This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Blue-cone monochromacy article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
On 6 December 2022, it was proposed that this article be moved from Blue cone monochromacy to Blue-cone monochromacy. The result of the discussion was Moved. |
@ Dicklyon: what's the justification for hyphenating the term? I see very few examples of this and most are from non-contemporary or low impact sources. Curran919 ( talk) 22:32, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Moved.( closed by non-admin page mover) Sennecaster ( Chat) 18:23, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
Blue cone monochromacy → Blue-cone monochromacy – Per MOS:HYPHEN, using the hyphen to help the reader parse the unfamiliar construct is a good idea. The topic is not about a cone monochromacy that's blue, which is what the current unhyphenated version suggests, but rather a monochromacy associated with blue cones, which is what the hyphen makes clear. While specialized sources often omit the hyphen since the construct is familiar enough to their readers, the hyphen is used often enough to verify that it is an acceptable clarification (e.g. in Journal of Physiology). We should keep our readers' interests in mind, and help them out here. Dicklyon ( talk) 03:52, 6 December 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mello hi! ( 投稿) 16:40, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
@ Dicklyon: Let's take this to the logical conclusion, shall we? There is no such thing as a blue cone. In cone cell, there is no mention of a blue cone, and what is referred to as a blue cone appears decidedly un-blue; in fact, it is complementary. This is why the preferred name for the past 40+ years has been S-cone. The condition should therefore be called S-cone Monochromacy and I can give you instances of this term's use in literature here and here, the later being from Sharpe, whom I have even lauded before in our discussions as providing the best review paper on color blindness in the last 30 years. So let's rename this article S-cone Monochromacy, or hey, even S-Cone Monochromacy could work! Its a far less common, but certainly more proper name for the condition, both technically and grammatically. Curran919 ( talk) 22:37, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
I was looking at the revision history and saw that @ Dean402's edit was reverted for promoting specific sites. From the edit description, it seemed like it was a good-faith attempt to add external links, so I want to ask: @ MrOllie was the problem with the links themselves, or just the format? and if the issue was just the format, then is it ok if I add them to the external links section? Doomhope ( talk) 06:37, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article.. The BCMFamilies Foundation is a self published site that spends a lot of time recommending specific doctors and/or medical devices in a way that appears promotional. I would oppose its addition on those grounds. MrOllie ( talk) 12:27, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Blue-cone monochromacy article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
On 6 December 2022, it was proposed that this article be moved from Blue cone monochromacy to Blue-cone monochromacy. The result of the discussion was Moved. |
@ Dicklyon: what's the justification for hyphenating the term? I see very few examples of this and most are from non-contemporary or low impact sources. Curran919 ( talk) 22:32, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Moved.( closed by non-admin page mover) Sennecaster ( Chat) 18:23, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
Blue cone monochromacy → Blue-cone monochromacy – Per MOS:HYPHEN, using the hyphen to help the reader parse the unfamiliar construct is a good idea. The topic is not about a cone monochromacy that's blue, which is what the current unhyphenated version suggests, but rather a monochromacy associated with blue cones, which is what the hyphen makes clear. While specialized sources often omit the hyphen since the construct is familiar enough to their readers, the hyphen is used often enough to verify that it is an acceptable clarification (e.g. in Journal of Physiology). We should keep our readers' interests in mind, and help them out here. Dicklyon ( talk) 03:52, 6 December 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mello hi! ( 投稿) 16:40, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
@ Dicklyon: Let's take this to the logical conclusion, shall we? There is no such thing as a blue cone. In cone cell, there is no mention of a blue cone, and what is referred to as a blue cone appears decidedly un-blue; in fact, it is complementary. This is why the preferred name for the past 40+ years has been S-cone. The condition should therefore be called S-cone Monochromacy and I can give you instances of this term's use in literature here and here, the later being from Sharpe, whom I have even lauded before in our discussions as providing the best review paper on color blindness in the last 30 years. So let's rename this article S-cone Monochromacy, or hey, even S-Cone Monochromacy could work! Its a far less common, but certainly more proper name for the condition, both technically and grammatically. Curran919 ( talk) 22:37, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
I was looking at the revision history and saw that @ Dean402's edit was reverted for promoting specific sites. From the edit description, it seemed like it was a good-faith attempt to add external links, so I want to ask: @ MrOllie was the problem with the links themselves, or just the format? and if the issue was just the format, then is it ok if I add them to the external links section? Doomhope ( talk) 06:37, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article.. The BCMFamilies Foundation is a self published site that spends a lot of time recommending specific doctors and/or medical devices in a way that appears promotional. I would oppose its addition on those grounds. MrOllie ( talk) 12:27, 22 March 2024 (UTC)