Talk:2019–2020 vaping lung illness outbreak

Feedback from New Page Review process

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Images should be smaller and go on the right. Lead is a bit too long. Consider having an image in the lead section. Add external links if possible. Otherwise, looks good..

Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 15:40, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Renaming

Should be "United States and Canada", based on Health Canada statement https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/news/2019/10/statement-from-the-council-of-chief-medical-officers-of-health-on-vaping-in-canada.html also a growing number of cases across the country, including at least one person on life support (Sept 18) https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/london/vaping-respiratory-illness-london-1.5288065 - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 08:22, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

The outbreak is US-centric. There is only a handful of cases in Canada. A handful of cases is not an outbreak. QuackGuru (talk) 11:11, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Non-objective content in article

There is a whole section in this article encouraging the reader to become an activist - this is content fit for a blog not wikpedia

Mfernflower (talk) 04:14, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Smoking causes severe lung problems. Vaping may also cause severe lung problems. Readers can decide for themselves. Every section is neutral. QuackGuru (talk) 11:11, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't see anything encouraging the reader to become an activist (which section did you mean? Maybe I missed something?), but the images seem to be rather deliberately "in your face". They should be thumbnailed and put right (left only if they get too crowded on the right side), rather than being huge and centered. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:57, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

What I see in the "Patients" section at the moment is personal testimonials or anecdotes about two or three individuals, nearly all in their own words. How is that encyclopedic? ☆ Bri (talk) 22:30, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Removal/rework of the offending content is needed and can be attempted but I assume it will result in edit warring from QuackGuru Mfernflower (talk) 23:05, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

I tend to agree on the "Patients" section; the "testimonial" style does seem a bit much. And let's not assume bad faith; we're discussing it here so we can decide what to do next. I think the "Patients" section could be removed altogether; we already have the aggregate statistics, which are a great deal more encyclopedic than a few anecdotes. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:51, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

I've at least cleaned up the sections that consisted mostly or solely of images or media files. That's...really not how we write articles, by just dumping media and statistics at the reader like that. Rather, we use reliable sources to interpret and explain the raw data. So far as the "Patients" section, I note that it does link to a case about an actual lawsuit filed, about which some sources do exist. It seems that describing the lawsuit would be more relevant than a few patients' anecdotal stories, and I'd suggest having some material in regards to that. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:01, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Describing the lawsuit where a person died before the outbreak is not more relevant. It is related to the topic but is it off-topic to include content about the lawsuit. Having aggregate statistics is just numbers. Having commentary from patients is more meaningful because it gives detailed commentary from actual patients rather than just the numbers. Some of the images deleted can be restored to specific sections rather than having them in separate sections. QuackGuru (talk) 09:40, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Testimonials are not allowed on wikipedia regardless of good intent per wp:soap and wp:nothere - Why aren't you adding testimonials to the Vioxx page for example? It seems like you explicitly target tobacco products for some personal reason - Science is about looking at the numbers Mfernflower (talk) 12:39, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

I think it's okay to include some information in regards to patients, certainly. And there may be particular cases which reliable sources note as being particularly impactful or noteworthy, and in that case, it may be entirely appropriate to provide detail in the article about that case. But it should be provided in more of a dispassionate, "just the facts ma'am" style (here's what happened, here's why that was of particular significance), rather than the newsy, testimonial style currently used. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 13:27, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

And I did mean to address as well that the entire "Comments" section (I've never seen such a main header before) almost invites that whole thing becoming a quote farm, which it currently is. That section would be better worked into a "Reactions" or "Aftermath" section, and more prose and less quotation used in it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 13:50, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree that textual is better and thank you for the cleanup - but the current text still contains puffery and testimonials - again not acceptable practices involving science!!! Mfernflower (talk) 15:11, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Well, our articles are an iterative process of improvement, so let's not be too harsh on them at any given point in the process, nor on those who worked with them. What would you see as the next thing to be worked on? Like I said, I think the "Comments" section ought to be reworked more into prose, and perhaps more as a "Reactions" or "Aftermath", essentially cataloging the effects that the incident had. (That of course will require updating as it is still somewhat a dynamic situation, but this would not be the first time that's occurred with an article.) Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:33, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Making it less like a news article and more like a wikipedia one Mfernflower (talk) 23:54, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

