precise link they intend, regardless of whether the content is a section in Poliomyelitis, or in its own article. --Una Smith (talk) 21:20, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
I like the way Parayltic polio redirects to the paralytic section of this article; Polio should do the same. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:58, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Contrary to your post just above this, I refute the idea that paralytic poliomyelitis is the most notable cause. It may well be the most common public perception of poliomyelitis, but it's rare and occurs in ~1% of cases. This means it's likely less well-documented than other forms. Again, you have not addressed my point that you're trying to fix a non-existent problem. If polio redirects here, the reader will find the content they're looking for. It's quite simple and uncomplicated, so I'm confused as to the need to rename the article really. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  00:37, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Also, please discuss changing the redirect for polio before doing so. You have not achieved consensus that it is correct to direct polio to the paralytic poliomyelitis section, and I certainly don't agree with that as described above. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  00:40, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
The phrase "first do no harm" comes to mind in regard to Born2cycle's suggestions. Extreme care must be exercised in editing medical articles because of the possibility that someone may follow the recommendations of the article, especially one that is a featured article. People with training in medicine and knowledgeable laypeople have taken great pains to ensure the correctness of the information in this article. Born2cycle's suggested renaming and other suggestions will harm the article. --Dan Dassow (talk) 19:05, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose We need to keep naming precise to keep Wikipedia organized. Do not support the ubiquitous use of common names. This would make it more difficult for experts to edit. We do have a simple English encyclopedia were these terms could be used if the proposed feels strongly.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:05, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Strongest possible oppose – From my personal experience as someone who has dealt with the aftereffects of poliomyelitis over the last 54 years, I can attest that poliomyelitis is the preferred term in clinical situations. Although the term polio is commonly used in clinical settings, poliomyelitis remains the correct technical term for the condition. Professional medical literature predominately uses poliomyelitis. Medical terminology has precise meaning. Specifically, poliomyelitis derives from the Greek poliós (πολιός), meaning "grey", myelós (µυελός), referring to the "spinal cord", and the suffix -itis, which denotes inflammation. It would be a grievous mistake to use the less precise term polio for this article. --Dan Dassow (talk) 14:45, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose - "polio" is slang. Even where we use COMMONNAME, we avoid slang. On a daily basis, many more people use the term TB than "tuberculosis", yet we wouldn't dream of changing that article's name. This has been the view of WP:MED with wide consensus for years, and is not trumped by any of the arguments above. Redirects have a purpose, and disambiguation pages have a purpose. JFW | T@lk 21:57, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Other comments

I would like to point out to the closing admin that the numerous oppose "arguments" presented here have all been shown to not be sound and should be weighed accordingly. At best they are weak rationalizations used in desperation to mistakenly defend a title that seems right.

  • Polio is not an abbreviation; it is a word, a synonym.
  • Polio is not too imprecise, it has redirected here for years, which has established that this article is the primary topic for Polio.
  • If Polio were "unencyclopedic" or not the "correct term for an encyclopaedia", that would be irrelevant in Wikipedia where the policy is to use commonly used names for titles that are often informal relative to traditional encyclopedias. Finding and linking to Polio is much easier and more natural than Poliomyelitis; that is the way of Wikipedia. However, other encyclopedias use Polio (e.g., www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/467378/polio), so this entire point is moot.
  • The redirect is not good enough; having the most common name redirect to the article is no excuse to not use the most common name for the title.
  • It's not "busywork". The issue here is about making Wikipedia more consistent with using the most common name for the title whenever reasonably possible.

