Jump to content

Template talk:Editnotices/Page/Mpox

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Template-protected edit request on 9 March 2023

[edit]

New text:

The name of the disease "monkeypox" was changed late 2022 to "mpox" by the World Health Organisation.[1] Since then reliable sources are consistently using this new name, and many dozens of publications and organisations like the UK's NHS[2] or the US NLM[3] explicitly refer to "monkeypox" as the "former" name. As of March 2023, the virus name remains "monkeypox virus", and the ICTV have not announced a change.

These matters have been discussed on the article talk page during the move request. Colin°Talk 15:42, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "WHO recommends new name for monkeypox disease" (Press release). World Health Organization (WHO). Retrieved 29 November 2022.
  2. ^ "Mpox". nhs.uk. 29 September 2018. Archived from the original on 2 March 2023. Retrieved 2 March 2023.
  3. ^ "Mpox". medlineplus.gov. National Library of Medicine. Archived from the original on 2 March 2023. Retrieved 3 March 2023.
  • Comment: While it is true that these matters have been discussed somewhat on the article talk page, my impression is that the above-suggested edit notice would be presenting selectively chosen facts and phrasing in order to promote and enforce one side's opinion on an aspect about which there is not yet a clear consensus evident on that talk page and in the edit history of the article itself. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 20:00, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See Talk:Mpox#Lead edit warring. The point of an edit notice is to stop the ignorant doing the stupid. The idea of having an edit notice was actually suggested by one of the editors who were edit warring and stopped after the above information was pointed out. -- Colin°Talk 20:41, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This does seem just a tad contentious, so let me suggest the following:

To editors Colin, BarrelProof and other interested parties: does the above meet with your approval? P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 05:53, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that's fine. I haven't done an edit notice before, so not sure of the conventions. In addition to the uninformed edits, we also just had an RM which explicitly falsely claimed there had been no discussion about the name change, which is why I wanted to include mention of that. But probably best to keep it short, as nobody reads the instructions anyway. It is just a hope to prevent the disruption continuing without having to resort to protection. -- Colin°Talk 07:46, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No no... that's a total brain fart by me. Mybad! For some reason I thought the final sentence was you making an informative statement about the edit notice. Rather than you making an informative statement to be included in the edit notice. Hopefully made amends? P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 11:25, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but now I'm not sure how yours is significantly different, other than "in early 2023" and having a title. I'm not sure the disease vs virus name is the main problem we have currently that the edit notice is seeking to resolve, although it certainly is a important point for editors to appreciate. How about just "Names" as a title? Colin°Talk 14:22, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do have some edits I'll propose in the section below. Specific concerns:
  1. The WHO does not officially "name" diseases. No one does.
  2. We should link to the rename discussions.
  3. We should format the text a bit more like a consensus. But I like the coloring/style.
I'll propose a version with these fixed in a subsection below — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 17:18, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Assigning names to new and, very exceptionally, to existing diseases is the responsibility of WHO under the International Classification of Diseases (ICD) and the WHO Family of International Health Related Classifications through a consultative process which includes WHO Member States."[1]
"The final name of any new human disease is assigned by the International Classification of Diseases (ICD), which is managed by WHO."[2]
"Human disease preparedness and response is WHO’s role, so diseases are officially named by WHO in the International Classification of Diseases (ICD). .. Official names have been announced for the virus responsible for COVID-19 (previously known as “2019 novel coronavirus”) and the disease it causes. The official names are: Disease "coronavirus disease (COVID-19)" Virus "severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)".[3]
So if they aren't the official body for disease names, someone should have a word with them. Of course, historically diseases get named by the scientists who discover it and publish it, but I think we are increasingly see this approach being criticised, and we ended up with names reflecting a lack of global thinking by young western men, typically. These two recent disease outbreaks, COVID-19 and mpox, both demonstrate WHO's authority. Of course people can disagree and countries adopt their own names in their own guidelines, but it is hard to argue that WHO isn't today the body that does give infectious disease names "official" approval. I think a safer argument would be that while the WHO name is the "official" one, it might not necessarily become the "common" one or be accepted by some nations. It's still the official one. -- Colin°Talk 18:08, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I want to be clear, I'm not disputing that the WHO writes the ICD. I'm just going to word it more neutrally and more wiki-appropriate such as "Wikipedia relies on outside medical bodies when deciding what to call diseases, and especially the WHO, who maintains the International Classification of Diseases (ICD)..." or something like that. See below in a second.— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 19:04, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Thoughts? Feel free to edit at will.— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 19:27, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I think it's good. Can we have a comma before "which"? And do we need "many dozens of other publications and organisations such as"? Graham Beards (talk) 19:34, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and no I don't think we do. Especially if we aren't going to cite those dozens and I'm not sure we need to. MEDTITLE really isn't about the number of sources, it's about the BEST sources. Edited to reflect Graham's suggestions 19:36, 11 March 2023 (UTC) I also massaged the language slightly to make it pretty and simple, e.g. "consistently use "mpox" instead of "the new name" and removing "the term" from "explicitly refer to the term "monkeypox" as the "former" name". — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 19:34, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think "Per WP:MEDTITLE, Wikipedia relies on outside medical bodies when deciding what to call diseases" reflects the consensus of either the earlier discussion that moved the article, nor the consensus of the RM that kept it.
The point of the edit notice isn't to explain the article name. I think the article is currently move protected anyway. The point was to stop folk arguing that "monkeypox" is still a "current" name and removing the words "former". I'm not sure what was wrong with the original suggestion, albeit amended to link to the discussion(s). We need to keep this short. The shorter the better. The above makes my eyes glaze over like I'm reading some proseline in a really bad article. Sorry. -- Colin°Talk 19:52, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then if MEDTITLE isn't part of the consensus, then we shouldn't prioritize WHO above any other source, given that the RM consensus didn't. We should just talk about reliable sources in general. Here's a much shorter version which only references reliable sources: — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 20:01, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Version 2 (much shorter)

