![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 9 |
I don't feel that the current map at the top of the page is useful, and I wondered if others agreed. The map shows the locations of Ebola patients diagnosed in the US, but only by state. Which means it's a map showing one state. I feel that this information is most easily conveyed with the simple statement, "US cases have been diagnosed only in Texas." If cases are diagnosed in other states, it would make sense to show them on a map. Or if we expanded the purpose of the map to also show the locations where medically evacuated cases were treated, that would make sense as well. But, as it stands, I don't see the purpose in having a map of the USA that identifies a single state as the one to have a particular characteristic. -- DavidK93 ( talk) 00:25, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
No, sorry. The whole thing looks absurd now. So Texas highlighted is misleading, but a generic map of the lower 48 (with Alaska and Hawaii nowhere to be seen) is somehow more informative?? Can you lead me through that logic? How does the map inform the reader about anything? On the other pages regarding the outbreak, the respective states are highlighted, even if the virus is not "found all over." -- Veggies ( talk) 13:39, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
I like the map pinpointing just Dallas, for as long as there are no transmissions elsewhere; it provides much better, more precise information than just showing all of Texas, especially since the location of Dallas within Texas is less obvious to the average reader. If transmission occurs anywhere else in the US, well, we'll figure out what to do then. -- DavidK93 ( talk) 18:20, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
How does this strike everyone? -- Veggies ( talk) 18:52, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Zad
68
19:46, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm wondering if we should move the aftermath of Thomas Duncan's death to his article Thomas Eric Duncan. Since his death, the only news that would be relevant here would be information about the course of his illness, contacts who might have contracted the virus from him, etc. The bits about any lawsuit might be best handled by that article. Because, as you can image, an subsequent lawsuit will generate a lot of copy and it would be undue here. But I don't want to move anything to his article unless editors here are comfortable with that. Please comment if you've the time. Thanks. SW3 5DL ( talk) 18:37, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
In the last paragraph of this section above, I noted some problems. I can give examples if necessary. Does anyone agree? -- Light show ( talk) 23:41, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
In the section Ebola virus outbreak in the United States#Amber Joy Vinson, the order of events seems to be way out of chronological order. Is there any particular reason for that? What's wrong with telling events in the order in which they happened? CorinneSD ( talk) 00:10, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
At the end of the lead, the last sentence ends, "no other confirmed cases of locally transmitted Ebola virus infection have yet been reported in the U.S." Since this is the first mention of the country in the article, does anyone have any objection to changing "U.S." to "United States", just here?
Also, the second paragraph in the section Ebola virus outbreak in the United States#Thomas Eric Duncan in Liberia starts by describing what happened on September 15, 2014, with a pregnant woman friend. Even though the title of the section is "Thomas Eric Duncan in Liberia", it follows a paragraph saying Duncan had quit his job on September 4, ending with this sentence:
which kind of suggests -- in the narrative -- that he had already left Liberia.
I think it should be mentioned, just for the sake of clarity, that what was occurring at the beginning of the second paragraph was in Liberia. CorinneSD ( talk) 22:40, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
The first sentence of the second paragraph in the section Ebola virus outbreak in the United States#Thomas Eric Duncan in Liberia reads:
It is clear right from the beginning of this article that the article is written in American English. In American English, the word "family" is singular. (See "The family was turned away" later in the same paragraph.) Thus, it should read,
American editors on WP are careful to follow British English style when the article is written predominantly in that style, so when the article is written in American English style, we ought to be consistent. Which of the two versions do you prefer? CorinneSD ( talk) 22:54, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
There is a section in this article headed "Monitoring of other health care workers". I have seen "healthcare", usually in the phrase "healthcare workers", spelled as one word. I even changed one instance where it had been spelled as two words to one word just because I had seen it most often spelled as two words. Is "healthcare" an accepted spelling for the adjective? Perhaps it is accepted as a noun but not yet for an adjective. We need to decide this so that this article and at least the other articles on Ebola are all consistent. I looked up both "healthcare" and "health care" on Wiktionary and both are listed as alternate spellings for the other, but both have only the noun listed. "Health care workers" or "Healthcare workers". I don't know, but the former looks better to me. Any thoughts? CorinneSD ( talk) 23:59, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
I don't have much time to edit on a daily basis but I'd like to contribute something. If someone could let me know which of the articles need editors the most, I'd be happy to help. Miguel Pena ( talk) 20:54, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Yesterday, an admin moved the page to Ebola virus cases in the United States. He based that on the RM nominator's multiple requests at the page move noticeboards on October 15 and again on October 17. The RM nominator did not link to the very active discussion he'd started here in his move requests to those admins. So the admin moving the page believed it was an uncontroversial move. Since then, discussion has centered on the stable title version of the article which was "Ebola virus cases in the United States."
