User talk:SandyGeorgia: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 20:01, 23 March 2020

About me

Talk to me

To do list

Tools and other
useful things

Some of
my work

Nice
things

Yukky
things

TPS alert: FAR notifications

Can the Tourette syndrome lead be ordered per WP:MEDORDER?

Can the lead section of Tourette syndrome be ordered based on all other major medical articles (Autism, Cancer, Huntington's disease) and the contents of the body, as specified in WP:MEDORDER (Definition + symptoms, cause + diagnosis, management + prognosis, epidemiology + history + society & culture)? I always found it strange that it wasn't. · • SUM1 • · (talk) 18:02, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that you asked, SUM1, but I certainly hope not.

The short, choppy, 8th-grade, headache-inducing enforced order is against WP:LEAD, disputed at WP:MEDLEAD, accepted nowhere else on Wikipedia and at odds with WP:WIAFA, and when it was "imposed" as a personal preference at some point in the history of the TS article, that was among the things that stopped me (and others) from continuing to try to write or maintain featured articles. WP:MEDORDER is a suggested order of sections, only a guideline (which has been interpreted by WPMED as policy), and as such is and should be unrelated to the LEAD. Enforcing a set order on leads results in poorly written and not very compelling leads, such as those now found in the rest of the medical FAs. Sometimes a compelling story needs to be told in a different way. Sometimes the editors who are actually immersed in the literature on a topic know what matters to the reader and how the story should be told. Sometimes forcing an order results in a mess with what needs to be explained first for the rest to make sense. The reasons for not imposing upon medical articles something that is not in any other guideline for any other content area are many.

Here is my sandbox version (a bit dated now) of the damage that was done to TS when an order was forced. The idea that we should be writing medical leads to look like this is what has completely halted FA production in the medical realm. If that is what readers want, they can find it at the CDC or the NIH-- at Wikipedia, we should be able to go beyond that.

I would very much like to bring dementia with Lewy bodies to featured status, but with the kind of lead that has been forced upon it, I would be embarrassed to show my face at WP:FAC. When an FA writer is not allowed to write a compelling summary from scratch, in accordance with WP:LEAD and WP:WIAFA, it is hard to go back and repair the lead. Hence, a complete stall in medical FA production-- indeed, even a decline-- since 2015, when this trend took hold. So, the short answer to your question is ... the leads at the other medical articles are horrid, the FAs are not being maintained because the writers who uphold FA standards know the leads are horrible, and if a forced order is imposed at TS, I unwatch because after 14 years, I am uninterested in seeing the damage. The more significant question to me is, will I ever be allowed to write a real LEAD at dementia with Lewy bodies, so that I can bring it to Featured status? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:23, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

+1. MEDMOS does not require any order or indeed any sections. They are merely suggestions. I say this as the editor who wrote that bit of MEDMOS! -- Colin°^Talk 18:24, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agree - the lead reads much better as is. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:01, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thus assuming Doc James is the main person responsible for this convention of practice. · • SUM1 • · (talk) 20:04, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SUM1:, I stopped following closely during the years I had given up on Wikipedia because of WPMED issues, but my understanding (perhaps incomplete) is that only James and one other editor are enforcing these personal preference. Since I disengaged from WPMED because of its lack of interest in producing and maintaining top content, it is possible that others are enforcing this guideline as if it were policy, but I am unaware. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:10, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New message from Shearonink

Hello, SandyGeorgia. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bath School disaster/archive1.
Message added 15:20, 5 March 2020 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Just wanted to let you know I put Bath School disaster up for FAC. Thank you for all your help. Shearonink (talk) 15:20, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw that; way behind here. Do you want me to link in the actual peer review I did, which is in my talk page archives here? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:22, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, your peerless peer review! I'll link to it on the nom page - thanks for the reminder. Cheers, Shearonink (talk) 02:11, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done btw. Thanks for all your help. Shearonink (talk) 18:15, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. Shearonink (talk) 23:51, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was reading...

Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article and Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article#Separate issue and was wondering about TFA's and the timeliness of them etc As you may or may not know May 18th is the anniversary of the Bath School disaster. If the article doesn't get passed to a FA status, this next will be a moot point, but if it does get passed to FA status - maybe by the end of March or thereabouts, do you think it is possible that it could be the FA for May 18th? I know, I know...probably too much to ask for but I didn't realize FA-of the Day was done so far in advance. Just wondering. If this year isn't possible there's always 2021. And 2022... Shearonink (talk) 05:01, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm scheduling May... and am unlikely to schedule before about the 20-25th of April. And I'm usually pretty simple to change out articles - if there isn't a strong date connection for an article on a specific date and someone wants a timely article to run then (or a recently passed FA that has strong date ties), I'm open to changing up until a couple of days out. If I haven't scheduled May by the time it passes - you can use the usual procedures for requesting a TFA appearance. If May's been scheduled, drop a note on my talk page when it passes. --Ealdgyth (talk) 13:46, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ealdgyth, thanks so much for jumping in here. Shearonink has tried to resurrect a FFA, and came to FAC well prepared, but has had a miserable time at FAC with unactionable commentary and suggestions/edits that have moved in the wrong direction, so I hope he gets through soon enough. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:12, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ealdgyth & SandyGeorgia - Thank you both so much, appreciate the info. I'll keep it all in mind as our days progress in these strange times. Am so grateful I have Wikipedia to edit & keep me busy. Shearonink (talk) 19:29, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coronavirus-related TFAR

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Introduction to viruses SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:12, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coronavirus Venezuela

Hi Sandy, I know you are not part of the Venezuelan project anymore, but I just wanted to invite to just keep an eye on 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Venezuela and its related talk, as it is a health related issue and you know better of both worlds. Any advice in wiki guidelines and health could come handful. The page is updated quickly but is being filled in an unprofessional way. Again do not feel forced, but be welcome to act in any way that is confortable to you. --MaoGo (talk) 12:03, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, MaoGo; it is so good to hear from you, and I hope you and yours are well. I will think about whether I feel able to look at that article, but I expect it will infuriate and sadden me too much, as Venezuela will be a complete calamity of death, doubly attributed to the regime in China, and it may be hard for me to read about that much death and suffering and react calmly. All of Wikipedia's Coronovirus articles are in trouble because of the increased editing activity, all of them cause me to have to unwatch daily so I don't pop a cork, and I imagine the Venezuela article will be the most disturbing yet. I will go over there eventually if I feel I can look in there without exploding in frustration. Que estes bien, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:37, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I understand completely. In these times of crisis, health comes first. Stay safe, cuídate.--MaoGo (talk) 18:59, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 42: / Line 42: @@
 : Hi, {{u|MaoGo}}; it is so good to hear from you, and I hope you and yours are well.  I will think about whether I feel able to look at that article, but I expect it will infuriate and sadden me too much, as Venezuela will be a complete calamity of death, doubly attributed to the regime in China, and it may be hard for me to read about that much death and suffering and react calmly.  All of Wikipedia's Coronovirus articles are in trouble because of the increased editing activity, all of them cause me to have to unwatch daily so I don't pop a cork, and I imagine the Venezuela article will be the most disturbing yet.  I will go over there eventually if I feel I can look in there without exploding in frustration.  Que estes bien, [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]])  17:37, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 :: I understand completely. In these times of crisis, health comes first. Stay safe, cuídate.--[[User:MaoGo|MaoGo]] ([[User talk:MaoGo|talk]]) 18:59, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
-== Do not post lies on my talk page ==
-[[User:AManWithNoPlan|AManWithNoPlan]] ([[User talk:AManWithNoPlan|talk]]) 20:00, 23 March 2020 (UTC)