Thoughts? Feel free to edit at will.— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 20:05, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I added the best most reliable sources I could find, all of which except the MMWR and NEJM were referenced in the recent RMs. I didn't repeat any outlets and didn't include the many multiple news sources or other scientific journal sources which are out there, e.g. Infection Today, POLITICO, etc. I just stuck with the classics. It's 7 total right now. I think we could combine them into a refn note, but I think this defeats the purpose of discouraging users from changing the title. Best way to do that is to hit them over the head with the good sources and sheer volume of which use "mpox". But I'm happy to have it as whatever everyone else thinks. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 20:29, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, really no. Do you think the folk who turned up at mpox and unthinkingly, without looking at any sources, changed "formerly" to "also known as" because they missed the news reports about the disease, are going to look at all 12 sources you gave.
The problem is not "The name of this article". That's not what an edit notice fixes (moves don't engage it). The problem is editors who haven't realised that monkeypox is the former name and still think it is the current name, and probably haven't even heard of mpox. All we need is a short message to say, well, it is, and if you missed the news, it was WHO who changed it. Colin°Talk 20:40, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You've just contradicted your own argument.
  • Do you think the folk who turned up at mpox and unthinkingly, without looking at any sources, changed "formerly" to "also known as" because they missed the news reports about the disease, are going to look at all 12 sources you gave.
  • All we need is a short message to say, well, it is, and if you missed the news, it was WHO who changed it.
So what is the point of this edit notice again? — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 11:51, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Further, the point of the notice isn't to explain the rationale for article naming and evidence in great detail. That is likely to just make someone want to argue more. No, it is to get to the point quickly, because we are dealing with people with low attention spans. -- Colin°Talk 20:41, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, the terser the better, and I wouldn't even clutter it up with sources that are highly unlikely not to be followed nor even read. Stay on point in order to be effective. Best to link to the talk page for details, not to sources. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 21:03, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your edit notice doesn't link to a single discussion. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 11:52, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Paine Ellsworth, how about this:

