Talk:Prosopagnosia

message: I read recently that there was some evidence that gay men are proportionately more likely to have prosopagnosia than straight men, but I can't remember the source ( so it's not just faces I can't remember  :-)  ). Accordingly, I've put this point in the article as "anecdotal"... If anyone has the reference, I hope they'll add it. Thanks in advance. WMMartin 17:36, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: To contribute to this original research: I am gay and I also have it. A.Z. 01:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I would also like to contribute, but as your first volunteer for the control group. I am not gay and I do not have it. --70.59.146.117 (talk) 08:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

text: I am not gay and I do not have it. We're making slow but steady progress here. 81.174.157.213 (talk) 02:49, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

text: I'm not gay and I think I have it... looks like the progress isn't so clear after all.King Klear (talk) 13:32, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

text: I'm hetero and have it, as have 3 more member of my family, who are all hetero as well.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.205.186.51 (talk) 04:17, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I am a bisexual man (cis), and I do not have it. Furthermore, I have three brothers, one of whom is a gay man, and none of them have it, either. Nuttyskin (talk) 02:56, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Anecdotal Evidence about Prosopagnosia in Gay Men

message: I appreciate that it was the first book written on the topic by a prosopagnostic; but just being the first doesn't make it seminal. Because the article fails to establish the book's influence, and there is only a single mention of Choisser in the prose, I've removed "seminal" from the EL link to the book – reasoning against WP:FLOWERY. Little pob (talk) 13:42, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seminal? 

message: Anne Atkins said on Thought for the Day once that she has prosopagnosia. She could be added to the list of "Notable people with prosopagnosia". Rollo August (talk) 08:57, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: If her article mentions it and provides a valid source, yes. -  Munmula (talk), second account of  Alumnum 00:26, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Anne Atkins

message: The short description was changed from  to . I reverted as the WP:HOWTOSD guideline gives this rule of thumb: 
However, I am in agreement that the original might be too technical. Is something like  more descriptive to a lay audience? Little pob (talk) 13:05, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Face blindness was added to the s.d. because that term redirects to the article.  Since the s.d. is displayed under the article title in the search results (at least in the WP app), having it there lets the user know they have the correct article. How about "Disorder of face perception ("face blindness")"? Blainster (talk) 21:27, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure that short descriptions are intended to be used to list synonyms that redirect to a page. I'll post over at the  template's talk page to see if an expert opinion can drop by and confirm one way or another. Little pob (talk) 13:00, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: As the person who wrote the "is/was..." text above, I am obviously biased, but the SD is not a place to define or provide a synonym of the article title. It is intended primarily to explain what type of thing the article describes, in order to disambiguate the title from similarly named articles. For example, if there were a notable album called Prosopagnosia, its article would have an SD of "2021 album by Foo". Someone searching for "Prosopagnosia" would see "2021 album by Foo" under one article title and "Disorder of face perception" under the other article title. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:23, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Short description