Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Veterinary medicine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Veterinary medicine (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Veterinary medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Veterinary medicine 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.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

Ebola Reston outbreaks[edit]

I was wondering if Reston virus shouldn't be split up. The initial outbreak is notable on its own, considering the book "The Hot Zone", and all the coverage surrounding the incident, so a 1989 Ebola Reston outbreak article would contain much of what is in the history section, (which would be replaced by a summary), similar to how the Ebola virus (Ebola Zaire) article is built, where the initial discovery outbreak is not part of the article.

There was also the 1996 Ebola Reston outbreak in Alice, Texas; that could support an article.

-- (talk) 22:55, 19 October 2014 (UTC)


template:Animal-disease-stub has been nominated for deletion -- (talk) 09:44, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Need article on cutaneous asthenia[edit]

FYI: Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

We need a general article at Cutaneous asthenia, presently redirecting inappropriately to Hereditary equine regional dermal asthenia. The condition affects other animals; e.g., it's one of the three leading causes of reports of "winged" cats, in which loose, damaged tissue hanging off the shoulder can flop as a cat runs and resemble flapping wings There's a relationship between cutaneous asthenia and human Ehlers–Danlos syndrome. Some bits of info on CA are at the Winged cat article, but I'm sure we could gather a lot more from veterinary sources, to also cover dogs, and other livestock than horses.

Anyway, this is essentially a split suggestion (not that there is much content to split), so the thread is centralized at the talk page of the article to which Cutaneous asthenia and synonym Dermal asthenia redirect.

 — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  07:34, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

  • I'm cool with creating cutaneous asthenia as a stand-alone page, either as an overview with links to articles about each animal it affects or just as a dab page to articles about each animal. HERDA is a very, very big deal in the horse world, (something like 25% of all quarter horses of reining and cutting bloodlines are carriers... that's a problem!)and as such has adequate notability for a stand-alone article. But I think an article about the disease in cats or other animals is a good idea too. Montanabw(talk) 03:49, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Merge WP:VET to WP:MED as a taskforce/workgroup?[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WP:WikiProject Veterinary Medicine seems to be almost completely moribund as a wikiproject, though work on articles continues. I think it would be beneficial to merge this project to WP:WikiProject Medicine as a taskforce (workgroup), since there are more centralized, active resources there (article peer review, etc.).  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  07:37, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I do not think such a proposal actually is warranted, many projects go up and down, and why confuse the veterinary with human? Surely that simply provides an avenue for misunderstandings
The more I look at other projects that the claims of inactivity or moribund gives another project primacy over another can create one a mess, and I would strongly suggest that any proposers or supporters have a look at the nautical area of wikipedia to see what an incredible rate of cognitive dissonance can be created for an outsider to see the evolution of the current framework - ships, ports, nautical, and so on are in an unintelligble set of projects that show what can happen. As no one else has commented here, I would shift my response to strong oppose, specially of the nature of the medical aspect of wikipedia, better to leave alone and separate than merge in any way JarrahTree 00:41, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
It is as though the project eds at med (where the proposal is being discussed as well) would be the last to actually glean a response from, they should recuse themselves on the basis that they belong to a project that is a possible subsumer of this project. It is something else wrong with wikipedia, if there was any actual legitimate even ground process for such a suggestion, it should be somewhere like project council, neutral ground and more possible participants, and not simply amongst the friends at med. I can see why people so easily despair of processes in place here. JarrahTree 00:55, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
User:JarrahTree, the defined process works like this:
  • Somebody suggests it.
  • The group that's suggested to be merged into a task force – if there is any group left – can unilaterally veto the idea.
  • The group that suggested to be the target "subsumer" can refuse.
  • If neither group objects, then anyone can move the pages and update the various templates.
However, it needs to be decided by actual participants in a project, not by outsiders with good advice. Since membership lists are always outdated and frequently wrong, the simplest way to determine who is participating in a group is to look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Directory/Description/WikiProject Veterinary medicine. It says that there are zero people active on this talk page, and neither you nor I are listed among the editors who work on these articles. Therefore, objections from us don't really make any difference. (Well, I could object on grounds that I'm highly active with the proposed subsumer, but (a) I'd probably be outvoted and (b) I know from long experience that there are no active members of VETMED, so I don't think it matters what happens to the project pages.)
It may be useful to remember that WP:WikiProjects are groups of people, not subject areas. What matters is the social connections. If two groups of people don't want to play together, then outsiders like us can't force them (in practice). And if they do, then we can't stop them (although we can make it harder for them). WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:26, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
I really appreciate the trouble you have taken in your explanation - it is very well done. I still think it is a no-brainer to have vetmed as part of medicine. Thanks again - JarrahTree 06:32, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
If people within the vetmed area wish a second opinion on something, I would not object to someone posting such a request at WT:MED as here is fairly inactive. That is all. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:38, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I oppose the idea of downgrading this project to a task force; animal health is already prone to be subsumed as an irrelevant sidebar to human health. The problem is not that we have too few editors on vet med articles, the problem is a) Not all articles on animal health are tagged for vetmed (they get tagged for the animals involved, horses, dogs, cats, etc.) and b) These animal projects tend to be fairly quiet at project talk, even where editors are madly editing away. (Actually, I think drama avoidance is a plus, not a minus!) I'd suggest posting this at the various animal project pages -- horse, dog, cat, cattle, livestock, agriculture, horse racing, and so on. Montanabw(talk) 03:43, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Lack of drama doesn't really seem like a valid claim here. Plenty of projects have plenty of activity in the coordination of the project itself as well as active members without "drama" either at the project or at the relevant pages. We have neither here, which is pretty strong justification for merging our inactive project. Vet med is a branch of medicine after all, and WP:MED does not lay claim to human-only medicine either. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:18, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Montanabw makes an extremely important point. There is an incredible amount of work going on with editing non-human animal based articles, but many of these go on without involving the project level. The collegiate attitude of these editors should be respected. I also agree with Montanabw's point that any movement of the project should be more widely "advertised". DrChrissy (talk) 16:43, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

::::I suppose given that the rest of the conversation has been directed to the WP:MED project, we really should continue this chat there. Montanabw(talk) 19:36, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Project resurrection[edit]

Well folks, the above merge suggestion has resulted in some new members and energy. So now, what do we do about it? We do have a lot of articles that would benefit from cleanup. Perhaps we need to create some cross-links on the project page and a feed for article alerts. Perhaps some of the WP:MED folks who maintain that project would be willing to help us out here?

Typical of any project - even the monster projects like milhist, ships, med or the rest - the most signficant item that indicates where they understand (ie the project members themselves showing whether they understand their project or not) is project assessment, going to the talk pages of articles not yet assessed, it is always a good way of clarifying a project is anywhere near understanding how both sides of article pages work - classic sign of imbalance in the monsters is where a range of new category pages are created that relate to the project, and they are not caught by project tags on the category talk page to 'bring in' to the fold. Also unassessed pages are always a good sign as to whether participants in a project are involved in understanding the assessment process. JarrahTree 10:59, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
We have the cleanup listing, but I don't know how to generate that assessment chart. Montanabw(talk) 07:33, 6 September 2016 (UTC)