Talk:Deworming

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Too many external links?

I think we have too many external links on this page. Should cut it down to only the key organisations or websites. We also have stuff on deworming on some of the other pages (helminthiasis for example - school deworming programs in the Philippines), wondering if this could somehow be optimised by better cross referencing. EvM-Susana (talk) 13:07, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eight is not excessive, but I do question if the specific links are the best. I would agree that better wikilinking, more sources and cross-referening would be good. My take is that the ELs now are potential source material for this or other articles. I'd see how many of them can be "graduated" into footnotes! Montanabw(talk) 02:49, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have taken another look at those external links. They are all going to very specific pdf files, I don't think they qualify as external links. I put them here and they could be added as citations if any of them are really important:


EvM-Susana (talk) 21:15, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Silly note about redirect? Removed a second time

This to me seeems silly and totally unrelated. I have removed it already before but someone has undone it twice. Can you please explain the relevance of this?? I can't see it at all.

"Worming" redirects here. For the slang term, see oculolinctus.

EvM-Susana (talk) 21:19, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Trust me, given that WP editors are 80-90% male and most under 30, a significant number of those living in their mommy's basement, that IS what some of them will be looking for. Do I think it's stupid? yes. Do I think we need the stupid hatnote? Also yes. I am going to restore. Montanabw(talk) 03:07, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why do we have a redirect from "worming" to "deworming" in the first place if the two have nothing to do with each other? (or is worming also used for deworming; edit: see my other note below) EvM-Susana (talk) 11:02, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of animal owners say "worming" when we mean "deworming." Just a very common speech thing, not unlike the confusion between "flammable" and "inflammable." Montanabw(talk) 06:53, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge this page into the page on helminthiasis?

I am suggesting to merge this page into the page on helminthiasis because there is more and better information about deworming there. This page on deworming should - if anything - focus on the details of deworming, the mechanism, procedures, costs, etc. but instead it also talks about the effects of worm infections on children.

Or maybe it should be re-focussed to only include information about deworming in animals. EvM-Susana (talk) 21:19, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose a merge, but I have no real problem with somehow reconciling the two articles so they work together better, The area I know best is equine-related, and one internal parasite we routinely deal with are botfly larva - bots. And they are not "intestinal", they attach to the stomach lining. But we use "dewormers" to get rid of them (primarily ivermectin). From my side, I had never heard the word "helminth" until today. (OK, I see the root of "anthelmintic") Learn something every day, i guessMontanabw(talk) 03:16, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • This page is applicable to many diseases. While it is currently very short there is no reason why it could not be expanded. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:36, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, then lets build this page up so that it focusses more on the veterinarian aspects. Mention briefly also the human aspects of deworming but without going into detail and making it clear for people that for the human deworming activities (and debates) they must go to the helminthiasis page. Can we actually direct them to the right section, is that possible? I.e. as the article on helminthiasis is quite long, can we direct them to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helminthiasis#Mass_deworming_programs? I think the issues for animals and humans are quite different, so this page could focus more on the veterinary side - horses, dogs, cats... - thoughts? EvM-Susana (talk) 11:05, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be comfortable with that; millions of pet owners would view this as a veterinary issue, not a human public health issue (in fact, I gotta go deworm my horses in the next week or so...). I do think that the public health aspects should be cross-referenced, though. You could do a hatnote at the top of the page that looks like this:
For human deworming, see helminthiasis.
by using this: {{for|human deworming|helminthiasis}} I wish I had more time to work on this article, but maybe User:Eventer (who is in vet school, I think) can add it to her to-do list. Montanabw(talk) 06:53, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree we should keep it open and expand the veterinary aspect. I'm actually kind of surprised the main focus of the page is humans, since deworming is standard in animals and comparatively rare in people. I'd be happy to put it on my to-do list, but I may be a while before I have a chance to get to it!Eventer (talk) 00:54, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rare in humans? What makes you think that, User:Eventer? Unless you would say 1-3 billion people infected is rare?? ;-) It is only rare in countries like US and Europe but on a global scale it is a massive public health problem, and totally under-reported. Check out the Wikipedia page on Helminthiasis. Sadly, it is not rare at all... But personally, I think for ethical reasons and common sense reasons, two separate pages are the way to go: "Deworming (animals)" and "Deworming (humans)". Just like for rabies where there is one page for animals and one for humans. The issues are too much different in my opinion to treat it on the same page. E.g. lack of sanitation is cause for humans; school based deworming programs are one measure - totally different in the case of animals... Mind you, some of the mechanisms on how the drugs work in the intestines are bound to be similar. Hoping that we will end up with two very good, detailed pages in the future. EvM-Susana (talk) 07:38, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, calm down everyone. I think that we need two articles. EvM, you may be right that parasite infestation in humans is under-reported, but in good faith, remember that virtually all dogs, cats, horses, cattle and other livestock in the First World also need regular deworming, and it has a huge economic impact (and in livestock eaten for food, some parasites can be transmitted to humans (notably trichonosis plus use of deworming medication has human health implications also. Montanabw(talk) 06:40, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with splitting the pages. Although I still stand by my comment that the actual act of deworming (not infection--even a large population of people in the US and Europe have some sort of parasite) is comparatively rare. The anthelminthic resistance we are seeing is certainly not because we are overusing it in humans. Considering that there are billions of broilers slaughtered just in the US each year, most of which are dewormed multiple times in their relatively short lives, world-wide human deworming rates aren't even in the same ballpark when compared to those of poultry, cattle, swine, small ruminants, and even companion animals. Although I am happy to lay the majority of the blame for antibiotic resistance on the human population :) Eventer (talk) 03:18, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You make a good point about prevalence of living creatures being treated with nthelminthics - and the problem with resistance to those as well! Montanabw(talk) 04:35, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is worming really a synonym for "deworming"?

