Talk:Cholera/Archive 2

Wrong
What a fucking mess!! Cholera in itself is not a panddemic. so the category cshould befremoved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.189.101.254 (talk) 02:13, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. Rummskartoffel (talk) 09:58, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Consensus? For a obviously wrong category? WP:BEBOLD.
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: The section above the content box states Although it is classified as a pandemic as of 2010, it is rare in the developed world. So I would not consider the category to be wrong and, as has already been said, I would discuss this first. TheImaCow (talk) 20:06, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * preddy damn tenuous. catagories are all or nothing not  tenouosus stuff.  besides the colora pandemics CATEGORY is in the padedemics category. FFS
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:11, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * FFS it is nothing to do with WP:RS! It is part of how a decent online enyclopedia should be set up!

Is the "further reading" list adding any value here?
I suggest to remove the "further reading" list. Any important references should already be in the in-line citations list. EMsmile (talk) 01:18, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Proposing to move "Health policy" to "prevention"
I think the section on "health policy" is too hidden under Society and culture and should be moved up to become part of "prevention". Under Society and culture, I expect more trivia, notable people, arts, culture and so forth but not important information on how to prevent the spread of cholera. Does anyone object to me moving it? EMsmile (talk) 01:22, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Hidden comments in the lead
Hi User:Graham Beards I see you are making this change to a range of articles, including the cholera article: "removed redundant hidden comments". I just wonder why you are removing them? I felt that they did serve a purpose. The purpose was to help new and old editors to remember which sections should be summarised in the lead. I thought those hidden comments were quite useful, and most of those leads were better than for the average Wikipedia article. I was under the impression that it was a standard thing done by WikiProject Medicine. Is there a particular reason why you are removing them all? I found them useful. But maybe mine is a minority view. EMsmile (talk) 00:56, 22 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi, please see Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles where this was discussed. --Graham Beards (talk) 07:46, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link. I see the discussion about the hidden comments in the lead was embedded in the larger discussion about the guidelines for leads of medical articles. I see also that some people, like User:Espresso Addict argued for keeping them, like I would have. But I guess they were overruled. Pity because I think at least for disease type articles, those hidden guidelines in the lead were very good and should have stayed. (Menstruation and menstrual cycles are not diseases so of course there was no need for those same hidden comments for them; I am talking solely about disease type articles here, of which there are many). EMsmile (talk) 08:11, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

cholera.is.covred.by.Answer.science
2401:4900:599D:84FE:0:0:43C:735D (talk) 05:45, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. --Ferien (talk) 07:01, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 June 2021
Change "Humans are the only animal affected." To "humans are the only known host for [the bacteria.]" The revised sentence would be more true to the source that the original sentence comes from (it's almost a direct quote so perhaps not that sentence exactly). In any case the original sentence is an absolute. 98.215.110.214 (talk) 04:55, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think this would be an improvement. Graham Beards (talk) 05:49, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I have no idea why this would be controversial. Lots of people don't regard humans as animals, right or wrong, so what? The suggestion is both better from a NPOV and closer to the source. I've changed it. Vividuppers (talk) 11:14, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks to the people who worked on this article
This was a really informative article. Cheers to the people who created it. Vividuppers (talk) 11:17, 19 January 2022 (UTC)