From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Proposed merge with Vaccination[edit]

Articles cover the same subject matter, the article "vaccination" is basically a stripped down version of this article. I think any content in "vaccination" that is not also in this article should be added to this article and "vaccination" should redirect here, it seems confusing that there is at article "vaccination" and a separate article "vaccine" but I wanted to get consensus before merging such large important articles. Tornado chaser (talk) 19:20, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

The effectiveness section is the same because I copied it from vaccine after another user pointed out that vaccination lacked an effectiveness section, eaven befor this I felt the articles were too similar to be separate. Tornado chaser (talk) 01:00, 31 July 2017 (UTC) P.S why are the links another user added stuck to the bottom of the page as if they were added by whoever was the last person to comment here? Tornado chaser (talk) 19:22, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

No. They are two different concepts, something a pro-science person understands completely. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 21:24, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Undecided but leaning towards support There is a lot of duplication. The "effectiveness" sections are nearly word for word the same. Yes one is the substance and the other is the giving of said substance. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:36, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. As the proposer of the merge. Tornado chaser (talk) 01:05, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Bit like merging bullet with machine gun. Moriori (talk) 01:11, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Scientific and health communities discuss these concepts independently. The article may be a slimmed down version with significant redundancy; however, that is purely the fault of the editors. Andrew. Z. Colvin • Talk 07:12, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

RfC on merge[edit]

Seeking consensus on above merge. Tornado chaser (talk) 16:03, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Oppose - I like the bullet/machine gun analogy above. Entirely unnecessary merge. Keira1996 04:31, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support in principle - The bullet/machine gun analogy sounds good until you actually try to apply it and review the current article content. I assume the proposal is that Vaccine is the medicine and Vaccination is how the medicine is administered. If that's the case, it looks like the majority of the material in Vaccination is actually about Vaccine. Maybe start by merging just that material to Vaccine and see where we stand after that.
Some sort of work is required here because, taking a reader's perspective, it is not obvious where you would expect find whatever particular information you're looking for with the current organization. It is a big topic so WP:SUMMARY should be applied but it looks like we're trying to do that with two master summary articles. ~Kvng (talk) 14:34, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
I have started to move content from vaccination to vaccine where applicable. Tornado chaser (talk) 03:09, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
I am puzzled by the bullet/machine gun analogy. Does it assume that "vaccination" primarily means "mass vaccination"? If this is how "vaccination" is widely understood, the Vaccination article should do more to say so. Maproom (talk) 07:55, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

I have moved some content in vaccination to vaccine, rather that attempt a full merge, although it still seems redundant to have major articles on vaccine, vaccination, and vaccination policy, is there any material in vaccination that doesn't belong in either vaccine or vaccination policy? Tornado chaser (talk) 12:47, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

comment as the articles stand now it's not clear to me as a reader what I would expect to find different between the two of them, so I would suggest either merging or proposing a clear plan of what the difference between the two topics should be and then making that clear in the intros. CapitalSasha ~ talk 04:31, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

I have merged the articles and CSD'd vaccination. Tornado chaser (talk) 23:07, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