-- Colin°Talk 11:28, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Completed. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 11:39, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
....This edit notice doesn't have consensus here to implement. It appears to be favored by the two of you, but not anyone else who has commented. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 11:48, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I made two minor edits to make it even more succinct and more obvious to any reader. It's not the version I would have gone with, but it addresses most of my concerns (not just saying what the WHO says is law, pointing to the discussions), I think this is overall a good compromise and, as they say, compromise builds consensus. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 12:02, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever, I look at the diffs and all I see is that the words were moved around a bit and the "which has its own article" clause was dropped. Ok, lets agree on this and move on. -- Colin°Talk 12:06, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the latest version to Template:Editnotices/Page/2022–2023 mpox outbreak given that this version is worded gracefully to apply to that article as well. I don't think there are any other applicable pages that really need an editnotice but would happily add if so. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 12:10, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think the other pages aren't high traffic for edits any more. I'm going through them all updating the text, so they'll be on my watchlist for a wee while. Many of them incorporate some of the lead of mpox and the 2022–2023 mpox outbreak text within them, so they are somewhat at the mercy of whatever the lead of mpox says. -- Colin°Talk 12:14, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The name of the virus should be italicized: Monkeypox virus (at least as long we are talking specifically about the ICTV name for the species). Plantdrew (talk) 19:45, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, editor Plantdrew! Raises a question about whether or not species names should be uppercased, though. Shouldn't it technically be genus and species Orthopoxvirus monkeypox virus, or simply written monkeypox virus? P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 20:23, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The first letter should be capitalized (under both the old standard for non-binomial virus names, and the new standard of binomials (where the first word will be the genus, e.g. Orthopoxvirus), but we're still waiting for a name under the new binomial standard (I expect the ICTV will take arguments about not using "monkeypox" under advisement, but I'm not at all certain that they will use "mpox" for the second part of the binomial). Part of the reason for adopting binomials is to make it more clear when a formal scientific name is being used; there isn't anything necessarily wrong with "mpox virus", as in "the virus that causes mpox", but it wouldn't be capitalized/italicized to make it more clear that it isn't being treated as a scientific name). Plantdrew (talk) 21:44, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for clearing that up! The first letter has been capitalized. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 00:23, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Graham Beards: is probably also interested in this. I have been going round fixing up the text in the articles and changed to "mpox" for the disease but left "monkeypox virus" for the virus. I did notice some rather random capitalisation for both the disease and virus and I generally made them lowercase. Maybe that was wrong for the virus and it should have a capital M? Or maybe lowercase is fine if I'm not being formal about saying "this is the species name" and just mentioning the virus when discussing tests or samples.
My understanding of the situation is that "monkeypox virus" is currently the formal name and also the lay name for the virus (though you may be right that when being admonished by its parents, it gets called Orthopoxvirus monkeypox virus) When ICTV decide on a new Latin binomial, it will likely cease being the common name and used mainly when writing among scientists. For example, the lead of Measles says "Measles is a highly contagious infectious disease caused by measles virus" but the virus article is at Measles morbillivirus.
I think you are right that "mpox virus", as a lay name, is not incorrect (WHO actually used it in their press releases, as do some of recent news stories I found) and follows the same pattern as "measles virus" or "chickenpox virus". But there are relatively few sources at this point for us to be sure about what the common name may be. I think it best to wait till the ICTV change, see what they come up with. It would certainly be less confusing for readers if we could refer to the virus as "mpox virus" generally. -- Colin°Talk 08:37, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We use capitals (and italics) when we are specifically referring to the taxonomic genus i.e. "Rotavirus A", otherwise it is just "rotavirus". Same for Hepatitis B virus. Measles is "Measles morbillivirus" or just "measles virus". This is a perennial source of confusion, particularly when the common name is pretty much the same as the taxonomic one. The taxonomy is here [4]. The herpes simplex virus is interesting because its taxonomic name is Human alphaherpesvirus 2 but its common name is "herpes simplex virus type 2". Graham Beards (talk) 09:58, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In your link, I and see Species: Monkeypox virus. Is there any good way of determining the "common name" for a virus, other than usage. Like does anyone actually have a list saying here's the taxonomic name and here's the common name. -- Colin°Talk 10:08, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That would be most useful, but I have never seen one. And, obviously, countries have different common names, for example chickenpox virus in France is "virus de la varicelle" and smallpox virus is "virus de la variole", but they use the same ICTV names, (which is partly the point in having them). Graham Beards (talk) 10:59, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PS. This is a good summary on orthography. [5]. Graham Beards (talk) 14:54, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template-protected edit request on 19 March 2023

[edit]

World Health Organisation should be World Health Organization. Any particular preference for a variety of English is irrelevant here: according to MOS:ARTCON, "Proper names use the subject's own spelling". See WHO's official website to verify that "the subject's own spelling" is "World Health Organization". MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 06:10, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That seems reasonable but I don't have the permissions to edit it. -- Colin°Talk 08:41, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Completed – makes sense when we see that World Health Organisation is a redirect to WHO's preferred spelling. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 13:24, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Editnotices/Page/Mpox&oldid=1154578809"