I've pared back some information that seemed extraneous, added some missing details such as case and individual names, and otherwise done work to make the prose less awkward. I still think we probably ought to rework more quotes into prose, and it still does seem we might have some extraneous bits that could be trimmed. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:11, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

He is still threatening to revert things for no reason however Mfernflower (talk) 00:06, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Still looks very much a WP:SOAP to me. Although some info may be of encyclopedic value, the way it's written seem inappropriate to me. --Signimu (talk) 00:39, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Not replaceable with a free image

We don't have another image to replace this image. Other images don't replace this image. I have restored it but reduced the size. QuackGuru (talk) 09:40, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Prose can replace that image. The information it gives is that the patient was seriously ill, and has publicly announced her desire to begin an anti-vaping campaign. That single sentence can convey, in freely-licensed text, the same information the photograph does. Also, the article already contains free images, and replaceability is per article subject, not per aspect of the subject. Therefore, the photograph fails WP:NFCC, both #1 (it is replaceable by other article images and by free-licensed text), and #8 (given the failure of #1, it serves only a decorative purpose). We can certainly discuss incorporation of the other images, but NFCC is non-negotiable and that one is not permitted. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 13:19, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

For an article specifically about the patients I think it meets fair use. QuackGuru (talk) 00:23, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

It would meet fair use here. Our nonfree content criteria are deliberately a great deal stricter than fair use. It would be replaceable by prose at such a hypothetical article same as it would here. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:25, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Per WP:NFCC: #1 it is not replaceable by others images, and #8 it serves to enhance our readers understanding of the article topic. Words can't explain everything. QuackGuru (talk) 10:10, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Sourced content replaced with failed verification content

This edit added content not found in the source. QuackGuru (talk) 22:05, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

References

These sources does not mention the outbreak and does not appear verify the claim. The previous source does verify the content and does mention the outbreak. QuackGuru (talk) 22:05, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

I removed all GottsJordt2019 references and replaced them with the proper clinical reports for the uk and japan - please do not revert things without thinking them out thoroughly Mfernflower (talk) 23:19, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

I also removed a small chunk of redundant text - please kindy remember that no one editor owns an article! Mfernflower (talk) 23:22, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Please note I just corrected a mistake on my part Mfernflower (talk) 23:35, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Replacing a "review" with poor sources that failed verification is not an improvement. Europe covers the UK. The section title does not need to include the UK. Content including France was removed. QuackGuru (talk) 20:17, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Both of those references note hospital admissions for vaping-related illness, in the UK and Japan respectively, which is the claim they support. So, I do not agree that they fail verification. I'm curious, however, why the Japan case is relevant in that particular section. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:42, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Both sources do not verify "similar cases" to the outbreak. The sources were from before the outbreak occurred. QuackGuru (talk) 21:00, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Please read the current Europe and UK section before reverting or flagging Mfernflower (talk) 21:27, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

That is, at most, slightly imprecise article wording, not verification failure. The cited sources do mention very similar cases, and note that they occurred in Europe and Japan. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:29, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

The current wording I just added should fix things - the japan source was a mindless mistake Mfernflower (talk) 21:33, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Where does each source mention these are similar to the outbreak? Both sources are from before the outbreak occurred and therefore off-topic. The cited sources do mention they were very similar cases to the outbreak. QuackGuru (talk) 21:40, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

See "Cases of toxicity have been reported in the UK medical literature before the outbreak began." Where does the source verify "before the outbreak began"? Once the inaccurate/failed verification content is removed it would not be relevant to this article. QuackGuru (talk) 21:40, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

You cannot look into the future - If I reword it to "before the year 2019" would you be okay with that? Mfernflower (talk) 21:42, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

I explained above it would be off-topic once the policy violation is removed. We have a better source which is a 2019 review and it does verify "similar cases". The previous source is on-topic and does discuss the outbreak. The proposed wording is vague while the previous content provided more detailed content. QuackGuru (talk) 21:53, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't see it as off topic but as supplemental information to the main description - no need to cite a massive review Mfernflower (talk) 21:56, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

The review directly cites the outbreak and it is compliant with WP:MEDRS. The current wording weakened the claim compared with the previous wording. There has not been a good explanation to delete a review and replace it with case studies. QuackGuru (talk) 22:05, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

