Talk:Mumps vaccine

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Generic_topic
I'm not sure this is written as well as it could be, but mumps vaccine is a generic topic, specific vaccines are specific topics related to that, and the components of several, or a single, mumps vaccine are further specific topics.  Where a component is used in several or in other things as well I would suggest the briefest of mentions of it in the vaccine(s) article and a direction to a main page on it.  It would be reasonable to have a page on components of vaccines, with a section on each, which could collect the adjuvants section of vaccines as one of them, and would conveniently gather together the detail on the components - other than the specific antigens.  
It is at least possible that the specific antigens are as well dealt with under the main article on the diseases, along with other aspects of management of the disease.
The article mumps vaccine would actualy be better named as mumps vaccines, but this is not a WP style.  Among other thngs it would point up that it is not and has never been an effort to "take over" from an article devoted to a single specific mumps vaccine brand or strain.  Midgley 10:17, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP policy on disambiguation - generic topic 

message: It isn't clear to me which the vaccine strain was.  Martindale is the main reference, but I don't have access.  It may be Jeryl Lynn.  Came from Czech.  Midgley 18:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: " a different monovalent..." That goes beynd anything I can substantiate.  Consider, we know that the Russian vaccine is used in former Soviet countries (which includes Czecho) and we know that the vaccine involved came from Czech.  I don't see documentation that the strain is different.  Midgley 23:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ineffective imports - UK 2002 

message: From the edit summary: "The Russian vaccine is not comparable to Mumpsvax..."  I'm unconvinced by that.  The Rusian vaccine was developed 17 years earlier, it and its derivatives cost around half as much in India, it appears to have been provided on easy terms to  soviet countries, in a generally socialist fashion, thus allowing the Zagreb strain to be produced from it, whereas I think Merck have only made their Jeryl Lynn strain available to Aventis Pasteur, and probably not with a licence to make derivatives.  That looks like a compairson to me.  Is there a suggestion that one of them is a whole lot better?  Midgley 00:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comparisons of vaccines 

message: I doubt that all should be dumped into it or it will be a poorly readable article.
CDC: USA policy on mumps virus includes official name, doesn't give brand of killed vaccine (or any other) 
I've done a Google search for the brand of killed mumps virus vaccine.  The  closest approach is a lab reagent.  It is likely that this is from the same source/strain.  An appraoch to the company might well produce further information.  I'll leave that to anyone interested. Midgley 18:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possibly useful references 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Mumps vaccine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050907050921/http://www.eurosurveillance.org:80/em/v03n12/0312-222.asp to http://www.eurosurveillance.org/em/v03n12/0312-222.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:58, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: So many problems. There are several Mumps vaccines, and historically, have been even more. Describing the properties of ONE of them (especially when it's not clear which) and ascribing those to ALL vaccines is obviously a sloppy error. Describing a vaccine as "safe" is an opinion and is - in an absolute sense - FALSE: there are various SUBSTANTIATED reasons when administration of the vaccine could CAUSE serious health effects. Side-effects (mild) are common, serious side-effects of the currently WHO approved vaccines are rare. The entire lede reads like a very pro-vaccine advertisement.  The article fails to succinctly explain: what it is (live? dead? attenuated? partial? MR? MMR?) what it does (prevents viral infection), where it comes from (history? first used where? how many varieties?), and Who first created it (the first successful mumps immunization). Not well done, at all.Abitslow (talk) 23:22, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the comments!  I look forward to seeing how you edit the article to improve upon your stated points, and I hope you expect vigorous user involvement to keep a Neutral, balanced, and evidence-based POV. --Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 16:00, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mumps vaccine 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Mumps vaccine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060423093835/http://www.who.int/vaccines-diseases/diseases/mumps_vaccine.shtml to http://www.who.int/vaccines-diseases/diseases/mumps_vaccine.shtml
*Replaced archive link http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:TVpufLRL21IJ:www.dhsspsni.gov.uk/hssmd33-02.pdf+single+mumps++ineffective&hl=en&gl=uk&ct=clnk&cd=3 with https://web.archive.org/web/20070927230423/http://www.dhsspsni.gov.uk/hssmd33-02.pdf on http://www.dhsspsni.gov.uk/hssmd33-02.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:01, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified