This article is within the scope of WikiProject Epilepsy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of epilepsy and epileptic seizures 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.EpilepsyWikipedia:WikiProject EpilepsyTemplate:WikiProject EpilepsyEpilepsy articles
This syndrome has a plural name, according to the current ILAE classification guidelines. A number of genetic disorders that lead to epilepsy are grouped together here. Colin°Talk20:22, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Before you lecture me on discussing page moves, I will note that this was not IMO a controversial change when I made it plural in January. This is, after all, a page I essentially created in 2008. So, without claiming ownership, I would say that if anyone was going to be upset about any name change, it would be me. What was obviously a controversial page move was your change back to singular in August. You didn't discuss that change, despite it being clear that the earlier change to plural was deliberate and in keeping with ILAE terminology.
The policy on article titles says "Generally, article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources.". Also "In determining which of several alternative names is most frequently used, it is useful to observe the usage of major international organizations, major English-language media outlets, quality encyclopedias, geographic name servers, major scientific bodies and scientific journals." The major international organisation for epilepsy is the ILAE. They periodically update their classification of epilepsy syndromes and the latest is Revised terminology and concepts for organization of seizures and epilepsies: Report of the ILAE Commission on Classification and Terminology, 2005–2009. It uses the plural. Chapter 252 of Epilepsy: A comprehensive textbook is entitled "Progressive Myoclonus Eplipsies". Of the 139 articles referenced in the chapter, the vast majority use the plural form in their titles. Of the minority of singular titles, the reason is mostly because they are referring to just one specific disease that causes the syndrome or the paper is a case study and of course an individual can only have one disease. In Epilepsy: Oxford Specialist Handbook, the section on epilepsy syndromes has a page on "Progressive myoclonic epilepsies". Again, the plural form. The MeSH code page lists this as "Myoclonic Epilepsies, Progressive".
The guideline on plural naming says that "Articles on groups or classes of specific things" are plural. In chapter 67 "Classification of the Epilepsies" in Epilepsy: A comprehensive textbook it lists Progressive myoclonus epilepsies (PME) as one of the syndromes. It notes "This group is different from the others in that it consists entirely of specific diseases, and might be considered under diseases with epilepsy rather than epilepsy syndromes. However, because it is a very helpful concept for diagnostic purposes when it is not possible to reach a more specific diagnosis, it is still included in this list.". This article topic is on a group of diseases that is formally recognised as a syndrome.
Wikipedia policy does not insist that "the most common name has to be used". That's an over simplification. The naming and classification of the epilepsies is a very complex subject. This article topic is purely an artefact of a classification system that academics agree has value. It isn't a singular tangible thing. It is a group of disorders. Per policy and guideline and the highest MEDRS-compliant sources we have, it should be the plural form.
I note that the infobox source is the above ILAE classification and the infobox also contains the MeSH link. The plural name was sourced.
The edit summary "Disorder name is singular and should not be confused with *progressive MYOCLONIC epilepsies*" seems to show some confusion. The word "myoclonus" is a noun and "myoclonic" is an adjective. It is the same concept and some sources use one, and some another.
The edit summary "Other edits lack WP:MEDRS" would make me laugh if I were in the mood. Those "other edits" removed some vandalism about dwarfs sneezing that was inserted by an IP in October 2008. That might give you an idea of how many people are closely watching this page. I shall list this issue at WT:MED.
Well, the article does not deal with a "category of disorders" – the way, e.g., spinal muscular atrophies does – but with a syndrome, and singular is used uniformly all over the article. It was not inserted by me. Yeah, maybe the entire article needs rewriting. But getting the article name in plural to suggest a "category of disorders" all the time when the rest of the text deals with a syndrome appeared awkward. But again, if some official body has decided to change the official name of the condition, WP can follow.
My revert was mistaken I admit: I was sure I was reverting someone's addition of "dwarves" – this type of nonsense edits are quite frequent in medicine-related articles and I revert them on a daily basis. Feel free to rv again to your version. Still, I would suggest keeping the singular until the rest of the article has been reworked.
A quick look of the literature, including especially the classification article you linked, shows that "(progressive) myoclonic epilepsy" is used in two manners:
to denote a class of (six) disorders, termed jointly "progressive myoclonus epilepsies".
It is right to assume that readers might search Wikipedia for "myoclonic epilepsy" or "progressive myoclonic epilepsy" (singular) in order to understand what that specific symptom or syndrome is all about. The target article should thus describe a syndrome.
The group of six disorders – some of which don't even have "epilepsy" in their name – need to have their place, too.
So, having maybe two separate articles: "myoclonic epilepsy" (for the syndrome) and "progressive myoclonic epilepsies" (for the group of six disorders), would be less confusing than the current one all-embracing article? Let me know your thoughts. kashmiri23:56, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think any official body changed the name of the condition recently. The plural form has been used for decades. The issue is that nobody has "progressive myoclonus epilepsy", they have one of the diseases classified as a group as "progressive myoclonus epilepsies". Up until historically recently, it wasn't possible to distinguish the types reliably prior to death but that changed a good while ago with the advances in medicine and genetics. There is an article on myoclonic epilepsy. Don't look there just now because it is a mess due to student edits. My research shows that "myoclonic epilepsy" isn't considered an important classification and certainly isn't regarded as a syndrome. Whereas PME is regarded as a syndrome and JME is regarded as a syndrome. You are right that this article needs a little work to make the naming work successfully.
There are countless papers and book chapters written on epilepsy classifications. The whole disease/disorder/syndrome/symptom thing is complex and there as many ways to group these diseases as you can think. This is why it is very important to be aligned with the current classification terminology and not mislead our readers with imprecise or out of date terms. We can't just call something a syndrome in the hope it causes less confusion. Colin°Talk00:17, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
