Talk:Semmelweis' ideas rejected as unscientific
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month. |
| ??? | This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the quality scale. |
| ??? | This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the importance scale. |
[edit] Tag {cleanup-title} - (title not WP)
The page was tagged by Wloveral (talk) {cleanup-title} on 02:22, 1 June 2008.
- You tagged the page {cleanup-title} on 02:22, 1 June 2008. Why? The tag is not self-explanatory. Please be specific. I dont understand your reasoning. I have created this discussion page where you may reply. Power.corrupts (talk) 09:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
- Want to change title to Handwashing and asepsis or Semmelweis and handwashing. Any comments? Prashanthns (talk) 10:25, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
- Hi Prashanthns, thanks for the suggestion. The main page is Ignaz Semmelweis where all handwashing is explained. For a modern-time reader is would be highly surprising that Semmelweis' finding was rejected because it purportedly was unscientific. I believe this info would clog the main page, therefore this subpage. - Just like I created the Historical mortality rates of puerperal fever subpage - also not to clog the main page. However, this page's focus is rejection as unscientific and for that reason I suggest it should be prominent in the title.
- But again, my main question, why would the title not be WP - what is the problem? - then perhaps I could come up with something else. Power.corrupts (talk) 11:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the clarification. I think the present title does not aptly indicate the subject. It looks more like a phrase or a clause, rather than a title. Also, it is too long. (IMO)the title is trying to convey too much, and could almost be the whole first line of the article itself! I think a shorter title would do the article good. Prashanthns (talk) 13:35, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
- I was the tagger. What I should have indicated is that the article's title is both too long and too difficult for searching. Semmelweis' full name should be included in the title with a term such as antisepsis or asepsis. My concern is to make the article findable by a user wanting information. Too much information in WP is hiden under titles that do not contain the right key words. User Prashanthns has some good ideas.--Wloveral (talk) 17:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the clarification, now I understand your concerns. I did chose the title quite carefully in the first place however, and I am not quite sure if your arguments hit the nail. First, it would be improper for the title to include terms such as antisepsis or asepsis - because these concepts were not known at the time; it would be an anachronism. And not the least, the page is not about antisepsis or asepsis - it's basically an epistemology article. Second, if "Ignaz Semmelweis" must be in the title, there are few options before the title becomes "too long" (where is that WP naming convention anyway). Most people know him only by "Semmelweis" and there is an important redirect to "Ignaz Semmelweis". There are also spelling inconsistencies, sometimes in Hungarian it seem to be "Ignác". It would also be inconsistent with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names): Using a full formal name requires people to know that name, and to type more. A solution could be "(Ignaz) Semmelweis rejected" but that would miss the "unscientific" part which is the basic of this article. It would be inconsistent with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision) - I will give this more thought later. Power.corrupts (talk) 09:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- Hi Wloveral, I checked your edit history for the date you tagged this article. You have been extremely productive with page edits every few minutes, I counted 43 edits in just one hour 02:00-03:00. Assuming that you sometimes read articles without actually editing them this implies that you only glanced at my article before suggesting a rename. This also explains why you left no note on the discussion page. Why this enormous haste? I would never suggest renames (or merges for that matter) unless I read the whole thing thoroughly, gave it consideration, and then crafted a discussion entry presenting my points. Your did the same thing with Gerechtigkeitsgasse, a Swiss street name which I think is fully WP:title policy-compliant Please be sensitive, that your tags and comments tax real people's real time out there. I also leave this note on your discussion page because it may be of interest to other wiki contributors. Power.corrupts (talk) 14:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- The page is now sort of mediocre quality and I have deleted the tags. I believe this is the best title and in compliance with WP conventions. I am open for suggestions and leave the messages for all wiki users to leave a comment (be specific) on the issue, if they so wish.Power.corrupts (talk) 14:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- Hi Wloveral, I checked your edit history for the date you tagged this article. You have been extremely productive with page edits every few minutes, I counted 43 edits in just one hour 02:00-03:00. Assuming that you sometimes read articles without actually editing them this implies that you only glanced at my article before suggesting a rename. This also explains why you left no note on the discussion page. Why this enormous