Talk:Teratoma

Is this page appropriate for Wikiquote?

While the quotes presented are certainly validly sourced quotes, is there anything on the page that is memorable or quotable? I would posit that it does not meet what is set forth in Wikiquote:Quotability, especially the 5th and 6th factors (Is the quote particularly witty, pithy, wise, eloquent, or poignant? and Is the quote independently well known? Has it withstood, or is it likely to withstand, the test of time?). Having such extremely long pages that only quote from dry textbooks or medical journals is not IMHO what this project is supposed to be about. Any thoughts from the community? ~ UDScott (talk) 13:29, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Quotability is central to Wikiquote. Our model is Bartlett's Familiar Quotations or Hoyt's, etc. Similarly, Wikipedia's model is an encylopedia and Wiktionary's is a dictionary. What reader in his right mind comes here hoping to find random paragraphs snatched fro their context that somebody else found "interesting" or "important" or even "true"? Could our quotability policy be improved to be clearer? HouseOfChange (talk) 15:34, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

What if instead of deleting all of it, someone shortened the page down to things they might actually say to someone at a party? I feel the textbooks do a good job of explaining what it is in general so we should keep those, while the medical journals focus too much on specific genes and results from a limited number of case studies so we could lose them.
In terms of length, it's nowhere near as bad as the page for Roe v. Wade, the scientific language is just more difficult to understand compared to the terminology used in a legal journal. If the page is deleted doesn't it suggest that there is nothing worth saying about this subject? How can that be true when it's a particularly bad form of cancer? I know some subjects are easier to have a polite conversation about than others and this really isn't one of them, if you are discussing teratomas at a dinner party than you probably aren't getting invited back.
The criticisms of the quality of this page apply equally well to the Use of fetal tissue in vaccine development and that is definitely something a lot of people discuss because of the recent Covid-19 pandemic. It's almost as if diseases are kind of hard to talk about to a general audience while sounding intelligent but not too intelligent. I would appreciate another editor's help instead of creating yet another page on a controversial reproductive health subject almost or entirely on my own, even if it's about to be deleted. The lack of communication I have with other editors is starting to get to me and impact the quality of my contributions, I don't know who the intended audience is anymore. I had assumed the community here would have contributed much more help to the abortion pages than they actually provided, I don't know what you people actually care about.
I add Wikipedia references because I trust Wikipedia's judgment, if it is good enough for Wikipedia than I assume there is at least an introduction or a conclusion worth adding to Wikiquote. CensoredScribe (talk) 15:57, 31 March 2024 (UTC)