Talk:Tourette syndrome

TFA 3 March

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Tourette syndrome

TS is a 14-year-old FA, recently overhauled and updated, with editors Adrian J. Hunter, Casliber, Ceoil, Markworthen, and Yomangani helping to fine tune.

Colin and Outriggr poured exhaustive efforts into copyediting and clarifying my dreadful prose after the recent update; their considerable work is at Talk:Tourette syndrome/Archive 11.

A sincere thanks to all who have helped over the years in this collaborative effort. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:08, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Sandy, it's been a pleasure, and kudos to you for the excellent result. I wish I hadn't been so busy in real life and could have contributed more. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 05:40, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Well, I selected the TFA date around National Advocacy Day in Washington, D.C., which was apparently a dud, and has been replaced by a letter writing rally. So, we won't get the pageviews I had hoped for. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:19, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Better or worse? [1] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:36, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Yomangani; the blurb also used "for". Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:45, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Guess who? [2] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:05, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Congrats on the Main Page appearance! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:50, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Apostrophe

Why is "Tourette's syndrome" not mentioned in the lead? It's a common variant, as evidenced at NHS, Patient, WebMD, Priory, Guardian, Medical News Today, BMJ and many more. Jenny Jankel (talk) 08:26, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Jenny. In this case (unlike Down syndrome), the reason that particular common variant is not listed in the lead sentence (but is listed in the infobox) is that there are many common variant names (indeed, different official names) for this condition, and listing all of them would not be practical. There is Tourette syndrome, Tourette's syndrome, Tourette's disorder, Gilles de la Tourette syndrome, GTS, and even the outlandish official ICD term, combined vocal and multiple motor tic disorder [de la Tourette]. If we start listing them in the lead, where do we stop? We end up with a breach of MOS:FIRST.

In this case-- which is different than Down syndrome-- it is more important in the lead to highlight the abbreviation most commonly used (Tourette's), because that is what is used throughout the article as well as what is most commonly known to people. Both WP:COMMONSENSE and MOS:FIRST come in to play here, as they should in every discussion-- each article is different.

Another factor to consider is that this is a Featured article and has been through community review processes, so there is broader consensus surrounding the lead than in a non-FA (see WP:OWN#Featured articles), and edit warring is less likely to occur as people understand that.

Hope this helps. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:09, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

All due respect being given, I do not entirely agree with those arguments..firstly, those other variants you mentioned are *far* less common, and it is also a slippery slope argument, the hypothetial outcome of which is not reasonably likely to follow as a result of the thing that it is being used to argue against.. Furthermore, it is common Wikipedia practice to name the two most common names that exist for an article's subject (when two commonly used variants exist), along with a common abbreviation.

I would agree that two names and two abbreviations might be excessive, and that in such cases when there exist two very common abbreviations and one full name that is significantly more common than all the others, it would be best to list the single name and the two abbreviations in the lead sentence. In this case, however, I think Tourette's syndrome is a more significant variant than TS is an abbreviation. Unlike commonly known abbreviations such as ADHD or OCD, most people would have no idea what TS if they saw an undefined reference to it. Therefore, I would suggest something like, "Tourette syndrome or Tourette's syndrome, commonly referred to as simply Tourette's..."

LASTLY -- and, most importantly -- it is important for all editors to remember that there is no such thing as a perfect article, and no article will ever be perfect. An article having been chosen as a featured article would certainly be a good reason for not making radical alterations to it, but it shouldn't be used as a blanket reason for opposing any and all edits, no matter how small they be. Cheers,

Firejuggler86 (talk) 09:34, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Prognosis

This edit introduced some very old primary sources and a press release; some of these older findings are not reflected in newer reviews (eg, Packer 2013). I have trimmed the text to a potion that is reflected in Denckla, trimmed additional text that was already in the article (defining TS-only), and adjusted the flow to accommodate the text. The findings about IQ reported in the 2006 Denckla review are not reflected in any newer secondary review; see WP:MEDRS. Part of this added text (the part sourced to secondary reviews-- not the primary sources and press release) was actually taken from an older version of this article; when I updated it to newer sources, I found that current secondary reviews disagree with the IQ findings. To re-add, we would need a newer secondary review that includes these notions. 23:10, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I have now revised the sources and removed all of this text. Most of it was taken from a much older version of this article, and newer secondary reviews no longer support this text. To reintroduce these concepts, recent WP:MEDRS-compliant reviews should be used. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:50, 7 May 2020 (UTC)