Talk:Mpox

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Mpox article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Archives: 1, 2: 365 days

Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Mpox.

PubMed provides review articles from the past five years (limit to free review articles)
The TRIP database provides clinical publications about evidence-based medicine.
Other potential sources include: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and CDC

This article is part of the Monkeypox outbreak task force, which is part of the WikiProject of Current events and this task force began in May 2022. Feel free to join and help!

Medicine: Dermatology High‑importance

	Medicine portal 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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Dermatology task force.

Veterinary medicine Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Veterinary medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Veterinary medicine 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.Veterinary medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Veterinary medicineTemplate:WikiProject Veterinary medicineVeterinary medicine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Viruses High‑importance

	Viruses portal 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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Primates Low‑importance

	Primates portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Primates, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Primates 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.PrimatesWikipedia:WikiProject PrimatesTemplate:WikiProject PrimatesPrimate articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Mammals Low‑importance

	Mammals portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mammals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mammal-related subjects 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.MammalsWikipedia:WikiProject MammalsTemplate:WikiProject Mammalsmammal articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Africa Low‑importance

	Africa portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa 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.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Daily pageviews of this article

A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 2 times. The weeks in which this happened:

Pronunciation

We recently had an edit by User:Smurrayinchester to add "pronounced /ˈɛmpɒks/ EM-poks," to the lead sentence. I reverted with summary "Per MOS:LEADPRON only necessary if not apparent from spelling, and "mpox" was apparently chosen because the pronunciation should be straightforward". The pronouciation has been restored by User:Ost316 with summary "with all due respect to those who chose the name, the pronunciation is not apparent, as it is an uncommon letter combination for starting a word and does not separate the "m" from the "pox". Some may think it's pronounced more like MMMBop".

The dictionaries at Dictionary.com and Collins agree with the above proposed text, but Websters does not. I've not found the term at other dictionaries. I don't know how to pronounce MMMBop but if Ost316 is suggesting mpox might be pronounced without the "e" and just a "mm" sound, then my answer is then: so what. This is a neologism. It will be pronounced how it gets pronounced. I think their suggestion of a "wrong" pronunciation is unlikely, for the reason that "MMMBop" has multiple "m"s to emphasise the mm sound.

We aren't a dictionary. The guidance at MOS:LEADPRON is that the correct (or a reasonable) pronunciation has to be obscure to the unfamiliar reader. It has to be something a reader couldn't have worked out from the spelling. It is not that there are several options, given a spelling, and Wikipedia is here to insist on only one. It is that the reader is most likely to stumble. For example, we don't tell the reader how to pronounce Colin (given name) except for the American politician Colin Powell who had an unusual pronunciation. That "Colin" could be pronounced /ˈkoʊlɪn/ KOHL-in doesn't mean an English reader is likely to do so and misunderstood if they did so (people without English as a first language often do pronounce "Colin" in all sorts of ways, but we don't add pronunciation guides to help Spanish or Chinese readers improve their English accent).

I think here, the reader is either unlikely to so mispronounce mpox that nobody will understand what they are saying or even think they are wrong, rather than just different. Whether they drop the "e" or change the o vowel sound is pretty unimportant, and getting on for the sort of variation we might get in English naturally.

I think we should remove the pronunciation in order to keep the lead sentence, like most Wikipedia articles, focused on information. -- Colin°^Talk 07:15, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the inclusion of the pronunciation is problematic; it takes up very little space and is not immediately obvious. I think it's fine as-is and would prefer that the pronunciation be retained. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk; please {{ping}} me in replies) 09:36, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Space isn't the problem, nor is there any rule that only one pronunciation is "immediately obvious". Most English words not only could be pronounced in many ways, but most English words are pronounced in many ways by those with different accents. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Pronunciation#Appropriate use says "Pronunciation should be indicated sparingly, as parenthetical information disturbs the normal flow of the text and introduces clutter". There is already clutter with the former name, so now the reader (or listener) is distracted with two parentheticals before getting to any definition. The pronunciation we now waste our readers time with is "apparent from its spelling", which is the guideline rule. That other pronunciations could be generated from that spelling is entirely normal for English, and not a reason to add it here. If the "m" was silent, you'd have a point. -- Colin°^Talk 12:17, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Colin. The first sentence should be a clear and a concise definition. We don't needed the clutter, which breaks the flow. This is an encyclopedia not a dictionary.Graham Beards (talk) 13:29, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I find it hard to believe the fact mpox should be pronounced as a hybrid initialism is "apparent from its spelling". Perhaps if it were MPOX, MPox, or even m-pox. There are many proper names, albeit non-English, that begin with "m + consonant" that the common reader may be familiar with such as Mbappé or Mnong, and from the lack of pronunciation notes on their articles their pronunciation is "apparent from its spelling."

A footnote could be used to note the pronunciation without breaking flow, but the field in the infobox is better than nothing. 9³ (talk) 03:11, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I pronounce it like MMMBop, but only in jest with colleagues! I believe "em-pox" is the correct pronunciation. If we have good RS to support that, I think it's worth adding to the article because I can see some readers might be confused. Bondegezou (talk) 13:29, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, the pronunciation was moved from the lead sentence to the infobox by User:WhatamIdoing on 15 May. This seems to be the ideal compromise. It is there for those who think it is needed and it doesn't clutter the lead sentence. There is a long long history of Wikipedians complaining about lead sentence clutter like this, which is why we only permit such in very exceptional cases. Just because editors can imagine that someone out there someone might find it useful or might possibly get it wrong doesn't mean we need to break the flow of the lead sentence with what is a very minor aspect. There are people who think disease ICD-9, ICD-10, ICD-11 and MeSH codes are useful information (you'll find that right at the bottom of the article). -- Colin°^Talk 14:37, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mpox (Monkeypox)

That's how a ton of medical sources including the WHO and CDC are writing it right now. The hate crime issue that prompted the initial change didn't end up happening, and while they're sticking with the new name as it fits the 2013 onward naming scheme for new germs(albeit most old diseases aren't being renamed for obvious reasons) they've seemingly eased off with the old name, they're fine using both since it's not a hot topic.

I also want to note Monkeypox was still the most used name monthly until super super recently, like June 2024 was the first month Mpox was searched more and just barely.

So using that as the title as I wrote it above seems fine. With the newer scientific name in front and the older dead-backronym(the M technically stands for Monkeypox Virus so...yeah) that's more widely known AND being used in titles even by official sources. If they can use both we can use both, official in the front, common in the back. The Mullet of Monkey Titles 2604:3D09:1F80:CA00:C6A:333:4CD6:D80D (talk) 02:09, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perusing the academic literature, focusing on papers published in 2024, “mpox” is far commoner in titles than “monkeypox” (with “monkeypox” largely used in the phrase “monkeypox virus”). I’m not seeing journal papers calling it “mpox (monkeypox)” in their titles. So “mpox” seems fine to me. If people look for “monkeypox” on Wikipedia, they’ll be redirected here. The article itself explains the new and old names. Bondegezou (talk) 06:33, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]