Perhaps they'll come up with more sound arguments, but so far I think it's appropriate to dismiss all of them and, per WP:NOTDEMOCRACY, recognize that despite appearances, consensus is in favor of this move. --Born2cycle (talk) 14:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

From the policy that you're selectively quoting here: "Consensus on naming articles in specific fields, or with respect to particular problems, is stated and explained on the guideline pages referenced." Diseases are very much "in a specific field", and thus the policy you cite as requiring the common or slang name specifically directs you to follow WP:MEDMOS#Naming conventions instead of picking your personal favorite of the general principles and elevating it above all others. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Poliomyelitis is the disease caused by the polio virus or poliovirus. We take the polio vaccine to develop immunity to the polio virus. This article is about the disease. Abductive (reasoning) 17:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
(ec) WhatamIdoing, following WP:MEDMOS#Naming conventions is indeed the best, probably only, decent argument in opposition to this move. But that guideline itself is inherently in conflict with WP:NC, at least by favoring use of the terminology of specialists over the terminology of the general population. As you know, WP:NC has long reflected the pervasive Wikipedia convention to "put the interests of a general audience before those of specialists". If that does not mean specifically to name articles exactly like this one per the terminology used by people in general rather than specialists, what can it possibly mean? The only reasonable response to the WP:MEDMOS#Naming conventions argument is to invoke WP:IAR.

If I were elevating common name over the other principles, then you would have an argument based on those other principles. But you don't. And please don't try precision again, because that guideline is "be only precise as necessary". Since Polio already redirects here, any more precision is unnecessary. All the other principles either have no application here, or apply equally to both choices in question. The reason common name is so important here, is because it's the only principle that distinguishes between the two choices. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:59, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Abductive, and polio is the common name synonym for Poliomyelitis used and understood by all English speakers and readers, not just specialists, to refer to the disease. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia operates by consensus. This means accepting other folk may interpret policy pages different from you. Your favourite policy page explicitly points out that some fields have guidelines that overrule COMMONNAME, specifically mentions MEDMOS, and even COMMONNAME just says "normally". Please take your wikilawering elsewhere. The overwhelming consensus is to keep this article where it is. Oh, and "polio" is an abbreviation: the Oxford dictionary "POLIO: noun short for POLIOMYELITIS." Colin°Talk 18:19, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I know Wikipedia operates by consensus, but that does not mean it's a democracy. We don't make consensus decisions by counting the votes on each side; we evaluate the strength of the arguments, and how compelling they are.

Yes, I know all of those exceptions have crept into the policy, to the point where anyone can now rationalize just about any position from the policy (thus rendering it useless). That's what efforts like this are ultimately about: I'm trying to convince others to roll back those conventions, first in practice, like in this example, and ultimately in policy. It's not wikilawyering. It's wikiimproving.

In essence you're saying what the naming policy says doesn't matter, because even though it says we should put the interests of the general audience ahead of those of specialists, it also mentions more specific guidelines, and arguably implies they should be followed when there is a conflict. I think that's unacceptable, because if the general policy ultimately doesn't matter, there is no basis for consistency throughout Wikipedia. What makes a lot more sense is for editors like you to recognize the general problem, and seek to fix it, by fixing "specialized guidelines" that go beyond expanding on the general naming principles (like common name, precision, and prefer general over specialized), and contradict them. And by supporting moves like this one. Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

You can't have it both ways. Your arguments so far have been based on how you interpret policy (or what you wish the policy would say). Now you are saying the policy page is useless and you want a discussion. It would have taken much heat out of this discussion if you hadn't come in shouting "WP:COMMONNAME is policy" (it is just a part of a policy page, and not even a mandatory part) and then saying everyone who expresses an opinion different from yours clearly has neither read nor understood the policy page. If you want a non-policy-based, relaxed, "what do you guys think is best for Wikipedia" discussion, then start afresh, say so, and avoid writing anything beginning WP: :-) Colin°Talk 20:03, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough. I suppose I'm guilty of interpreting WP:NC in a manner that ignores the exception (more specific guidelines that contradict the general policy principles trump the policy) that unfortunately crept in a couple of years ago and arguably made it the policy useless. But I defend that point precisely because the alternative renders the policy to be useless and pointless. However, I should have been clear about that from the beginning. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia would be nearly impossible to edit if we tried to use common terms for everything. Specific terms are necessary because well medicine is complicated. Medicine should continue to use specific terms as this is the consensus of editors who deal with these pages.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:27, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Another note to closing admins...