haste? I would never suggest renames (or merges for that matter) unless I read the whole thing thoroughly, gave it consideration, and then crafted a discussion entry presenting my points. Your did the same thing with Gerechtigkeitsgasse, a Swiss street name which I think is fully WP:title policy-compliant Please be sensitive, that your tags and comments tax real people's real time out there. I also leave this note on your discussion page because it may be of interest to other wiki contributors. Power.corrupts (talk) 14:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the clarification, now I understand your concerns. I did chose the title quite carefully in the first place however, and I am not quite sure if your arguments hit the nail. First, it would be improper for the title to include terms such as antisepsis or asepsis - because these concepts were not known at the time; it would be an anachronism. And not the least, the page is not about antisepsis or asepsis - it's basically an epistemology article. Second, if "Ignaz Semmelweis" must be in the title, there are few options before the title becomes "too long" (where is that WP naming convention anyway). Most people know him only by "Semmelweis" and there is an important redirect to "Ignaz Semmelweis". There are also spelling inconsistencies, sometimes in Hungarian it seem to be "Ignác". It would also be inconsistent with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names): Using a full formal name requires people to know that name, and to type more. A solution could be "(Ignaz) Semmelweis rejected" but that would miss the "unscientific" part which is the basic of this article. It would be inconsistent with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision) - I will give this more thought later. Power.corrupts (talk) 09:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- I was the tagger. What I should have indicated is that the article's title is both too long and too difficult for searching. Semmelweis' full name should be included in the title with a term such as antisepsis or asepsis. My concern is to make the article findable by a user wanting information. Too much information in WP is hiden under titles that do not contain the right key words. User Prashanthns has some good ideas.--Wloveral (talk) 17:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the clarification. I think the present title does not aptly indicate the subject. It looks more like a phrase or a clause, rather than a title. Also, it is too long. (IMO)the title is trying to convey too much, and could almost be the whole first line of the article itself! I think a shorter title would do the article good. Prashanthns (talk) 13:35, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
- Want to change title to Handwashing and asepsis or Semmelweis and handwashing. Any comments? Prashanthns (talk) 10:25, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Suggested merge
I don't understand why this is separate from Ignaz Semmelweis. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 18:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
- Good point. I agree. Place {{merge|Ignaz Semmelweis|date=June 2008}} on the article's first line and state your reasons on this talk page. Miracles happen. --Wloveral (talk) 20:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
- The main page Ignaz Semmelweis is now 46 kilobytes long and will (if it grows) soon receive an automated message of considering breaking it up in smaller sections. I also believe this is a speciality discussion, which the gereral reader might not value - I was for the same reason I created the Historical mortality rates of puerperal fever subpage - it would kill the main page. I value suggestions, but perhaps I may suggest that this page is first developed as I intended and thus reaches some state of completion - then we can deal with the trivia. This page is under construction. I realize that I have spent my weekend wiki-time reading fairly comprehensive WP:naming convention and writing a long discussion page, and quite regretably, not providing encyclopedia content, which was my intention. Power.corrupts (talk) 09:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- Was there any effort made to trim excess prose from that article? Phlegm Rooster (talk) 10:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I have purged text from that article, but of course ended up writing much more that was deleted. There is no excess prose. Power.corrupts (talk) 14:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- Was there any effort made to trim excess prose from that article? Phlegm Rooster (talk) 10:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- The main page Ignaz Semmelweis is now 46 kilobytes long and will (if it grows) soon receive an automated message of considering breaking it up in smaller sections. I also believe this is a speciality discussion, which the gereral reader might not value - I was for the same reason I created the Historical mortality rates of puerperal fever subpage - it would kill the main page. I value suggestions, but perhaps I may suggest that this page is first developed as I intended and thus reaches some state of completion - then we can deal with the trivia. This page is under construction. I realize that I have spent my weekend wiki-time reading fairly comprehensive WP:naming convention and writing a long discussion page, and quite regretably, not providing encyclopedia content, which was my intention. Power.corrupts (talk) 09:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