I feel you are nitpicking but I will differ any more prose comments to Seraphimblade Mfernflower (talk) 22:08, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

After reading WP:MEDRS for a while I have concluded that with the new wording I added - citing the big review would be needed - Please read the new text before taking any action! Mfernflower (talk) 22:13, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

See "A 2019 review found that cases of toxicity have been reported in the UK before 2019." This weakens the claim compared to the previous wording. "A 2019 review found" and "before 2019" is not needed. "cases of toxicity" is too vague. QuackGuru (talk) 22:29, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Patients section is getting too long

Could we all agree to limit it to three cases? Wikipedia isn't a news aggregator for good reasons Mfernflower (talk) 15:36, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

That would be like saying should we limit the United States section or other sections to three responses. There is no need to cap off the content. If it is too long then a subarticle would be created. I don't think it is too long. Do you have a suggestion for a new title for a potential new subarticle? QuackGuru (talk) 15:44, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

I just don't think citing news pages is the only way of doing things - Wikipedia is not a news aggregator and I suspect as more case reports hit the media you will just grow the section out ad nauseam. - Perhaps only have like 3 in the main article and then link to a case aggregator page (Perhaps something like "Notable media reports of the 2019 vaping lung disease outbreak")? Mfernflower (talk) 15:49, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

The part "notable media reports" is too vague. It would be a content fork to start a new subarticle right now. There's not enough content. For example, see the pod mod article. It is an obvious content fork. For content about the different generations there is the Construction of electronic cigarettes article. QuackGuru (talk) 15:55, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

I assume as more media reports come in this portion of the article will continue to grow? Mind you that having more than a few case reports is not how things are done anywhere else on wikipedia! 16:34, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

It is WP:TOO SOON to start a new subarticle at the moment. If a few more cases emerge then a new article could be started soon. QuackGuru (talk) 17:03, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't think we should start a new article, but I also think that section is getting overly long. I think we need to focus more on facts, data, and analysis, and less on "tear-jerker" type anecdotes. It needs trimming or removal, not splitting into a separate article. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:03, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

As it is getting too long sure start a new article. No harm really... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:02, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

I think having more than 4 or so media cases warrants having a new article. But again the question in my head is: should wikipedia be used, in essence to aggregate news? Do remember that science does not use anecdotes and media reports as input! Mfernflower (talk) 03:32, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Agree with DocJames Cloudjpk (talk) 20:38, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

There is a consensus for a new article. I trimmed the number of cases in this article. QuackGuru (talk) 00:23, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Again the question is my mind is should Wikipedia be used to aggregate news articles? What's the policy and or precedent for that? 03:18, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

No, QuackGuru, there is not a consensus for a new article. Three people have floated the idea; two have objected. That is not a consensus. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:33, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

See "As it is getting too long sure start a new article. No harm really..." per Doc James

See "I think having more than 4 or so media cases warrants having a new article." per Mfernflower

See "Agree with DocJames" per Cloudjpk

I think there is no more room for more responses from patients. Therefore, a new article is required for additional patient responses. QuackGuru (talk) 10:10, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Again, why exactly are we aggregating media reports? It's very unscientific and to me feels like an appeal to emotion Mfernflower (talk) 16:12, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

I am really starting to suspect that QuackGuru has an undisclosed COI Mfernflower (talk) 20:49, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Please read WP:COI or WP:Open a COIN. Thank you. It is a salient topic and as each month passes there will probably be more lawsuits and more people speaking out after they are sent home from the hospital, or even worse die. QuackGuru (talk) 20:59, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

COI is COI regardless of the intent - Even the most pure of heart can still have a COI Mfernflower (talk) 21:02, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

When the patient lawsuits go to trial there will obviously be more media coverage. This article can't handle all the press coverage and expanding content. QuackGuru (talk) 21:10, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Maybe, just maybe - we don't need to report on the media? - I have also posted about this whole debacle on the COI noticeboard Mfernflower (talk) 21:13, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

And now I am getting threatened with a ban from him on the COI board

Do you think once the lawsuits go to trial there will be room to add even more content to this article? QuackGuru (talk) 21:42, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

We have the article Ebola virus cases in the United States Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:50, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Please stop deleting relevant content

Repeated deletions of relevant sourced content [1] are not improving the page. If you have a problem with the content, please take to Talk here. Thank you. Cloudjpk (talk) 20:36, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

While it is "sourced content", it is not encyclopedic. The context and qualification makes it clear that he is just guessing, not making the claim based upon any kind of data. While we do indeed report from sources, we also choose what we report from sources. A "kinda, sorta, maybe" figure, even presented as such by the person who's saying it, is not in any way helpful to anyone reading the article. Also, the article is too full of quotes anyway; we should be focusing more on paraphrasing sources that actually interpret the data. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:07, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Please cite where the source characterizes his estimate as a mere guess. Thank you.