The article starts with: "Deworming (sometimes known as worming or drenching)" - is that really true? If that is the case, then the page for "worming" should give two options: one to the deworming page and one to the page on Oculolinctus (although I question the validity of the latter page? Not sure how "notable" it really is, given the scant references, too (just news articles)). EvM-Susana (talk) 11:12, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. In the animal world. If I had the time, it would be amusing to AfD oculolinctus, but I suspect we'd lose...  :-P Montanabw(talk) 06:53, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Edit: I have modified the page on "worming" accordingly now, to give two options (rather than a redirect), the option for deworming or the option for oculolinctus. OK? EvM-Susana (talk) 11:20, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The disambiguation police will probably whine about only having two entries (I got slapped for that recently... still mildly stung) but I'll go see if I can throw in a few more things; "worming one's way into another's affections" perhaps. Or something. No worries, I'm on it. Montanabw(talk) 06:53, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Change this page so that it focussed on the animal side, with minimal focus to the human side

OK, so I have made the change now that we discussed above. Made cross reference to the human side, and left some basic information about the human issues. So the plan would now be to build up the page that it focusses on the animal side and not add more information for the human side. How about adding some information about the types of drugs that are used for animals? I added two for the treatment of humans, just as examples. EvM-Susana (talk) 11:28, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll lurk on the changes, I have a bunch of other projects in the hopper, including having just whipped up Parascaris equorum. Feel free to pop in anything you'd like, I'll again see if @Eventer: is interested in adding material. I've long wanted to improve this article, but it's a big daunting to do it properly. Montanabw(talk) 22:11, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We need an article on humans by this name. Thus IMO the content should be here. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:37, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Doc James:: Is there a problem with helminthiasis as the human article? Or we could do (human) and (animal) articles as EvM suggested above. I did a search on Google and looks like WP PRIMARY can go either way. I have sympathy for @EvM-Susana:'s distinguishing the human and animal aspects. So maybe we make this article a dab? Thoughts? Montanabw(talk) 06:40, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is that there are dozens of helminthiasis article in which linking to an article on deworming would be appropriate. A brief summary is applicable in all those articles bu the main discussion should occur here. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:53, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but they may as well link to an article called "deworming (humans)" instead of "deworming"? I would just find it so odd to have them both on the same page, it's as if we are saying children are just like cats and dogs... It is the same for the article on rabies, it is also split in two (although the photo on the rabies WP page is one of a dog (should be replaced with one of a human)), but there is this page for humans: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabies and this page for rabies in animals: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabies_in_animals). I guess we need to decide if the page on "deworming" should have its focus on animals plus a separate page called "deworming (humans)" or if it should be the other way around: the "deworming" page focusses on humans and makes a link to a separate page called "deworming (animals)"? EvM-Susana (talk) 14:54, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so is anyone going to be upset if I make this page a disambiguation page and move ALL the content into deworming (human) and deworming (animal)? Anyone prefer a different pair of titles? Montanabw(talk) 04:35, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The human content should really be moved to Mass deworming program or Mass deworming and the animal content can be left here per [1] among others Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:53, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just to say that this recommendation has now been implemented, and as of this month we now have a new page on mass deworming, thanks to User:JMWt. I think that's a good solution to our dilemma. EvM-Susana (talk) 10:42, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nicely done and thank you! Montanabw(talk) 19:11, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Number of cases of helminthiasis

This page is specifically about deworming and IMO it should stay focused on that topic. The number of cases is here [2] among other places. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:53, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you will not discuss than stop edit warring. What the point of having a subpage if everything that is reference must be included on the subpage? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:57, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have a life, I posted this morning before I had a commitment (a college class to teach, actually) and now I am done with work and dinner, thus free again to discuss the issue further. My point is that the human section is already pretty minimal - the animal sections need expansion. I just want to be sure the material is not "lost." I didn't really see equivalent info on the other page on soil contamination or whatever. I also like to see a summary sentence left in the article. There has also been some talk about splitting this into "human" and "animal" articles. What are your views on that? Montanabw(talk) 02:42, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It appears you have not even bothered to read the version you continually revert too.
For example did you notice that this text was there twice "Mass deworming campaigns of school children - which can be done at quite a low cost - have been used both as a preventive as well as a treatment method for helminthiasis in children. Children can be treated against helminthiasis by administering for example Mebendazole and Albendazole." Maybe spend a little time actually looking at the content and stop duplicating text Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:05, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Get a grip. I was trying to keep your additions and what was in there too. How about you have a bit more good faith and not delete material unless there is a clear place where the deleted material has gone. Reverting you is not "edit-warring" when you delete sourced material and then edit war to keep it out. There is a discussion about splitting this article, but it hasn't happened yet. Montanabw(talk) 00:41, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Filipino

Gumawa ng ulat tungkol sa dewarming 112.198.132.115 (talk) 10:03, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Deworming"