Talk:List of vaccine topics

(Comment)

This is not the proper way to do this. This article should be deleted, and a new Vaccine category created, and each of the articles in this list could then be contained within the category. --Xyzzyplugh 14:25, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Vaccine critics

An unhelpful section since NPOV would then require a list of vaccine supporters which would cause issues with the page size limit.Geni 04:41, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Merging would not be logical or wise. The lists represent quite different topics. One is specific scientific information about a variety of existing vaccine targets as well as a few in development phase. Some vaccines have rational issues to be considered regarding potential harmful effects. These are legitimate and important considerations. Some individuals with a special interest in vaccines take a less rational and uniformly negative approach. While Wikipedia can legitimately reflect their views, they should not be conflated with more objective, evidence-based content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marshalllightowlers (talk • contribs) 11:13, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Merge

So far Vaccine critic is basically a list of people. Seems like it should just be merged into this list. (Would supplement the people section).

In response to the objection in #Vaccine critics, NPOV better supported by having a lists together rather than separated. If the lists get too large, then can worry about splitting out (e.g. people section, etc.) Zodon (talk) 07:19, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Propose renaming Vaccine critic to "List of vaccine critics" instead. --Zigger «º» 08:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm thinking that a merge back into vaccine controversy, its "main article", would be far more appropriate. Really, it's not enough material for a split. – ClockworkSoul 03:31, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Changing from list to outline of vaccines

A recent pair of edits blanking this page and adding content to outline of vaccines appear to have been an attempt to rename this page back to Outline of vaccines. (It was moved from that title in October 2009.)

I reverted the edits because such a rename should be handled as a rename, not by cut and paste. The edits involved also did not satisfy the requirements for a cut and paste merge, failing to link material back to the source (important to maintain copyright). If it is decided that a rename is desired, an administrator can be asked to handle moving the article over the redirect (which preserves history better than cut and paste merge).

I have not looked at whether this article would be better converted into an outline or left as a list. (i.e. at this time I am not proposing that it should be changed or opposing such a change.) Zodon (talk) 20:06, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Non sequiturs

Somebody added Unit 731, which was a Japanese military group that, like the Nazis, did horrible medical experiments on prisoners. But the only connection that group had to vaccines is that when they cruelly infected prisoners with diseases, they lied and told them they were really giving them vaccines. There's no real connection between this group and vaccines. I've removed the non sequitur. --Mr. Billion (talk) 11:33, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

"Vaccines under research" list mostly uncited

It's almost entirely a list of diseases (with links for them) and a generic "vaccine research" annotation rather than a list of linked of articles about vaccines against them. I spot-checked a few of the linked articles and did not find that they had discussion about vaccine development. WP:Source list requires WP:V for any list items. WP:MEDRS is probably the applicable standard here, since otherwise we're probably still headed to be a dumping ground of anybody's press release or primary research that gets wildly extrapolated without scientific basis. DMacks (talk) 08:43, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Someone needs to go at that list with a meat cleaver. Tonicthebrown (talk) 11:55, 10 March 2014 (UTC)