You're also welcome to furnish a better source. Cloudjpk (talk) 22:42, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

The exact quote from the source is: He estimates that probably “75-80%” of black-market vapes use some form of cutting agent. "Estimates that probably" is synonymous with "guess". If he actually had data in hand to make that statement, it wouldn't call it an "estimate", qualify it with "probably", and even then provide a range rather than a number. (Source: [2]). So yes, the source says it's a guess. Not in exactly those words, but that's quibbling on semantics, and I'm not going to do that. It is clear, from what the source itself says, that it is a guess. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:52, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

About 75-80% of illicit vapes use some type of diluent agent and as high as 70% contain Vitamin E acetate. Both are rough estimates and both compliment each other. QuackGuru (talk) 00:23, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

"Rough estimates" based upon what aside from spitballing by one CEO? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:38, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Does this meet the criterion for original research? Mfernflower (talk) 03:19, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

One rough estimate is from the CEO of CannaSafe and the other is from Drew Jones of Mr Extractor. QuackGuru (talk) 10:10, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Sourced content is not original research. QuackGuru (talk) 10:10, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Sourced content not always means good content Mfernflower (talk) 16:11, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

I give up (WP:DISENGAGE)

I cannot stand to edit any more in the E-Cig topic area - both ANI and the COI investigators said this whole debacle should to go to arbitration (ANI saying a consensus is not needed to file an arb claim) and as such will no longer edit in this area until arb is underway Mfernflower (talk) 21:45, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Vaping-associated lung injuries can be attributed to vitamin E acetate, CDC says

I am just getting things started. I don't have the time to dig up the best sources, etc.. Including WP:MEDRS, etc..

• Vaping-associated lung injuries can be attributed to vitamin E acetate, CDC says. By Nicole Wetsman. Dec 20, 2019. The Verge. "She stressed, though, that there may be more than one chemical causing these injuries. Not every patient with EVALI reported using THC-containing products, and not every tested product associated with an injury contained vitamin E acetate."

• Template:Electronic cigarettes - see the many subarticles. Together they discuss the many chemicals added to e-cigs, and the toxic effects of many of them. That show/hide template should be at the top of all the subarticles. Or as a sidebar box.

By the way, Vitamin E acetate is not found in nature. As always, one needs to dig down to the references used in the articles below.

• Ingredient Watch List: Tocopheryl Acetate, the Potentially Irritating Form of Vitamin E.

"This ingredient is basically a form of vitamin E created in the laboratory. Manufacturers take natural vitamin E and add acetic acid to it."

Various concerns and side effects are listed in the article.

Chemical of the Day - Q&A - Tocopherol vs. Tocopheryl Acetate. 26 April 2011. From the article (emphasis added):

the finished products can contain traces of hydroquinone. ... The best form of vitamin E when considering contamination concerns, is vacuum-distilled. ... researchers found that tocopherol acetate alone caused tumors to form when injected, but tocopherol alone did not.

See the "depigmentation" section of the hydroquinone article for its toxic effects. -- Timeshifter (talk) 10:57, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Failed verification content restored

Source does not verify "of CBD oils"[3] and vitamin E is explained in detail in other sections. QuackGuru (talk) 10:22, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Were you talking about this one? The article text in question is: ...of CBD oils, which are currently being tested for Vitamin-E Acetate. The cited reference ([4]) explicitly states this: Pauwaert's CBD oil is now being tested for vitamin E, according to HLN. How on Earth does that "fail verification" when the source directly and explicitly confirms it? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:29, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

See "Pauwaert's doctors point to his e-cig use, or e-cig fillings, as the most likely cause of death."[5]

See previous sourced content" "His doctors believe the cause of death was probably a result of his vaping.[55]"

See SYN violation and misleading content: "His doctors believe the cause of death was probably a result of his vaping of CBD oils, which are currently being tested for Vitamin-E Acetate.[55]"

Source does not confirm he was vaping "of CBD oils" and it is not "currently being" tested as of December 2019.

