Talk:Sjogren's syndrome

Article title

I think this one should be titled Sjögren's syndrome and use the Swedish spelling throughout. --Daniel Mietchen 13:57, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I had considered that, but Medical Subject Headings does not use it, and, in general, I believe that should be our authority. Oh, it's reasonable to deviate from MeSH on things such as rearranging phrases to avoid commas (e.g., Hodgkin's lymphoma -- not lymphoma, Hodgkin's) and their tendency to overcapitalize and to make singular things plural.

We need to articulate the behavior of diacritical marks in searches and wikilinks. If they are ignored, I don't have a problem, but if a search without them will miss, I think general user convenience trumps language. In your example, Sjögren's syndrome is a redlink, indicating diacritics are considered in wikilinking. Howard C. Berkowitz 14:29, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Diacritics are considered in wiki page titles, but the matter could easily be resolved by having a redirect from a common search term to the correct spelling (a simple page move would do that). MeSH frequently ignores diacritics, so I do not consider them authoritative for such matters. --Daniel Mietchen 14:38, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

If it comes between finding something in MEDLINE and having language purity, I'll take MEDLINE. I wonder if we need a medical informatics or medical library subgroup to develop a style guide here -- it's more than health sciences. CZ policy is needed. Howard C. Berkowitz

My policy suggestion would be that anything named after something with a proper name should follow the original spelling of the proper name by default, with exceptions to be justified on a case-by-case basis. --Daniel Mietchen 15:49, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I had left Sjögren's syndrome as a redlink, so as to allow for Sjogren's syndrome to be moved there. Your redirect from ö to o is not only pointing in the wrong direction (in my opinion, at least) but it also blocks the move I had suggested. I will invite further comment via the forums. --Daniel Mietchen 16:09, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

The forum thread is this one. --Daniel Mietchen 16:12, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

(unindent)I would not use the Swedish spelling for Sjogren's. The most common spelling is Sjogren's and to make the topic easily searchable stick with the common spelling. As a compromise I'd suggest using the Swedish spelling when referring to the doctor i.e. Dr. Heinrik Sjogren was born... Mary Ash 16:44, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, "most common" (even if true) does not necessarily equate "correct". And how do you know what the "most common spelling" is? I just checked Google Scholar for both ö and o, and they come out about equal (23,000 to 23,800), with ö articles spotting significantly more citations than o. --Daniel Mietchen 17:16, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Daniel, I'm not an Editor in this workgroup and didn't create the article name. Nevertheless, I have observed that one of the things that draws the most frequent comment is article naming and grammar.

From now on, I think, if I do have Editor jurisdiction, I may rule on an article name, subject to review by other experts. Beyond that, and on comma versus non comma and the dash after errant hyphens, I'm going to respond only if the commenters also contribute to article content or flow.

Incidentally, I was the project leader, back in the seventies, for the Library of Congress' implementation of workstations with the American Library Association/ISO extended character set. Diacritics were simply not used in search keys, and this is not a new argument. I would note that in DNS names, while nonroman alphabets are considered, diacritics are not. It's a battle I really don't want to fight. Howard C. Berkowitz 17:37, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Daniel there are two ways to figure this out. The first and most obvious is to do a Google search. If you did this, you'd find the spelling for Sjogren's Syndrome is what just wrote. Last night I discovered the Swedish spelling of his name. Second I have done extensive personal research on this subject and Sjogren's Syndrome was spelled just like this. For your review:

• Mayo Clinic
• FP Notebook
• AAFP
• Sjogren's Syndrome Foundation
• Penn State

Mary Ash 19:09, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

@Howard,

1. The intention to contribute was what brought me to the article.
2. My initial contribution would have been to turn all the occurences of Sjogren into Sjögren, and since this would involve the title, I left my comment on the talk page before proceeding with that.
3. A title that I perceive as incorrect keeps me off from contributing further.
4. The searchability problem that you keep referring to can be solved by a redirect from "o" to "ö".
5. I agree that we need to discuss this in a broader framework, beyond this individual article. That's why I opened the forum thread.

@Mary:

1. As I said above, "most common" (even if true) does not necessarily equate "correct".
2. I do not accept hit counts in Google searches (example: 22k hits for "Jesus is dead" vs 110k for "Jesus lives") as the basis for editorial decisions in an expert-guided project.
3. The Google searches for "Sjögren's syndrome" and "Sjogren's syndrome" give me 514k vs 374k.
4. From those search results (or better those from Google Scholar, mentioned above), it would be easy to complement your list of five links to "o" with five to "ö".
5. Your first link does not work for me, and the fourth one (probably the most authoritative within the list) uses ö throughout.

--Daniel Mietchen 23:26, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Daniel, I'm perfectly willing to stop being involved with this article; do what you like with the title. I am personally burned out on arguing about titles before dealing with flow, content, etc. It's something in which I won't get involved unless I am asked to do as an Editor, which does not apply here. Let me know -- this is not an important article to me and I have other things to do. Howard C. Berkowitz 00:43, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I do not have any desire for a self-sustaining debate, but as the discussion of this title has broader implications, I started the forum thread, and until a solution is in sight there, I will not fiddle with the title here. --Daniel Mietchen 01:06, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Daniel, I just looked at your Userpage and you joined in January 2008. I joined in May 2007, seven months earlier. In those seven months, and ever since, there have been LONG, BITTER arguments about titles, including the most trivial possible issues. We have lost Editors because of this, and we have lost Authors. Until we have an All-powerful, All-seeing Editor-in-Chief/Dictator, we are NEVER going to settle this business and it's hopeless to try. All we can do is to go article-by-article and hope for the best. Hayford Peirce 01:13, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) All the links worked for me. I am curious though why the Mayo Clinic and the American Academy of Physicians are not "academic" enough. I do believe both organizations mentioned are held in high esteem within the medical profession. I'll be sure to tell my family practice doc that his academy is not academic enough. Mary Ash 01:32, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

No one said that those organizations aren't at a high professional level. If I may make an observation here, an organization may be of the highest professional qualifications, yet if the particular pages there are intended for laymen, they may not be good sources for us. We do try to synthesize and add value, and that tends to mean that sources are at a technical level. Howard C. Berkowitz 01:58, 1 August 2010 (UTC)