Disease is part of the WikiProject Biology, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to biology on Wikipedia. Leave messages on the WikiProject talk page.BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject BiologyTemplate:WikiProject BiologyBiology articles
This article is substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication. Since the external publication copied Wikipedia rather than the reverse, please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of the following source:
Miller, F. P., Vandome, A. F., & McBrewster, J. (2010), Fish diseases and parasites: Disease, parasitism, pathogen, epidermis (skin), microorganism, inflammation, white blood cell, immune system, vaccine, aquaculture, aquarium fish, Alphascript Publishing{{citation}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
I'm not going to engage in WP:OR (I was only coming here per a Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard alert about possible vandalism). You're welcome to modify/expand it with cites or links to additional or alternative aspects as usual. Obviously a high-school exam, even if widely respected (in some circles) as a good benchmark, is going to have limited scope and not encompass all advanced variants. DMacks (talk) 04:16, 13 November 2012 (UTC) Sorry if that sounds sarcastic, I'm coming off of a loooong and crappy day at work. DMacks (talk) 04:18, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge proposal
Someone tagged Illness to be merged into this article, and that seems to make sense. Wikipedia articles are about things/concepts, not words, and having two articles that cover the same topic is a form of content forkery. Both articles say the two are slightly different, but this doesn't seem a good reason to have two separate articles. Thoughts? — Ƶ§œš¹[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]01:10, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion was archived a bit prematurely, which I did not oppose since it seemed there was enough time given for editors to object. Given the recent activity at Illness, I have restored the discussion to give the discussion more weight. Until there is a consensus either way, I ask editors to please not remove the tag or archive this discussion.
I'm uncertain about whether merging these articles completely is a good action. I mean, "illness" is not always a synonym for "disease." When someone becomes sick with the common cold, it's not usually referred to as a disease. Ditto for a fever without the common cold. But then again, the Common cold article calls it (the common cold) an infectious disease. So I'm conflicted. I was originally all for not merging, which can kind of be seen in my discussion with Aeusoes1,[1] but now I'm thinking that merging may not be a bad action. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 22:56, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The usual distinction is that a disease is something that I experience objectively and an illness is something that I experience subjectively. So the common cold is always a disease, and it's an illness if I happen to dislike it. (Fever is a symptom or medical sign, depending on whether I announce that I have one or someone else notices that I have one, but it is neither a disease nor an illness on its own.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:17, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't wish to make a big deal about this but surely you can see the obvious contradiction in a a statement like "This discussion was archived a bit prematurely, which I did not oppose since it seemed there was enough time given for editors to object" Opening a new discussion after an old one has gone stale without arriving at a consensus is a perfectly acceptable option that doesn't require anyone to (mis) assign blame to a user who merely cleaned up a talk page and archived an obviously inactive discussion. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:49, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'll elaborate. Archiving a two-comment discussion after six weeks in a talk page that got six edits in the previous two years is iffy. I wouldn't have done it, but I also didn't fight it. We can see that it was archived prematurely because someone has now come along wishing to chime in about it. I'm not finger waving here, I'm justifying my decision to un-archive. — Ƶ§œš¹[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]00:54, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that most of "Physical" is present, but it should be double-checked. My recommendation is that you pick out keywords (like "developmental disability") that are present in Illness and see whether those same words exist here. If they don't, then that sentence probably needs to migrate (assuming it's on topic; some of what's left is kind of random).
The items under ==See also== are missing and should be linked here. Convalescence and concepts of recovery (i.e., the end of disease) might make an interesting short section at the end of the page. We could WP:Build the web to wellness and health by naming them as the opposites of disease. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:50, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have a problem with redirecting Medical condition to here. I realize that change reflects increasingly common usage of the term; and, that my objection might be seen as nitpicking by the "let's call a spade a 'spade'" crowd. I don't think we want to support confusing and bigoted language just because it is becoming "common," however. Please discuss this on Talk:Medical condition
Yes, I also object to this article implying that all "conditions" are "diseases," "disorders," "illnesses" or "injuries"
( "A medical condition is a broad term that includes all diseases and disorders. While the term medical condition generally includes mental illnesses, in some contexts the term is used specifically to denote any illness, injury, or disease except for mental illnesses")
but I'm trying to minimize a resurgence of an old edit war while still maintaining a distinction between "common" and "correct" usage. See above, under Medical Condition subsection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.68.16.228 (talk) 06:21, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
