Talk:Mumpsvax

message: This approach - individual articles for individual brands of each component of multiple vaccines - may lead to a large number of articles essentailly repeating each other.  When it is internationalised, the number may be very large.  I'm not convinced the detail in it is encyclopaedic - methods of producing vaccine strains is, but 1 out 140 countries' local code for the product less so.  Midgley 18:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously, I disagree.  I think you espouse a path of ignorance.  I have seen that people have specific questions, such as "Does the Mumps vaccine component of MMR contain human albumin?"  Whyever we should obfuscate the details of what people are asked to inject into their bodies is beyond me.  Detail is the nature of science. Heathhunnicutt 21:25, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for that tangential reply.  Imagine someone who wishes to learn, in a limited time (as we all have) as much as possible about Mumps vaccines.  WIll they learn most from a set of largely repetitive articles, one on each tradename, or from one article, which sub-classes the details which differ between vaccines.  Obviously the latter.  There is a risk that individual pride - wishing to write whole articles - reduces the usability and eventually quality of the encyclopaedia by diluting cheking and revision and exceeding the reasonable demands on the reader.  To answer the specific question proposed  above - how many articles must be read at present?  Too many.  Classification is the nature of science, detail was natural history. Midgley 22:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wish you would write a page on Cohn cold ethanol fractionation rather than complain about a bunch of contributed content.  If you must, reference the detailed articles on constituents rather than incorporate the details into such articles as MMR.  At the same time, readers of MMR want to know what's in it, too. Heathhunnicutt 01:21, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not an area for me.  Making the suggestion on the wanted articles list, or on the chemistry discussion page (I assume there is one like the doctors' mess for medical items) would be appropriate.  I'd suggest that it may be a specific technique to have within an article on fractionation, unless it is so complicated that it needs a whole page. But I'm a lumper rather than splitter as you know.  Midgley 10:56, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Quite likely after the biochemist Mildred_Cohn Dr Edwin Cohn .  There is a rather short article fractionation which certainly has room for a section on cold fractionation in alcohol.Midgley 10:56, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I knew it was Edward Cohn, but did not realize there had grown a page on the subject.  Someone had details in mind, I guess.  Thanks so much for improving the link-out. Heathhunnicutt 18:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There wasn't.  I wrote it.  Midgley 14:09, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Another way of putting this might be: Is the PDR encyclopedic?  Because it lists every drug, and I would say it is.  I would rather see someone make a template for the category of National Drug Codes and let's get started filling out the entries.  Heathhunnicutt 02:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think all-inclusive or is not identical in meaning to encyclopaedic (or encyclopedic).  Nor is "comprehensive", although comprehensible is certainly a priority element of encyclopaediac nature.  An encyclopaedia is actually explicitly not a complete reference, it presents something on each major topic, and indicates where people may go for more detailed or specialist knowledge.  An article on colectomy for instance should not be expected to be the only reference one needs in order to set up as colon surgeon - but should point at Bailey & Love or a textbook of operative surgery or something that in turn points there.  What is should do is leave the intelligent layman with an appreciation of what wil no longer go where after such an operation, and why it might be done.   Midgley 10:56, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The beginning. 

message: Bluemoose is correct.  I would have reverted it myself, but was practicing tact.  Midgley 22:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Gathering some sort of cohort for some reason? Heathhunnicutt 01:21, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Style 

message: Substituted at 00:36, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Mumpsvax. 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/20060813175920/http://www.merck.com/product/usa/pi_circulars/m/mumpsvax/mumpsvax_pi.pdf to http://www.merck.com/product/usa/pi_circulars/m/mumpsvax/mumpsvax_pi.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060415205123/http://www.who.int/vaccines/en/mumps.shtml to http://www.who.int/vaccines/en/mumps.shtml
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) 06:47, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018)