I was doing my work in patrolling new pages when a new editor wrote an article Fasciola hepatica and tuberculosis, there was a merge tag on it and I did the merge. As for orthographic errors, I admit my ignorance and don't even know what you mean by that. As for the acronymns, I'll take a look and do a google search to get them defined. I didn't know fluke articles could be so busy!
Medical content should be in the article about the infection, not about the article about the organism
Like with all the other helminths, please don't put medical content (e.g. epidemiology, diagnosis, symptoms etc.) here but put it on the page about the infection (Fascioliasis) - see also the hatnote for this article. Doc_James also to take note... EvM-Susana (talk) 21:34, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
This article has a veterinary template on the talk page, veterinary medicine... A reader can certainly benefit from even just a couple of statements regarding the clinical significance of an organism. I've written dozens of articles on bacteria and always include epidemiology and clinical information in the article if it is available. What makes flukes so special? Is there a manual of style just for helminths?
seriously...this whole article has more about disease than it does the organism itself...I'm not following you about what is the appropriate content for this article, then.Bfpage |leave a message 01:37, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
EvM-Susana is right: it looks like the merge should have been with the disease article not the organism article.( although you coud have fixed it too , instead of crying for docjames. I dont know you, Bfpage but you appear not to be in in the medical field (correct me if I am wrong ) and if you cant crtically evaluate a merger request maybe you shouldnt execute it? esp if a med article exists, better keep the micro article clean.--Wuerzele (talk) 20:28, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Well, I came to the whole helminth and helminthiasis cluster of article later in the piece, after others - including Doc_James had put a lot of effort into a kind of "clean up operation", where the page about the organism links people to the page about the infection, but does not contain information about the infection itself (except the bare minimum) in order not to double up the information on two pages. There is a mind-boggling number of helminths out there (see e.g. helminths) and we tried hard last year to keep it all clean and tidy, so I suggest that also for this fluke it is done in the same way like it is for the other helminths (barring a few that might have slipped out attention). I can make that move of content to the other article but it takes a bit of work (one needs to ensure it doesn't double up too much on the other page) and I also didn't want to do it without explaning why to do it and without getting a consensus of those involved. Take a look at some of the other helminths and their infection pages and I think you will quickly see what I mean, and see the benefit of this "convention"? In any case thanks for spotting that newly created page that needed to be merged. EvM-Susana (talk) 21:20, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Just wondering if (again) we have too much detail here about epidemiology or if it's OK like this. The main information about the disease should be in the disease article, not in the organism article. But perhaps it's just fine like this.EvMsmile (talk) 12:30, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
The first two paragraphs under epidemiology are not epidemiology; more like transmission. The 4th paragraph is disease burden. The last paragraph is diagnosis. I'll put this on my to do list. juanTamad (talk) 12:52, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Epidemiology is the study and analysis of the patterns, causes, and effects of health and disease conditions in defined populations. Should there be an epidemiology section on the organism page at all? juanTamad (talk) 13:08, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
My answer would be no. We've tried hard to differentiate (for all helminths) between the organism article and the disease article. Note there is a hatnote for that section saying "For more information on the epidemiology – see the disease page, fasciolosis". So I think the heading should be given a different title (transmission perhaps?) and then cut down and anything to do with the disease moved to the disease page. Unless it's too hard to differentiate between transmission and disease information? EvMsmile (talk) 14:08, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Propose DELETION. I'm going to leave this message here for a week. If there are no objections, I'll delete the epidemiology section from this article and make sure there is a link to the disease page. Look at Plasmodium falciparum. There is no epidemiology section. juanTamad (talk) 01:39, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
I agree in principle but perhaps rather than a complete delete, check if there is new info here that is not on the disease page and if yes, rather merge it into the disease article? Also the part about transmission could stay, I guess? EvMsmile (talk) 05:20, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I tried to generalize and simplify info about human fasciolosis into two short sentences. i hope it is ok.--Flukeman (talk) 08:02, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Why the additional information about the disease here?
I don't understand why the previous editor built up the information about the disease here. We're trying to have two separate pages for each helminth: one is for the organism and one is for the disease. Therefore, why refer to the article on fascioliasis plus then also putting disease information on this page? I suggest to move it across (if it's not already on the other page). EvMsmile (talk) 01:17, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Do it. If not certain about something, leave it, and will reconsider. (This sentence is poorly written [and clearly disease information]: "Infection begins when cyst-covered aquatic vegetation is eaten or when water containing metacercariae is drunk. "). The first sentences about causing disease in humans and how it's transmitted to humans could be condensed and placed in (probably) the lede with a link to the disease page (actually a link is already there so probably not needed). Then a section headed "epidemiology" deleted. I think "diagnosis" could be treated the same way, or probably not even a mention of diagnosis. No need for a section with the title diagnosis. JuanTamad (talk) 02:49, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
I agree with you but even better would be to get the user on board who added the content so that he/she doesn't get disheartened. I've just left a message on their talk page (it's a new user, User:Sfmuirhead). EvMsmile (talk) 00:40, 2 May 2016 (UTC)