It's an interesting tactic to start a subsection to give your idea more weight, so I'll counter Born2cycle's comment here. Indeed, and may I also point out that your opening sentence ("I would like to point out to the closing admin that the numerous oppose "arguments" presented here have all been shown to not be sound and should be weighed accordingly.") is false, you have proven several arguments to be against your liking—but you have not conclusively shown them "not to be sound". My main opposition to this move is that 'polio' is an abbreviation. Your one link to M-W proves nothing—instead it redirects. The second point, which you have not actually addressed but instead just said "not true" (essentially), is that polio is imprecise. It refers to the virus, not the disease, and is therefore an unsuitable title. You cannot argue your way around that—it is an etymological fact. Unlike Colin, I welcome this debate in order to sort the issue once and for all, but you must be prepared to accept consensus from other editors. That's part of being here at Wikipedia, sometimes you have to accept that your view is not shared by the majority of editors. Thanks. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  19:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I, too, would like to know why exactly you want this article moved. I see no benefit to the community or it's visitors since a redirect already exists. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  19:21, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
I hope my posts in the section above answer your question. If not, let me know. Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
"My main opposition to this move is that 'polio' is an abbreviation.". The explanation Powers provided above, explaining why polio is not an abbreviation (in the context that matters here) stands unanswered. I didn't think I had to repeat it, especially to you, since Powers posted it in response to a comment from you. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
"The second point, which you have not actually addressed but instead just said 'not true' (essentially), is that polio is imprecise." Two people addressed this above, but apparently the relevance of the redirect to this article did not impress you, so now I just added my "that makes three" comment. What part of the primary topic concept, and how it applies here, do you not understand? By the way, the m-w.com entry for polio — which defines poliio exclusively as an exact synonym for Poliomyelitis — in and of itself nullifies the claim that polio is imprecise. I thought this was obvious. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
I'd rather take my definition of what is an abbreviation and what isn't from the Oxford dictionary than one Wikipedian. The policy page clearly says "Avoid abbreviations" in bold letters. Powers's "explanation" that it is "is not an abbreviation (in the context that matters here)" reflects his opinion but isn't what this policy page says. There's far too much of this discussion being conducted on that basis of what people think policy says, wish policy would say, or read-into what policy says. None of this is based on what counts: what is the best name for this article. Several people here believe an abbreviation (short form, call it what you want) is not the best name for this article. Several people here also think that's backed up by policy. In bold letters. Colin°Talk 21:18, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Google shows that the word "tux" is more common than "tuxedo". The shortened name is derived in exactly the same fashion and from approximately the same time period, and is listed in the same fashion in m-w.com. Would you apply the same principles there, and rename the related articles to use the shorthand instead of the long form? Or is it only when the full name is widely used in the formal literature that you want to promote the slang? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
That you think this is an analogous situation reveals that you're not quite appreciating the problem.

Tux/tuxedo is a toss up because tuxedo is just as widely known and probably just as commonly used as is tux. Do you think you could even find a single person who knows the meaning of "tux" but not the meaning of "tuxedo"? Whether a given term is a shortened form or a totally madeup name or what is irrelevant to common name — all that matters is whether it is the most common name used to refer to the topic, or whether there is a more common name. One might even argue that tuxedo is more commonly used than is tux. No one will seriously argue that about poliomyelitis over polio. Lots of people know and have heard of "polio", but have no clue what Poliomyelitis means, or how to spell it, etc. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for answering my question. That you'd even consider tux tells me that you are having trouble believing that "common name" is only one principle among many.
This type of misunderstanding is exactly why I opposed the changes at NC this fall. Moving from a "rules" basis to a "principles" basis requires a substantial education effort that supporters declined to make. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
What principle — that you think I'm ignoring — precludes the use of tux?

I kind of agree with you on the general point about principle vs. rules based system, except for one major point. It's not one or the other. You can (and I believe should) have both, as is, for example, the U.S. legal system (many other legal systems too, but I'm most familiar with the U.S. system). That is, our principles our laid out in the Constitution, and the rules -- based on those principles without contradicting them -- are manifested in our laws (or "rules", if you will). We have a word for a law that violates our Constitutional principles, and that is "unconstitutional". Of course, such a system is only as good as the principles are laid out and the rules are actually consistent with them, so ours is far from perfect, but at least we recognize blatant contradiction as being essentially wrong. What we have here in Wikipedia naming is analogous to having a Constitutional amendment that said laws must not violate the rights of the people as specified in the Constitution, except when they do.

