Talk:vaccinationist

Hey, I'm sorry for removing the context label without any explanation (not a wise thing to do, indeed). However, I think it doesn't really correspond with actual usage of the word. The obsolete label is intended for senses which are "found only in very old texts" and which would be currently understood by "very, very few". A Google Books search suggests this was never a common word (mostly used in comparisons with anti-vaccinationists), and the earliest uses I could find were from the late 19th century. Even so, it is still used in contemporary sources and I'm guessing it would most likely be understood by most speakers. Maybe an uncommon or rare label would fit better for this word. What do you think? – Einstein2 (talk) 20:37, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * There's a lot to work through here. Firstly, you're right: obsolete is too strong, and dated might be better. Secondly, it's now uncommon, but my understanding is that this was originally the only word to refer to supporters of vaccination, so maybe we want now uncommon in the label (but maybe this is obviated by vaccination not having been a major topic of conversation?). Thirdly, of your three examples of modern usage, two are using the term in a 19th-century historical context, which is not exactly a ringing endorsement of this word's currency. I'm not certain that is indeed the ideal label, though, so I'd welcome further input. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 20:55, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It is rather hard to search for the term (because of all the overlapping results for anti-vaccinationist) but to me it looks like this wasn't the originally established term for vaccine supporters, as the earliest results I could find for seem to have appeared around the same time:, . The current labels you added seem like a sensible solution for the time being. – Einstein2 (talk) 18:06, 22 April 2020 (UTC)