Medicine Start‑class High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Viruses C‑class High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Viruses, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of viruses on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VirusesWikipedia:WikiProject VirusesTemplate:WikiProject Virusesvirus articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

I have reverted the recent, well-intentioned changes to the article's title and main subject. I created this article to complement Rotavirus and intend to build the article up as the Program gathers speed. Unfortunately, the name change was not discussed and links to the article were not checked.

Given the contents of the article it seemed like such an obvious move that it didn't seem likely anyone would object, but since there is question, I have opened a formal proposal and invitation for discussion below.

I did check the links to the article after the move, there were only a few double redirects, and they seemed pretty minor (from people's talk pages, etc.) Figured the bot could handle them. I also fixed what I figured would be the most common link (the one on template:vaccines). Zodon (talk) 07:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest moving this article from Rotavirus Vaccine Program to Rotavirus vaccine

It seems like it would make sense to move this article to the more general topic of Rotavirus vaccine (which is currently a redirect to this article).

• Presently most of this article is about Rotavirus vaccines in general, only one paragraph deals with the Rotavirus Vaccine Program.
• Other articles are using this article as a surrogate for a Rotavirus vaccine article (e.g. Template:Vaccines ).

When the section of this article on the Rotavirus Vaccine Program becomes large enough, it could be split off into its own article. Or, if it is desirable to have a separate article on the Vaccine Program now, it seems more appropriate to move most of the current content of this article to one on Rotavirus Vaccine. (For instance, if this article is about the Vaccine Program, then History should be the history of the program, not the history of Rotavirus vaccines, as it is now.) However, rather than having lots of little articles, I think it would be better to keep it together and move to more general topic, let it grow, then split when needed. Thanks. Zodon (talk) 07:04, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There being no further discussion, an administrator made the move. I have rearranged the header here, and made appropriate revisions to links on Rotavirus and the template:vaccines. Zodon (talk) 17:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This section doesn't actually report on the clinical effectiveness of the Rotavirus Vaccine.

"A 2009 review estimated that vaccination against rotavirus would prevent about 45% of deaths due to rotavirus gastroenteritis, or about 228,000 deaths annually worldwide."

Does that statement even make sense? Shouldn't that read "A 2009 review reported that WHOLESALE world-wide vaccination against rotavirus would prevent an estimated 45% of deaths due to rotavirus gastroenteritis."? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.210.198.85 (talk) 11:15, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article should be updated to include the countries which are currently using the vaccine, and those that plan to. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.152.114.160 (talk) 20:37, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can anybody else see that? 70.74.164.9 (talk) 13:11, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is the issue? A recent review article? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:18, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All of the evidence in this review came through the manufacturer, so it involves a conflict of interest; *not* peer reviewed. 70.74.164.9 (talk) 17:12, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We are pretty clear here in discussing marketing scandals, drugs with serious side effects, and those with questionable efficacy. I think that when we run across one that by overwhelming acclaim is safe, effective, and brings substantial benefit to society, its ok to say that too. Formerly 98 (talk) 14:03, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]