Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of people with hepatitis C/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured list candidates‎ | List of people with hepatitis C
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was not promoted by User:Matthewedwards 22:00, 30 September 2008 [1].

List of people with hepatitis C edit

I am nominating this list because it's come a long way from being an AfD. It's gone through a major upheaval, to the point that it's now eligible for FL. It's had a peer review. It's an important topic, and deserves attention for educational purposes. The only thing this list has against it is its short length, especially in comparison to other lists, but other FLs are shorter. I also believe that its shortness is due to the stigma attached to hepatitis C, which more attention could only serve to decrease. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 04:23, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I've been a significant editor of this list in the past, so mustn't given an opinion here. Just to say that I agree with Figureskatingfan's assessment on the lack of names "on public record". Although the disease is extremely common, few people know they have it or will publicly admit to having it. Colin°Talk 08:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response to comment Colin has "handed me the baton" on this article (I won't drop it, I swear), and as an editor, I tend to be a stickler on sources. Also, there are names that could've been added, but they weren't notable enough for a WP article. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 15:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • "This is a list of notable people..." - don't start featured content like this. Featured articles don't start "This is an article about..." so why should FLs?
Good point. Deleted sentence.
  • Notable - if you use this, can you define the scope of notability for inclusion?
Since I deleted the first sentence, this is now moot.
  • The virus seems to have be a proper noun (Hepatitis C virus) while the disease doesn't (hepatitis C) - is this correct?
Good point again. There was only the one usage, and the HCV article seems to be confused about the same thing. I did a brief Google search, and it seems that the most common usage is lower case h. So I went ahead and changed it to reflect that.
  • "Hepatitis C infects an estimated 170 million people worldwide." - that reads a little odd to me - why not flip it, "An estimated 170 million people worldwide are infected with Hep C"?
Done.
  • "As a result..." - as a result of what Bob Geldof said?
Deleted phrase as per MOS. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 21:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Names should ideally sortname by surname, so use the {{sortname}} template.
Um, I thought that the template, as used, already does that. Someone may need to help out with that, 'cause as I've said in the past, coding is (one of) my WP-editing weaknesses.
Either it's fixed or I bolloxed up the comment in the first place. It's fine. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "acute myeloid leukemia" could be linked as it's pretty specialist.
Done. I also put hep C in lower case and linked "blood transfusion" for the same reason.
  • Can we make each table's columns the same from section to section?
They already are. They just look different due to the images. Is there a way to get around that? Again, see above re: coding.
  • Remove the space before ref [17].
Done.
  • Some Comments start with "A rock singer..." some start "Rock singer..." (you get my drift?) - be consistent.
Okay, will do, but I thought that variety is A Good Thing. Is there an MOS policy about that?
  • Link interferon.
Done, all cases.
  • "Legendary" - POV/peacock - eradicate or cite.
Done.
  • Ref 4 has one page mentioned but uses pp.
Done.
  • Ref 7 doesn't have a URL but it does have a Retrieved on date...?
Ew, dumb mistake. Thanks for the catch.

The Rambling Man (talk) 15:56, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RM, thanks for the input. Nice and picky--I like it! --Figureskatingfan (talk) 22:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wrt the opening sentence, I disagree with the deletion of it. See Wikipedia:Lists#Lead sections in stand-alone lists which states that the lead must explain what the list is about and define the inclusion criteria, even if obvious from the title. In addition, the FLC guidelines require the lead "defines the scope and inclusion criteria of the list". Without that opening sentence, the lead is just a discussion on Hepatitis C. I've tweaked the lead sentence a little. Colin°Talk 21:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's interesting to note the contradiction between WP:LISTS and WP:SELFREF then. I'd avoid self-referencing at all costs. It doesn't really matter that this isn't introduced as a list - the title should be adequate enough for that. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:46, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I tweaked it to make it less of a self ref. I'm not sure the current text "This list includes people..." is any more of a forbidden self ref than some article saying "The following list includes people...". I don't see anything in WP:SELFREF that prevents you introducing a list. See comment below for the common reaction that the list is hopelessly incomplete because it doesn't list everybody in the category. If you can suggest another way of noting the precise inclusion criteria (an FL criterion) ... Colin°Talk 22:12, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yeah, I see that selfref isn't really applicable, however I'm perplexed as to why we need to state this is a list. The title of the article is "List of people...", there's a note at the top of the article which states "This list is incomplete...", why do we need, for the third time in three sections, repeat the fact it's a list? As for comprehensiveness, I can't tell you what the inclusion criteria applied in this list is, although I believe you're saying "everyone famous who has said they are suffering from it". Is that it? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm fine with deleting the first sentence as suggested, and as I did when the recommendation was first suggested. I will go ahead and take care of it. The criteria for inclusion, I believe, follows WP:V. Other than that, you're correct, but I'd add, "Everyone who is notable (i.e., has a WP bio so that there are no red links) whose 'claim' to having HVC can be verified." --Figureskatingfan (talk) 14:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Sorry but this list cannot really ever become fully comprehensive, and therefore fails the third FL criteria, the list even says at top it is incomplete. Sorry. Sunderland06 (talk) 13:00, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry for my sudden change of mind, but is the list comprehensive in it's own right, that it can be complete for all the people that have released they have the infection, I'm not really sure on this one actually. Again sorry. Sunderland06 (talk) 13:03, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
S, the tag you mention is a standard tag for this kind of list. Also, I think that those of us who have edited this article has done their best to ensure that everyone who's gone on the record with their HVC-status are on this list. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 13:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, ok thanks for clearing that up. Good luck! Sunderland06 (talk) 13:52, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's OK. Here are a few points.

