Template talk:Vaccines

This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Pharmacology This template is within the scope of WikiProject Pharmacology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pharmacology 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.PharmacologyWikipedia:WikiProject PharmacologyTemplate:WikiProject Pharmacologypharmacology articles Medicine This template is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles

I have reverted this addition by User:Thsgrn for two reasons: (1) we don't even know yet if whale.to will survive its VfD, (2) the issue of what should be in the template is currently under discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vaccination critics. --Arcadian 15:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should not DNA vaccination be included in the template? -- Petri Krohn 22:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Add veterinary vaccines: rabies, strangles, west nile virus, etc. --Una Smith (talk) 04:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Categorizing the vaccines by DNA/RNA virus or gram+/- organism makes the template too difficult to use and too crowded. A lay audience is more likely to know about diptheria or HPV, but unlikely to know the details of the taxonomy of causing organism. (Separating into viral vs. bacterial was a bit questionable on these grounds, but there weren't so many categories that it was too much of a burden.) It is much easier to find an item in a single alphabetized list rather than have to search several lists.

The problem is compounded when the lists are scrunched into a small column on the right because most of the screen width is taken up by headings. Zodon (talk) 07:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These organizations were in the controversy section Autism Action Coalition • SafeMinds Don't really make sense there, since they are not controversies. Also not clear why they should be singled out among the vaccination organizations (pro and con). If going to include organizations, need more general way to cover. Zodon (talk) 07:01, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The endnotes for "‡Withdrawn from market" and "§Never to phase III" seem rather redundant as there are no vaccines on the template which use them. Should these notes not be removed? Abergabe (talk) 14:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since the articles listed are about the vaccines--not the diseases or their causes--they should be organized by type of vaccine (attenuated, toxoid, DNA,...). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paramecium13 (talk • contribs) 20:37, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some names of people should also be in this template - Edward Jenner, Louis Pasteur, Jonas Salk, Stanley Plotkin, Hilary Koprowski, H. Fred Clark, and Paul Offit come to mind. BD2412 T 20:55, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Hearing no comment, I'm adding them. BD2412 T 03:52, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ebola is listed as two separate (and separated) entries among the viruses, rather than one entry with multiple links in parens. I'm not comfortable enough with the subject to muck around with the template myself. BSVulturis (talk) 03:28, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The links go to two different places - one to a specific vaccine, and the other to a general article on Ebola vaccine research. Perhaps "research" should be its own section, but I don't think this is incorrect. BD2412 T 03:31, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]