This is entirely inappropriate. For one thing it is a major change while the matter has not been resolved by consensus. I for one have not been aware of the discussion till I got the RFC today. I have contacted Diannaa to that effect and propose that the whole thing be opened up to redesign the articles in question and meet any valid objections without amateurish botch-ups. It is not my field, but if no one qualified in the matter is ready to deal with it I can undertake it. JonRichfield (talk) 06:15, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
I am open to a redesigning of both articles, I was planning to better organize vaccine and If vaccination was rewritten I would have no problem with that, if it contained different material from related articles. As far as your assertion that this was a unilateral change, I opened an RfC, and was following suggestions from multiple editors, maybe I should have waited, but is was not a unilateral merge. Also how am I supposed to know who has seen the RfC? It doesn't seem that 1 editor not seeing the RfC is alone an indication that I was too hasty. Tornado chaser (talk) 14:37, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
"Suggestions from multiple editors" doesn't mean a thing. Bold action means action in respond to a need, it does not mean trashing an RFC as soon as you feel like it. "Multiple editors" means 0 or more, and in this case it seems to mean about 3, one comment, one pro and 1 con. Are you trying to be funny? You don't own those articles; your behaviour is disruptive. Oh, and see the remarks below about reading WP:RFC. JonRichfield (talk) 18:44, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
how am I supposed to know who has seen the RfC? You are not supposed to. RFC usually waits for about a month. People have real life (not to say lots and lots of articles on their watchlist). Please read WP:RFC. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:00, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Please AGF, I was not trying to be funny, nor do I think I own any articles, I had no idea RfC was supposed to be open for a certain amount of time, I thought I was just asking for the opinions of other editors, and following there suggestions. I was not trying to "trash" the RfC and if I wanted to do anything "whenever I felt like" I would never have requested comments in the first place.
It is now clear to me that I made a mistake, but please recognize this as the good-faith error it was. If anyone wants to revert the merge I will not revert them.Tornado chaser (talk) 23:48, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose to merge of the concepts. However a temporary merge before redesigning the two articles is a reasonable idea, so I would not advise reverting the merge. Instead, now the article, with all duplication and overlaps removed, must be split in two according to the WP:Summary style guidelines. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:56, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
That makes sense. Does anyone have any suggestions for recruiting authors/editors for restructuring the topics? A team could approach it on a top-down basis I reckon. JonRichfield (talk) 18:44, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
OK, last remark of Tornado chaser understood as good faith. Accordingly I oppose reversion. For everyone then, where does this leave us with the proposal of Staszek Lem, which I support? JonRichfield (talk) 07:56, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
  • oppose do not see the point in such merge--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:21, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Question - Since this RFC is still open, should we restore the merge banners on the involved articles. This might assure that more editors are aware of this discussion. ~Kvng (talk) 14:51, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
I think this would confuse people, they would think the articles were merged and someone forgot to remove the banners. Tornado chaser (talk) 15:43, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose One is the process and one is the product. Two different concepts with a commonality in the name, with some overlap, is where the confusion lies. Over time, the articles will clearly differentiate. scope_creep (talk) 08:05, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Closing the merge, as it has been a month without additional comment, and it seems the majority is opposing - if I am doing this wrong please inform me immediately - Ncfriend (talk) 02:56, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
    • Er, it was already merged, closing as it has been merged Ncfriend (talk) 02:59, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Each topic seems deserving of its own article. And while each would share some of the same content, they would approach it from different points of view. Paul August 00:24, 7 October 2017 (UTC)


Please notice that there are two more articles to merge: Inoculation and Variolation, both speaking mostly about the history of smallpox inoculation (and even in that they both overlap and diverge, a classical case of WP:CFORK). In fact, IMO there must be a massive merge into a new article, History of immunization, see Immunization#History. In addition, as I see from article text, the term Inoculation requires disambiguation. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:04, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

IMO the following sections belong to "Vaccination":

Other remarks

  • "Trends" is a pointless section title. First, "trends" means something temporaneous, which wikipedia is not. Instead, its content must be distributed over meaningful sections. If none fitting, add new ones, albeit short.
  • "Mechanism of function" and "Developing immunity" - these two sections IMO must be merged and focused on vaccination (cf. Artificial induction of immunity).

Any other suggestions on restructuring? Staszek Lem (talk) 18:27, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

It is definitely worth mentioning in Inoculation that the traditional method of rendering children immune to diseases was to intentionally expose them to a child with the illness, so that the exposed child would catch the illness itself by exposure and then recover from it. See, e.g., Pox party. This is a practice distinct from vaccination. There is tremendous potential for expansion of all of these concepts. bd2412 T 19:28, 7 September 2017 (UTC)