This article is within the scope of WikiProject Equine, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of articles relating to horses, asses, zebras, hybrids, equine health, equine sports, etc. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the barn.EquineWikipedia:WikiProject EquineTemplate:WikiProject Equineequine articles
Deworming 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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Agriculture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of agriculture 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.AgricultureWikipedia:WikiProject AgricultureTemplate:WikiProject AgricultureAgriculture articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sanitation, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sanitation 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.SanitationWikipedia:WikiProject SanitationTemplate:WikiProject Sanitationsanitation articles
This article 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.Veterinary medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Veterinary medicineTemplate:WikiProject Veterinary medicineVeterinary medicine articles
This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Material from Deworming was split to other pages. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter pages, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter pages exist. Please leave this template in place to link the article histories and preserve this attribution.
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:
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.
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]
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.
Ioppose 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]
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:
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]
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]
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]
@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]
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]
