Talk:Blue-cone monochromacy

Hyphenation

@Dicklyon: what's the justification for hyphenating the term? I see very few examples of this and most are from non-contemporary or low impact sources. Curran919 (talk) 22:32, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

The ngram is also quite obvious. Curran919 (talk) 19:00, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 6 December 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved.(closed by non-admin page mover) Sennecaster (Chat) 18:23, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

---

Blue cone monochromacy → Blue-cone monochromacy – Per MOS:HYPHEN, using the hyphen to help the reader parse the unfamiliar construct is a good idea. The topic is not about a cone monochromacy that's blue, which is what the current unhyphenated version suggests, but rather a monochromacy associated with blue cones, which is what the hyphen makes clear. While specialized sources often omit the hyphen since the construct is familiar enough to their readers, the hyphen is used often enough to verify that it is an acceptable clarification (e.g. in Journal of Physiology). We should keep our readers' interests in mind, and help them out here. Dicklyon (talk) 03:52, 6 December 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 16:40, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

• Support. The subject is blue-cone monochromacy, not cone monochromacy that is blue. Hyphens exist for a reason, and we use them per MOS:HYPHEN even if specialized sources for a specialized audience tend less to do so.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:57, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
• Support Rreagan007 (talk) 22:15, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Shwcz (talk) 11:33, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose... emphatically. MOS doesn't apply here because it is a fixed term, not prose. You wouldn't apply MOS grammar/spelling to "I can has cheezburger", because that wouldn't be the name. Congenital red-green color blindness also doesn't use optimum punctuation as per the MOS or arguments above, but that is the name in parlance, academia, everything... not red/green-colorblindness or whatever you would think is more proper. You cite MOS grammar but don't cite the article title policy, which states very exhaustively that frequency of terms is the important factor when choosing between multiple names. The term is Blue cone monochromacy without a hyphen, as it exists in 90% of sources; and not 'specialized' sources mind you (whatever that means), but of almost ALL sources, academic or colloquial, primary or tertiary. Citing one academic source that used it 50 years ago does not indicate that is the preferred usage or ever was. Hell, that source even puts monochromacy in quotes, because that wasn't even an established term at the time, with monochromatism being more common, and only changed to monochromacy to be in line with the then-recent changes from trichromatism to trichromacy. Any source that does use a hyphenated version is either non-contemporary or low-impact. Just look at the ngram, and the usage is clear. Look at google trends, you also see nobody is searching for the hyphenated version. Look at the BCM support organizations like [1] who don't use the hyphenated version. Look at the casual discussion in color blindness forums. Nobody uses the hyphenated version, so who are you trying to help here?
  You make the bold move without justification. I start a thread above to ask for justification. You ignore it, so I undo the move. You start a discussion on the move again without @ing me. You redo the content edits and have the audacity to call ME obnoxious in the edit summary? Very mature. This is bad-faith all the way. Curran919 (talk) 13:39, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

  There are plenty of 21st-century sources that use the hyphen in blue-cone monochromacy ([2], [3], [4], [5], [6]), and also blue-cone monochromatism ([7], [8], [9]). In the case of blue-cone monochromat, it's about 50–50. These are descriptive terms, not proper names; and WP:COMMONNAME is not about how we style names. The original, and recently most common, term is monochromatism, not monochromacy. But both are common enough, and both get the hyphen clarifiication in a signficant fraction of sources. Dicklyon (talk) 20:37, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

  What are you doing, Dick? This is just malicious cherry picking. What is the point of listing individual sources with hyphenation? Should I list the hundreds of sources that don't have hyphenation? I don't know why you repeated what I wrote about monochromatism? Curious why you didn't just pull the ngram for that though, which shows that blue cone monochromatism as well pulls out way more than blue-cone monochromatism. And what you say is 50-50 in the monochromat ngram shows that hyphenated version shrinking to ZERO contemporarily. The sources are simply not in your favour.
  The weighted importance of commonname vs. ideal grammar can be debated, but to me it just smacks of revisionism and OR. Even WP:COMMONNAME instructs to not be pedantic in article titles, and I can't think of a better example of being pedantic than this move. Curran919 (talk) 12:39, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