If a rule violates a fundamental principle in a system, then the solution is not to allow for exceptions - for that neutralizes the principle. I mean, if there are exceptions, then it's not a principle. The solution is to change or alter the principles, or change the rule to be consistent with the principle. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

By the way...
Results 1 - 10 of about 74,400,000 for -tux tuxedo [9]
Results 1 - 10 of about 56,700,000 for tux -tuxedo [10]
So tuxedo sees more use that tux per WP:GOOGLE, though it's pretty much a wash. However, for an apples-to-apples comparison...
Results 1 - 10 of about 25,600,000 for polio -Poliomyelitis [11]
Results 1 - 10 of about 2,930,000 for -polio Poliomyelitis [12]
What that shows is that references to "Poliomyelitis" without references to "polio" are relatively rare. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Googling is a really poor way to defend a usage, being US-centric and relying upon non-reliable sources. PubMed with its 19 million citations for biomedical articles, suggests 18821 Poliomyelitis. Whilst the 20958 for "polio" will also include hits from the 964 "polio vaccine", 301 "polio virus" 13225 "poliovirus", and the mere 6336 hits for "polio -poliovirus" suggest a rather different recognised preference for the full word. I suggest the propose be speedily closed per WP:SNOWBALL :-)David Ruben Talk 04:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, I only brought up google results because someone else did. And PubMed is going to be biased towards usage among specialists.

That objection aside, I don't understand what you think the 6336 hits for "polio -poliovirus" suggests. And would you exclude hits for "measles vaccine" and "measles virus" when determining how often "measles" is used? If not, why exclude "polio vaccine" and "polio virus", etc., when determining how often "polio" is used? --Born2cycle (talk) 04:54, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

There are a lot of people surnamed Polio. Crazy, huh? Abductive (reasoning) 09:02, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
I really dislike amateur word-usage investigations, especially when they involve crude database searches or engines like Google that don't even do a literal "documents containing the word X" search. The Oxford English Dictionary is a reliable source on this topic (and not a specialist source, other than on English usage), and their main entry is "poliomyelitis", not "polio". Colin°Talk 07:07, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, because the Oxford Dictionary's primary goal in article naming is preciseness. One of the goals of our naming conventions is to be precise, but no more precise than is necessary. It's right there on WP:NC. We also value conciseness and recognizability, both of which "polio" has and "poliomyelitis" does not. Powers T 13:51, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Also, you brought up the Google results first, not in response to someone else like you say. Look under the oppose from Nunh-huh and you brought up the Google Books results. At first you try to use the majority of results in your favor, then you claim that consensus is not developed by numbers on either side (rightly so). Seems a tad contradictory. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  08:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, LtPowers, poliomyelitis is "more precise than necessary" because just polio is sufficiently precise, as is established by Polio being a redirect to this article.

Cyclonenim, I meant I only brought up google results in this thread because someone else did. The previous reference was a very different context and issue; I was using google book search results to refute the argument that the use of "polio" for a name (which is commonly used in serious books) was comparable to using "The clap" (which is not used in serious books) for a name. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:32, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Acute

Related to the above requested move are some edits to the article and edit summaries re whether the article topic is or is not "acute" polio. Please note that this article links to the ICD-10 code A80: acute poliomyelitis.[13]. --Una Smith (talk) 20:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but not "acute polio", which was the reverted edit I recall. Graham Colm Talk 21:26, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Would it not have been possible to simply extend the polio to poliomyelitis, rather than revert? Maybe I'm missing something. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  21:32, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, and no, I am not sure. The article is about acute poliomyelitis and its chronic sequelae is it not? So, to say "also called acute poliomyelitis" would be misleading I think. Graham Colm Talk 21:40, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Indeed so. In addition, the "often called" was just plain wrong. Colin°Talk 21:52, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree. Graham Colm Talk 21:57, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
The article infobox not only links to ICD-10:A80, but also to ICD-10:B91. It's best not to circumscribe the article's scope unnecessarily with the word "acute". --RexxS (talk) 22:27, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
The infobox probably should not link to B91, which is specifically excluded from A80. The link to B91 is more appropriate on Post-polio syndrome, which already links to B91. --Una Smith (talk) 23:34, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Are you sure you want to take 'sequelae of poliomyelitis' (B91) out of the infobox in an article on poliomyelitis? This article has summary section on PPS with a "main article" template linking to it. I would have thought B91 would have to be an integral part of an FA on poliomyelitis (comprehensiveness criterion). --RexxS (talk) 06:39, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
On the other hand, you may be right. I just checked and B90 isn't linked at Tuberculosis, another featured article. Although, I can't find B90 in any article, which seems odd. --RexxS (talk) 06:52, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Whilst I've got all your attention...

