Talk:Neuroplastic effects of pollution

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

External links modified (February 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Neuroplastic effects of pollution. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:02, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Scope[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


I’ve moved/copied some of the content of this article to Brain health and pollution to address the concerns of User:Bon courage (as raised at the talk page of WP:MED). I’ve also tagged the page for duplicated content. Thanks. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 10:37, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dustfreeworld and Bon courage: This new article is now a "content fork" of the original article, with mostly identical content; should there be two separate articles about the same subject, or should one of these articles be merged into the other? Jarble (talk) 14:07, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the initial intention by @Dustfreeworld was to delete this article (hence its PROD) and make a "new" form of the article – effectively a cut and paste move. Note the new article it is not quite a fork of this article, but of a prior version of this article which contained a fair amount of improperly-sourced and unsourced medical content. I have raised this at WT:MED and hope there will be some more input. I doubt there is a need for two articles. This article should probably be renamed something like Neurological impacts of pollution and the forked article deleted. Bon courage (talk) 14:28, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jarble, thanks for the suggestion. :-) IMO Neuroplastic effects of pollution can either be merged into Brain health and pollution or reduced to a stub. I won’t mind if it the former becomes a redirect though. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 16:45, 11 March 2024 (UTC); 17:11, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It would be better the other way round, to preserve the edit history. This article can be renamed. The poorly-sourced and unsourced content you've been edit-warring over needs to go, however. Bon courage (talk) 16:47, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The page history is still preserved after merging I supposed? BTW per WP:PRESERVE and WP:MEDRS,

Rather than remove imperfect content outright, fix problems if you can, tag or excise them if you can't.

Any text that relies on primary sources should usually have minimal weight, only describe conclusions made by the source, and describe these findings so clearly that any editor can check the sourcing without the need for specialist knowledge.

I’ve tagged or excised most issues on the new page already (but haven’t finished, will continue later). Thanks. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 17:23, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, I don’t think I’ve been “edit-warring” as you described. I’m restoring substantial removal of content in violation of our editing policy. It seems that someone else has been edit-warring though. BTW, I’ve never said that unwanted content should stay, but most of them should be tagged or excised first, allowing time for other editors to review (to see if they are really unwanted) or improve (add or replace the sources). Thanks. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 18:11, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.