  • I suppose we can accept that transmission is "blood-to-blood" (alone), but we really don't know much about this, still.
That's what the most reliable sources say, not just the one cited. If people want to know more about HVC, they can look at those sources or at the WP article. This list has never been a complete discussion of the disease.
  • The pic doesn't seem to show.
Which pic? All the images are loading fine for me. Are you talking about the lead image? Please explain.
  • Why is "United States" linked? Please delink.
Sorry, I'm a victim of over-linking. Fixed.
  • You could remove "against hepatitis C".
Done.
  • "The symptoms of infection can be medically managed"—slight overstatement, since when it's advanced, the symptoms are difficult to control. Step back and say "can usually be".
I went for the middle ground, and said, "The symptoms of infection can be medically managed when the disease is diagnosed early..."
  • "Although early medical intervention is helpful, people with HCV infection can experience mild symptoms, and consequently do not seek treatment." --> "The symptoms of HCV infection, especially in its early stages, can be mild enough to conceal the fact of the disease; thus, some people do not seek treatment." Or something like that?
Changed as suggested.
  • Why not abbreviate all the time, esp. in the table?
Huh? Please explain. I don't see any abbreviations; could you point out examples?
  • I'd prefer "since 1967" rather than an en dash pointing to death.
Again, I don't understand this statement. Are you talking about the years in the "Life" column in the table? If you are, that means that they're still living. The en dashes are there so that the sortname template works, as explained above.

Tony (talk) 14:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Tony. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 15:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SatyrTN comments
  • MOS:DATE doesn't address this specifically, but I think the "1976–" format is discouraged in favor of "b. 1976". See MOS:DATE#Dates of birth and death. Further, be aware that changing those means changing them to use {{sort}} as well. For instance, Pamela Anderson's entry will be changed from "1967–" to "{{sort|b. 1967|1967}}"
I just addressed this issue above. Let's not make things *too* complicated, shall we?
  • I *think* the "Life" heading might be better as "Lifetime"? I've had a similar situation with List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people: R and haven't come up with a satisfactory solution, but that seems to work.
Ok, will change with hesitation.
  • On a very general level, I'm leery about this list passing Criteria #3 and Criteria #7. My biggest concern is that, out of 170,000,000 people that have the disease, we have a list of roughly 50. I recognize that people don't come forward about their status, but I'm concerned about the encyclopedic value of a list such as this, and I'm concerned about a list such as this being FLC. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 15:33, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your suggestions, Satyr. I'll address Criteria #7 first. This list has had very little edit wars. I think a look at the edit history will show that this list is unusually stable, in spite of its subject matter. Regarding Criteria 3, no list like this will ever be completely comprehensive. Its sister lists, even though they're longer, aren't even comprehensive. I don't think that the status of this list should "suffer" due to the stigma attached to the disease. It's so odd that more people are willing to admit they have HIV than HVC. This list could help relieve the stigma, so it that way it's encyclopedic. WP can have FLs on artists' discographies, but not this one? Also remember that the majority of the 170 million people with hep C aren't notable enough to have a WP article, and that's one of the "criteria" for this list. In addition, as the lead states, a big portion of that 170 million don't even know they have it. Perhaps this list can help more people get tested. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 16:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Gary King (talk · contribs)
  • How about making "1967–" → "1967–present"; it makes it clearer and it doesn't change the meaning at all.

Gary King (talk) 03:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did this, since it doesn't affect sorting in the table, but I rolled back myself because, well, actually, it does change the meaning. It says that someone lived from (pulling a year out of the hat) 1964 until present, making that person 44 years old. "B. 1964" messes up with the sorting, so I think we should just leave it as is. Other lists have the en dash, so there's no reason why this one shouldn't, either. Perhaps it's just an aesthetic issue. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 04:34, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_people_with_hepatitis_C/archive1&oldid=1138487205"