What about the mess you did to the other content? You reverted back to an old version before there was a close. QuackGuru (talk) 01:44, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

You're not making a bit of sense. The article explicitly does confirm his vaping of CBD oils, and that they are being tested (or at least were in November; I'd be good with changing "currently" to "were tested" or the like). I even gave you the exact quote from the source that confirms that. As to the rest, the "mess" was to wholesale dump the other article in here, rather than the merge done previously, where the other article was appropriately trimmed prior to merging. It needs cut down to an appropriate length for part of a section, and the previous edits by Beland did that quite well, I think. Given that Beland's proposal was accepted at AfD, I think it makes sense to go with that version. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:20, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

See "Pauwaert's CBD oil is now being tested for vitamin E, according to HLN."[6] That does not explicitly state he was vaping CBD oils. QuackGuru (talk) 10:28, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

You literally just quoted the part which discussed his CBD oils. You are still making no sense at all. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:38, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

See current wording: "His doctors believe the cause of death was probably a result of his vaping of CBD oils,..." The source does not verify the cause of death was probably a result of his vaping CBD. It only verifies vaping not vaping with CBD. See "Pauwaert's doctors point to his e-cig use, or e-cig fillings, as the most likely cause of death."[7] The sentence can be tweaked to avoid the SYN violation. The part about the CBD oils can be separated into another sentence. QuackGuru (talk) 18:13, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

The content was rewritten without the SYN violation. See "His doctors believe the cause of death was probably a result of his vaping.[56] Pauwaert's CBD oils he also used were tested for vitamin E at the Saint-Luc Hospital in November 2019.[55]" Ref 55 is a new source. QuackGuru (talk) 01:03, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

I've got no objection to that wording. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:10, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Undo merge proposal

Should we undo the merge and restore the previous article? QuackGuru (talk) 10:37, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Survey

• Support undoing merge. QuackGuru (talk) 10:37, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Comments on proposal to undo merge

Most editors opposed the merge and there is enough content for a separate article. QuackGuru (talk) 10:37, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

• As this article gets bigger yes would be good to split out. We have Ebola virus cases in the United States for example (for 11 cases of disease). Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:52, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

yes agree it would be good to splitOzzie10aaaa (talk) 12:56, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

• The U.S. Ebola cases were much smaller in number, such that they can all be described here. Each also got national press attention and had political implications in specific state in a way that the individual vaping cases have not. It's also unclear to me that all the detail that's currently in that article is actually needed; most seems to have been added as news coverage was actually happening, and probably suffers from a lot of recentism. -- Beland (talk) 04:48, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

• This is the wrong venue. If you disagree with the close of an AfD, that's settled thataway. I agree with the merge though; the other bit was excess, unencyclopedic detail that belongs in a newspaper, not encyclopedia. If there's too much of that here, it should be trimmed, not split. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:53, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
  • You disagreed with the merge according to your edit. You also restored failed verification content. QuackGuru (talk) 00:49, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
    • QG, enough with throwing "failed verification" around, and I'm not going with that tactic. What do you think failed verification, and why do you think so? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:18, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Mass content deletion

I think the content should not be deleted. The edit reverted back to an old version and deleted subsequent improvements. If it is too long we don't delete. We keep the content or start another article. If anyone supports deleting the content then that suggests a split is warranted. QuackGuru (talk) 11:14, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Seraphimblade unclear what you tried to do here?[8]

You restored back to statistics as they were in November of 2019... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:52, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

I see you restored those (to which I don't object), but you also put in a tremendously excessive amount of detail. If we're going to list individual cases, we should list a few of the most notable examples, not a laundry list of all of them. That was also the issue with the previous split; it was excessive, unencyclopedic detail. It needs to be trimmed down to include a few, maybe 2-4, representative ones, not all of them. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:09, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

If it is too long for this article then why not a split? I will continue to expand it. QuackGuru (talk) 01:11, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Looks like we have about 14 individual cases. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:17, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

If it gets to around 20 everyone will be demanding a split. QuackGuru (talk) 01:20, 31 December 2019 (UTC)