User talk:JHCaufield/Archives/2016/May

RE: MRSA Page
Hello,

RE: Your comment on the MRSA page -- "It's a bit confusing now as the spelling of the antibiotic in this page name differs from that used in the article introduction. ".

I totally agree. Perhaps you could help me rectify this? The primary reason for changing the use of Methicillin in the MRSA page was to align it with the actual page about the drug on Wikipedia. So obviously, continuity was my goal, and I agree with your concerns about continuity. How could we go about fixing this?

Thanks, asigkem Asigkem (talk) 19:39, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Askigem - I think the safest option for now is to set up a redirect page from Meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus to the current page. I would suspect that the spelling "methicillin" is still in broader usage than "meticillin" despite the INN usage, so in the absence of consensus to change it, I favor keeping the page name as it is (MOS:ENGVAR is relevant here). JHCaufield - talk - 16:06, 3 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Okay, I agree. I think you're right. Perhaps you could inform me how to set up the redirect. Asigkem (talk) 18:52, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Edit: I've figured out how to do it it, now, thanks. Asigkem (talk) 18:54, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * No problem! JHCaufield - talk - 18:55, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 24
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Fission (biology), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Migration. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:31, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

BionX
Hi JHC,

Which references did you have in mind beyond the half dozen included on the page? If you think the page is now sufficiently referenced, please remove your unreferenced warning. Regarding location and history of the company there are no independent pages since it's a niche company not written about much in the general media.

Best,

— J.S.talk


 * Hello J.S., the BionX page looks quite a bit different from when I last saw it - there was just one primary reference at the time. As you said, you've added more than a few references, so thank you for doing so. The fact that BionX is a niche company may still be a problem as it may not pass the WP:GNG or WP:CORP. I also noticed that there is at least one other company using the name BionX at the moment (a prosthetics company: http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20150928006599/en/BiOM%C2%AE-BionX%E2%84%A2) So, the more third-party references you can find about BionX, the better. I have found some press releases like this one, and while they aren't ideal, they're better than the company's web site. JHCaufield - talk - 16:03, 29 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi, BionX receives a lot of very technical press since it is one of the main producers of electric motors for bikes. So, I don't think lack of notability applies. Of course the cutoff between notable and not is arbitrary but I don't see why the Wikipedia should throw out perfectly good information and behave like the Britannica cutting contents so as not to go over the allocated 12 volumes. Almost no cost to store a few more bytes and specialist readers will find the technical information interesting. The point about BionX US is true but easily solved with a disambiguation page once the BionX US pages has been created which is not currently the case. I will add some external references now. Please remove the tag when you find it sufficiently sourced. Greetings, — J.S.talk