This evening, an editor tried to open an RM discussion on that, but it was closed because of the active RM by the original nominator. I understand what the editor meant in doing that. He was simply trying to clarify this situation. Which is why I'm posting this now. He's right. This must get sorted, because now we've got a quandary on our hands.
This is because, the RM nominator apparently did not do any research on the article title. He wants to move the page to Ebola virus disease in the United States. But that title has never had consensus anymore than the use of outbreak has had consensus. So what should we do? My original thought, once the admin had moved the page back to Ebola virus cases in the United States was to keep it and be done with it. And I opened a thread to that end and ivoted my support. However, two editors disagreed. That meant we had to put an end to what I, and maybe a few others, thought was a lucky break for us to end the title problem once and for all.
It looks like when the RM discussion is completed the page will move to Ebola virus disease in the United States. Now, without interferring with the current RM discussion, will the editors here be satisfied with that, or will this likely lead to another page move discussion to go back to Ebola virus cases in the United States?
If people aren't going to be happy, we need to get this sorted now, so that no more time is wasted on this. I'd like editors to comment here, and please don't argue with each other, just post a comment so we can see where we're at on this. Thanks. SW3 5DL ( talk) 05:25, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
What the current article move history (see above) and policy ( WP:NOCONSENSUS) support is restoring the last uncontested name, Ebola virus disease cases in the United States.
From there, my preference is for Ebola virus disease in the United States. With that scope, the article can cover the current activity plus history. My second preference would be for an article title with "cases". Those are both far better supported per best-available reliable sourcing and
WP:COMMONNAME than "outbreak" in any form, which has only very weak support.
Zad
68
15:42, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Archiving this section; if a further move discussion is necessary (I hope it won't be), please create a new move request. Dekimasu よ! 22:07, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Six in quarantine in Connecticut as U.S. steps up Ebola checks Where would this go in the article?
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 9 |
I don't feel that the current map at the top of the page is useful, and I wondered if others agreed. The map shows the locations of Ebola patients diagnosed in the US, but only by state. Which means it's a map showing one state. I feel that this information is most easily conveyed with the simple statement, "US cases have been diagnosed only in Texas." If cases are diagnosed in other states, it would make sense to show them on a map. Or if we expanded the purpose of the map to also show the locations where medically evacuated cases were treated, that would make sense as well. But, as it stands, I don't see the purpose in having a map of the USA that identifies a single state as the one to have a particular characteristic. -- DavidK93 ( talk) 00:25, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
No, sorry. The whole thing looks absurd now. So Texas highlighted is misleading, but a generic map of the lower 48 (with Alaska and Hawaii nowhere to be seen) is somehow more informative?? Can you lead me through that logic? How does the map inform the reader about anything? On the other pages regarding the outbreak, the respective states are highlighted, even if the virus is not "found all over." -- Veggies ( talk) 13:39, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
I like the map pinpointing just Dallas, for as long as there are no transmissions elsewhere; it provides much better, more precise information than just showing all of Texas, especially since the location of Dallas within Texas is less obvious to the average reader. If transmission occurs anywhere else in the US, well, we'll figure out what to do then. -- DavidK93 ( talk) 18:20, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
How does this strike everyone? -- Veggies ( talk) 18:52, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Zad
68
19:46, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm wondering if we should move the aftermath of Thomas Duncan's death to his article Thomas Eric Duncan. Since his death, the only news that would be relevant here would be information about the course of his illness, contacts who might have contracted the virus from him, etc. The bits about any lawsuit might be best handled by that article. Because, as you can image, an subsequent lawsuit will generate a lot of copy and it would be undue here. But I don't want to move anything to his article unless editors here are comfortable with that. Please comment if you've the time. Thanks. SW3 5DL ( talk) 18:37, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
In the last paragraph of this section above, I noted some problems. I can give examples if necessary. Does anyone agree? -- Light show ( talk) 23:41, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
In the section Ebola virus outbreak in the United States#Amber Joy Vinson, the order of events seems to be way out of chronological order. Is there any particular reason for that? What's wrong with telling events in the order in which they happened? CorinneSD ( talk) 00:10, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
At the end of the lead, the last sentence ends, "no other confirmed cases of locally transmitted Ebola virus infection have yet been reported in the U.S." Since this is the first mention of the country in the article, does anyone have any objection to changing "U.S." to "United States", just here?