Seeing as we've got so many visitors to this talk page, I'd like to point you to this if you haven't already seen it. It's a featured topics project regarding poliomyelitis which I got started but never really took anywhere. This seems like a great moment to relight the fire. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  23:48, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I suggested this when we submitted the article Poliomyelitis for featured status. --Dan Dassow (talk) 14:50, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Peripheral edema

I found out during a recent hospital stay that Peripheral edema is a long term complication of Spinal polio. This is due primarily to lack of musculature in the affected limbs. Reference material can be found at "peripheral edema" Poliomyelitis. Would this information be more appropriately included in 4.1.1 Spinal polio, 6.2 Complications or in the article Post-polio syndrome?

I don't think it should go under spinal polio, so it's just a question of whether peripheral edema is a complication of poliomyelitis itself, or whether it presents as part of post-polio syndrome. I don't personally know the answer, so I'll await one of our resident medics to answer it. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  18:30, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Epidemiology or Eradication

According to WP:MOSMED#Sections, an article about a disease should have a section on Epidemiology. At present, the Eradication section contains all of the information on the epidemiology of the disease. The summary of the eradication of poliomyelitis here is a time-line of the reduction of incidence. Is there any reason why the section should not be titled Epidemiology? --RexxS (talk) 16:29, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

MEDMOS doesn't say "should". I'm not totally against "Epidemiology" here (though it is a more erudite term than Eradication) but the focus of the section is mostly on the eradication program. Perhaps polio, destined perhaps to follow smallpox into history, could be different? Colin°Talk 20:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree - none of our policies and guidelines are prescriptive, they merely describe what is common practice here. I was merely asking why Eradication would be used rather than the conventional Epidemiology. I can see your reasoning and agree that Smallpox follows the same practice. It might be worth noting that Epidemiology is a broader issue than Eradication and just might discourage contributors from expanding the section. That's only a small problem, though. The main one is that it's difficult to bring medical articles up to FA (or probably even GA) if they don't conform to WP:MOSMED without exceptional reasons. It's quite possible that you could persuade reviewers that (almost) extinct diseases should replace Epidemiology with Eradication, and that might be a good debate to have at WT:MEDMOS. What do you think? --RexxS (talk) 21:29, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Colin here. I'm not opposed to calling the section "epidemiology" but I'm not sure that that title accurately describes the content of the section as it is now. I am opposed to lumping eradication with prevention, and 1st level headings containing one sentence and lacking citation. WRT to MEDMOS, the FA reviewers didn't seem to have a problem with eradication vs. epidemiology here, and I doubt they would have a problem with lack of "conformity" in the smallpox article either (probably because the eradication (or nearly) of a disease is pretty exceptional). However, if you feel that changing the title might spur addition of more information to this section then, by all means, make the change.--DO11.10 (talk) 20:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The content of that section has almost nothing about epidemiology; the separate article Poliomyelitis eradication has a little epidemiology. Missing from both is information about the circulation of the different serotypes, and the use of corresponding vaccines. I would prefer to see a proper epidemiology section in this article, with an inline link to Poliomyelitis eradication. --Una Smith (talk) 23:30, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

Here is the featured topics project that focuses around poliomyelitis. Any interested editors are welcome to join the project and help us get the first medical featured topic up and running! —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs) 00:11, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Polio/Archive_3&oldid=1142774763"