Self-harm vs non-suicidal self-injury[edit]

Thought the AfD discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Van Gogh syndrome would be of some interest to you, since you're good with medical topics. A few editors have proposed that the article should be renamed to "Non(-)suicidal self-injury". Also, I’m seeing if I can contribute at the Planet FAR, butI’m not sure of the distinction between the initial stage of review and FARC. Ovinus (talk) 23:57, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ovinus one of the most unproductive discussions I ever got involved in on wikipedia was over the word suicide. And I have a dismal record at AFD. I think I'll avoid that one :) :)

Don't worry about the stages at FAR and FARC; basically, work can process in either phase. On those articles where nothing is happening, during the FAR phase we identify issues, but have to wait a few weeks before "voting" on delisting at the FARC phase. When work is happening, all of that becomes blurred-- no longer matters, except that we can't "vote" to remove an FA until/unless it moves to FARC. Does that answer your question? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:26, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lololol okay. May I ask what this unproductive discussion was... lemme guess, MOS:SUICIDE. Re FAR/FARC, that makes sense. Seems more procedural than anything, then? In any case, I suppose procedure is not reason to not improve the article. Ovinus (talk) 20:48, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It started at Robin Williams, where my only interest was in getting the diagnosis right ... from there it became a never-ending timesink about suicide language. I think I helped craft one of the RFCs, that did nothing to stop the problem. It's easy enough to rephrase! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:50, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @Ovinus: This looks like an easy merge to me. It had been 10 years since I last reviewed the SH/SI/NSSI/SM literature, but Self Harm was the prefered title then followed by Self Injury. I would be shocked if non suicidal self-injury took over as being the common name. It was considered to be a dated term then. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 21:08, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence of a long section[edit]

S’pose there’s a section in an article, maybe a long and detailed section full of subsections and specific facts. Surely it’s permissible to start it with a general sentence instead of jumping right into details. But whenever one writes such a sentence, must one summarize? It’s not a lead, after all. If the answer is “no” then what authority is there for that other than the solemn word of SandyGeorgia (and of me)? I sometimes prefer to write such a sentence merely providing a little background and context, and/or indicating purpose and importance of the section, or maybe to just grab the reader’s interest so they won’t go do something useful with their lives after reading the prior section. Gracias. Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:11, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fraught topic ... Awadewit sometimes did that, and that was often original research. I can't think of a place where I've done that recently unless a source does. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:13, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I’d definitely use the info from RS’s, and include footnotes. But even then it seems to be controversial. I don’t see why the choice must be binary: either jump right into specifics or else start with a summary. Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:37, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because any time yo9u start with a summary, you are inviting OR tags ... and as Awadewit's work shows, ten years from now if the original writer is no longer around, it can be hard to sort. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:39, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t want to start with a summary though. I want to start with some background and context, all nicely sourced and cited. Anyway, I hope you’re doing well! Cheers, Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:42, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well that sounds fine! I am trying to get past the foggy brain of COVID ... taking longer than I'd like. Hence ... don't pay too much attention to me :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:46, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh gosh, I didn’t know you got it. Get 100% well soon!!! Best, Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:51, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:53, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sylvain Lesné Summary[edit]

I'm unsure if the summary of a researcher under public scrutiny is a good place to put in an unsourced confirmation of the amyloid hypothesis. Most quotes reflect that the knock-on effects of the allegations are minor, the validity of the theory has never been rock-solid. Maybe change the language to just express that the overall impact of the investigation on amyloid research is relatively minor? 173.24.145.238 (talk) 06:30, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, 173; I will have a look after I am properly caffeinated, and see how I can adjust the wording based on the sources, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:19, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Better ? [2]. Thanks for picking that up, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:58, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Joan of Arc[edit]

Hi Sandy, I'd just like to get your thoughts: I feel like the changes have addressed the major concerns- and with your insight removed the sockpuppet- but the concerns with it continue to morph. I am curious why this article is so strange, and why approval is so problematic. I would've thought James Joyce would have been way tougher, but it was easier and more collaborative with passionate, positive editors jumping in and helping out. Very odd... a bit discouraging... Part of me feels like I should just let it go, but as happens, I've invested a lot of time in it, so I'm also invested in trying to see it through. But do you have any insights, given your Wikipedia expertise, what the issue in this particular case may be? Also I wanted to state that I appreciated the work you did on the article: your recent edits, your patience with my torturous prose, and your advocacy with the review process. Wtfiv (talk) 20:19, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that one of the main holdups there is related to the socking; many (like me) are hesitant to let the FAR close until we are more convinced the sock is contained. And as long as the FAR stays open, people keep picking at it :) In other words, I don't think you should be troubled, as good can come from this. I had my son's wedding, followed by a family health issue, then COVID, while Hog Farm has had similar real life issues interfering. The other really big problem is that FAR has gotten backlogged by some other very big saves. First, too many planets nominated at once. Then Palladian architecture. And now we are all swamped because Darjeeling was (prematurely, in my opinion) nominated for the main page, so we have to scramble to finish up there. Between Darjeeling, Palladian architecture and Chicxulub crater, I suspect that others, like me, just haven't found the time to finish up at Joan. Which is very unfair to you, I know, but it's mostly because we really aren't worried about it ... we know it is probably fine, while other articles at FAR are pressing. :) :) I think Joan will be over the hump just as soon as a few more of us get some free time to look. I hope you know how much your work is appreciated: Joan is a much huger save than Joyce was, and that's pretty big! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:25, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To butt in here: The end is certainly near for that FAR, and I have no doubts it will be a positive one. Wtfiv, your work is about as first class as it gets—I would say just hold tight for now, you've done all the heavy lifting, its just a matter of gradually finalizing matters and now. Sometimes reviewers find an issue or two and make up their mind about a whole article—thus once those issues are addressed, the article suddenly becomes appealing again :) Aza24 (talk) 20:48, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reassurance, Sandy and Aza24. I'm glad it is more about process in Wikipedia, not necessarily other issues! Wtfiv (talk) 20:57, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Darjeeling[edit]

Thanks for helping out here. Just so busy in RL and I'm more tired every day. Been spending much of what little extra time I have with my stamp collection because that's way less intense. And when I spend all day in front on my travel monitor, my eyes can't take much more screen time. Hog Farm _Talk 02:53, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure :) I think F&f is creating a masterpiece there, but I wish we weren't cutting it so close. Take care there, enjoy the stamps; a break every now and then is a very good thing! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:56, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]