Talk:Diphyllobothrium

A fact from Diphyllobothrium appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 6 April 2005. The text of the entry was as follows: Did you know... that the broadfish tapeworm is the longest tapeworm in humans, averaging ten metres long and that it can shed up to a million eggs a day? A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2005/April.

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Animals Mid‑importance Diphyllobothrium 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: edit history watch purge 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 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.

From:Talk:Broadfish tapeworm My source (foundations of parasitology) itself has footnotes. Do I cite the book or the footnoted source as my source here? Thanks, Dave (talk) 22:19, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

Always cite the book that you actually read yourself. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is actually the wrong name for this worm, the broad tapeworm or the fish tapeworm (common names) refer to this particular worm, broadfish is a weird amagalmation of the two names. The disorder caused by worms from this genus has a page, Diphyllobothriasis, this page should probably be merged there--nixie 01:07, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

From a google search for the exact phrase

• broad tapeworm, 405 hits
• fish tapeworm, 4100 hits
• broadfish tateworm, 42 hits
• broad fish tapeworm, 315 hits

--nixie 01:14, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Should the article be names "Fish tapeworm" to be standardized with "beef tapeworm" and "pork tapeworm"? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 21:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• No. Fish tapeworm is one of many common names for just on of the species in the genus, and the name is not that widely used. This article is both about the genus ow worm and and the disorder it causes; I've moved it to the genus name. --Peta 05:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't it the condition portrayed in House M.D. episode "Insensitive"? (The one with the CIPA patient.)

I'm a medical student and something on this page isn't quite right. D. latum infection does NOT cause pernicious anemia. This is a common misconception. While it does lead to vitamin B12 deficiency, it leads to MEGALOBLASTIC ANEMIA. Pernicious anemia is a specific autoimmune disease against the gastric parietal cells, leading to decreased levels of gastric intrinsic factor (gIF) which is necessary for B12 absorption. Pernicious anemia is a cause of vitamin B12 deficiency, rather than a consequence. And yes, it was on House M.D. recently, although I don't understand why sliced her open instead of giving her meds to kill the thing. 24.175.18.119 19:22, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

South America (Amazon River) should be added.

the resulting B12 anemia, can easy be distingued fra pernicioes anemia - as pernicioes anemia patients will have antibodys against intrinsic factor or pertial cells that produce it. Tape worm B12 deficincy patients will not have these antibodys! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.226.87.164 (talk) 12:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One article's intended subject is the parasite as a species and the other has the disease caused by it as the subject. However, both articles covers a lot of common topic and has mostly duplicate content. Both article lack content quality, and neither is getting enough attention from editors. Merging them together can help in enriching one article and reduce duplication of efforts. nafSadh ^{did say} 20:24, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved/merged all clinical content (in)to the Diphyllobothriasis article. I don't think there is much/any unnecessarily duplicate content left in the articles. I have also considerably sourced and expanded the Diphyllobothriasis article.

I think that both articles are now roughly comparable to the average article on these topics (parasites/parasitoses) on Wikipedia in terms of length and quality. Even if your reasons for proposing a merger of the two articles were initially justified, I feel they've been adequately addressed to be rendered moot. I will thus be removing the merge templates from both articles. If you however disagree, you're free to add re-add them and re-assert your reasons for a merger.

Kind regards, -J Jay Hodec (talk) 05:07, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose: It is established practice for parasite/pathogen articles and articles about infections/parasitoses to be separate on Wikipedia. Improving overall content quality or quantity is no reason to consolidate articles that warrant separate articles. Both articles can be separately improved in the future. It will take editors less time to (re)move clinical content from this article and move it to the other one, so that shouldn't be an excuse. And - once this is done - this article will still have quite a decent amount of unique content left over, so leaving one too bare-boned shouldn't be a concern. Kind regards, -J Jay Hodec (talk) 12:38, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the current article mixes facts about Diphyllobothrium, bust mostly ones concerning Dibothriocephalus (in particular Dibothriocephalus latus), not to say anything of Adenocephalus pacificus. The taxonomx should be updated. Totodu74 (talk) 13:21, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Should not sushi be discussed? FangoFuficius (talk) 13:40, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]