Also, the second paragraph in the section Ebola virus outbreak in the United States#Thomas Eric Duncan in Liberia starts by describing what happened on September 15, 2014, with a pregnant woman friend. Even though the title of the section is "Thomas Eric Duncan in Liberia", it follows a paragraph saying Duncan had quit his job on September 4, ending with this sentence:
which kind of suggests -- in the narrative -- that he had already left Liberia.
I think it should be mentioned, just for the sake of clarity, that what was occurring at the beginning of the second paragraph was in Liberia. CorinneSD ( talk) 22:40, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
The first sentence of the second paragraph in the section Ebola virus outbreak in the United States#Thomas Eric Duncan in Liberia reads:
It is clear right from the beginning of this article that the article is written in American English. In American English, the word "family" is singular. (See "The family was turned away" later in the same paragraph.) Thus, it should read,
American editors on WP are careful to follow British English style when the article is written predominantly in that style, so when the article is written in American English style, we ought to be consistent. Which of the two versions do you prefer? CorinneSD ( talk) 22:54, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
There is a section in this article headed "Monitoring of other health care workers". I have seen "healthcare", usually in the phrase "healthcare workers", spelled as one word. I even changed one instance where it had been spelled as two words to one word just because I had seen it most often spelled as two words. Is "healthcare" an accepted spelling for the adjective? Perhaps it is accepted as a noun but not yet for an adjective. We need to decide this so that this article and at least the other articles on Ebola are all consistent. I looked up both "healthcare" and "health care" on Wiktionary and both are listed as alternate spellings for the other, but both have only the noun listed. "Health care workers" or "Healthcare workers". I don't know, but the former looks better to me. Any thoughts? CorinneSD ( talk) 23:59, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
I don't have much time to edit on a daily basis but I'd like to contribute something. If someone could let me know which of the articles need editors the most, I'd be happy to help. Miguel Pena ( talk) 20:54, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Yesterday, an admin moved the page to Ebola virus cases in the United States. He based that on the RM nominator's multiple requests at the page move noticeboards on October 15 and again on October 17. The RM nominator did not link to the very active discussion he'd started here in his move requests to those admins. So the admin moving the page believed it was an uncontroversial move. Since then, discussion has centered on the stable title version of the article which was "Ebola virus cases in the United States."
This evening, an editor tried to open an RM discussion on that, but it was closed because of the active RM by the original nominator. I understand what the editor meant in doing that. He was simply trying to clarify this situation. Which is why I'm posting this now. He's right. This must get sorted, because now we've got a quandary on our hands.
This is because, the RM nominator apparently did not do any research on the article title. He wants to move the page to Ebola virus disease in the United States. But that title has never had consensus anymore than the use of outbreak has had consensus. So what should we do? My original thought, once the admin had moved the page back to Ebola virus cases in the United States was to keep it and be done with it. And I opened a thread to that end and ivoted my support. However, two editors disagreed. That meant we had to put an end to what I, and maybe a few others, thought was a lucky break for us to end the title problem once and for all.
It looks like when the RM discussion is completed the page will move to Ebola virus disease in the United States. Now, without interferring with the current RM discussion, will the editors here be satisfied with that, or will this likely lead to another page move discussion to go back to Ebola virus cases in the United States?
If people aren't going to be happy, we need to get this sorted now, so that no more time is wasted on this. I'd like editors to comment here, and please don't argue with each other, just post a comment so we can see where we're at on this. Thanks. SW3 5DL ( talk) 05:25, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
What the current article move history (see above) and policy ( WP:NOCONSENSUS) support is restoring the last uncontested name, Ebola virus disease cases in the United States.
From there, my preference is for Ebola virus disease in the United States. With that scope, the article can cover the current activity plus history. My second preference would be for an article title with "cases". Those are both far better supported per best-available reliable sourcing and
WP:COMMONNAME than "outbreak" in any form, which has only very weak support.
Zad
68
15:42, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Archiving this section; if a further move discussion is necessary (I hope it won't be), please create a new move request. Dekimasu よ! 22:07, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Six in quarantine in Connecticut as U.S. steps up Ebola checks Where would this go in the article?