  The point of listing some sources with hyphenation is just illustrative, to show that this styling is not wrong or particularly unusual, that it is not a different name or referring to something different, but rather an editorial choice made by those who want to help the reader by clarifying how to parse the name; and to show that this is in modern sources, not just the one I first linked from 50 years ago. "Pedantic" means something like "caring too much about unimportant rules or details and not enough about understanding or appreciating a subject"; that's your opinion, but from my point of view the details help the reader to appreciate the subject, by making it clear that it's about the blue cones, not about a cone monochromatism that's blue. English has these typographical affordances for good reason. Dicklyon (talk) 03:23, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Is there a detailed oppose argument to be had? — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 16:40, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Seems unlikely. Dicklyon (talk) 03:23, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

S-cone monochromacy

@Dicklyon: Let's take this to the logical conclusion, shall we? There is no such thing as a blue cone. In cone cell, there is no mention of a blue cone, and what is referred to as a blue cone appears decidedly un-blue; in fact, it is complementary. This is why the preferred name for the past 40+ years has been S-cone. The condition should therefore be called S-cone Monochromacy and I can give you instances of this term's use in literature here and here, the later being from Sharpe, whom I have even lauded before in our discussions as providing the best review paper on color blindness in the last 30 years. So let's rename this article S-cone Monochromacy, or hey, even S-Cone Monochromacy could work! Its a far less common, but certainly more proper name for the condition, both technically and grammatically. Curran919 (talk) 22:37, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree that S-cone monochromacy would be a more sensible name, but per WP:COMMONNAME, I doubt that it would be the most compatible with our naming conventions. Dicklyon (talk) 22:44, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Are you going to hyphenate mentions in the body too? Or are you okay with shoehorning this move and forgetting about tying up your loose ends because you have to get back to more semi-automated edits to get into the top 100? Curran919 (talk) 20:01, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Comment by Renata.sarno

The name of the disease is Blue Cone Monochromacy, as reported on all scientific publications, see for example https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36301530/ or https://www.omim.org/entry/303700 Please consider NOT to change the name of this disease on wikipedia, because the name is Blue Cone Monochromacy. Thank you. Renata.sarno (talk) 14:51, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Reverted links

I was looking at the revision history and saw that @Dean402's edit was reverted for promoting specific sites. From the edit description, it seemed like it was a good-faith attempt to add external links, so I want to ask: @MrOllie was the problem with the links themselves, or just the format? and if the issue was just the format, then is it ok if I add them to the external links section? Doomhope (talk) 06:37, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

My problem was with both. The NIH site doesn't have much content, and is an example of WP:ELNO#1, Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article.. The BCMFamilies Foundation is a self published site that spends a lot of time recommending specific doctors and/or medical devices in a way that appears promotional. I would oppose its addition on those grounds. MrOllie (talk) 12:27, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

The NIH information provides more detail, mainly of use by doctors, concerning how prevalent each symptom is and discusses ERG testing abnormalities as one of the symptoms which is not discussed in the Wikipedia article. The NIH site also provides a helpful graphic for the inheritance pattern that is not in the Wikipedia article. The BCM Families website does list doctors and assistive technology but this is simply to help people find resources to help with their condition. There is no money being made by BCM Families. Since you have an issue with these as links would you allow as an alternative to edit the History section to include the following “Additional medical information is available through the US National Institute of Health (NIH) Genetic and Rare Diseases Information Center. In addition, In 2014 a non profit, BCM Families Foundation, was established to provide resources for those with BCM and to promote genetic research for a cure for the condition”? This will give people the information to do their own search without including links. Dean402 (talk) 18:31, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

No, promoting this stuff in the article text is even worse than in the links section. This kind of request is at odds with the purpose of Wikipedia: Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox_or_means_of_promotion. We don't promote groups like this, not even when it is a good cause. MrOllie (talk) 19:25, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Because of my interactions with you on this issue I stopped donating to Wikipedia and I used to donate more than the typical amount. Now that I know that you leave out significant information in articles I have a much lower opinion of how useful Wikipedia is. Dean402 (talk) 00:59, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

The Wikimedia foundation already has more money than they know what to do with. Your donations (or lack thereof) will not affect editorial practices. The Wikipedia community has decided that certain things are simply off-mission for this site. One such is the decision not to be a link directory. MrOllie (talk) 01:27, 23 March 2024 (UTC)