Talk:Dracunculus medinensis

Animals Mid‑importance

Dracunculus medinensis is within the scope of WikiProject Animals, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to animals and zoology. For more information, visit the project page.AnimalsWikipedia:WikiProject AnimalsTemplate:WikiProject Animalsanimal articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Animals To-do:

Here are some Open Tasks :

Copyedit:
Merge: GLAM/ARKive donated texts into articles about endangered species.
Improve: Photoperiodism, Tool use by non-human animals, Omnivore, Animal suicide, Sphaerium beckmani (a species in family Sphaeriidae),
Requests:
- Mammals:
- Invertebrates: Campocraspedon
- Fishes: Zaniolepis frenata
Merge: GLAM/ARKive donated texts into articles about endangered species.
Expand: Junqueira cow, Atka mackerel
Nominate and vote: Science collaboration of the month, Article Improvement Drive, WikiProject Animals Collaboration

Medicine Mid‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Longest nematode?

I modified the sentence thats states that D.m. is the longest nematode infecting humans as the same claim has been made for Dioctophyme renale; both claims are referenced.Ekem (talk) 23:55, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think the rod of asclepius has anything to do with this worm.70.138.103.82 (talk) 05:13, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Has these species had its DNA mapped?

Anyone know if this is being worked on? Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) when u sign ur reply, thx 14:20, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Known cases

As mentioned in the article: "There were only 126 cases remaining, all in South Sudan, and all known". How is this possible? Boo2060 (talk) 16:31, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eradication?

How is eradication possible, wouldn't the worm simply infect non-humans, hence the danger will always exist? --Makkachin (talk) 18:54, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, D. medinensis mostly only infects humans (and sorta sometimes dogs), so if we can stop human transmission, we may be able to kill all D. medinensis out there. This gets a brief mention on Drancunculiasis but I'll try to find a good source that mentions justification of eradication programs and plop that in here. Thanks!! Ajpolino (talk) 03:42, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The eradication effort seems to have run into a speedbump. http://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2016/08/09/489330803/why-the-world-isn-t-close-to-eradicating-guinea-worm --205.175.158.150 (talk) 21:16, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Endangered

Does Wikipedia have some sort of rule about which animals show conservation status on their page? Erik Carson (talk) 18:17, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I know of (but it's certainly possible). As far as I can tell they put the conservation status in general if available and if they think it adds to the article? Someone had previously added a status of "Critically Endangered" here before, citing IUCN. But as far as I can tell it's not on their list of threatened or endangered species. Since they didn't classify it, I figured we shouldn't either? Maybe someone who knows more about this kind of thing could step in and educate us...Ajpolino (talk) 00:28, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 15 December 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 00:11, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dracunculus medinensis → Guinea worm – Per WP:COMMONNAME. The common name is "Guinea worm", which already redirects here. Rreagan007 (talk) 07:07, 15 December 2018 (UTC)--Relisting. Flooded with them hundreds 07:59, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose All species in the genus and the genus itself may be called "guinea worms". WP:COMMONNAME is only one criterion; WP:PRECISION is equally important. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:14, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
oppose per Peter coxhead--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:16, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. WP:COMMONNAME is far from the sole criterion for determining article titles. RECOGNIZABILITY, NATURALNESS, PRECISION, CONCISENESS, and CONSISTENCY are the primary article title criteria. When it comes to suggesting that an article about a species should use a vernacular name title instead of a scientific name title, COMMONNAME is basically just doubling down on RECOGNIZABILITY, with perhaps a touch of NATURALNESS. But NATURALNESS suggest not just what readers search for, but what editors link to, and "Dracunculus medinensis" is far more linked than "Guinea worm". Scientific names are hands down the only feasible way to CONSISTENTLY title species articles, and are far more PRECISE than vernacular names. Is there a problem for our readers with the current title that would be solved with a move? I suspect readers are likely to more or less equally interested in the organism and the disease it causes, dracunculiasis/Guinea worm disease. If anything, readers might be best served by a dab page at guinea worm that lists both the organism and the disease (and isn't funny how nobody ever tries to beat the medical editors over the head with kneejerk WP:COMMONNAME arguments, even though medical topics consistently use technical names such as dracunculiasis, patella, or myocardial infarction). Plantdrew (talk) 05:28, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per arguments brought up in a past, similar RM last month; precision is important in titles and going against that would not be good idea. JC7V (talk) 22:45, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.