Talk:Dracunculus medinensis
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Longest nematode?
editI 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)
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)
Has these species had its DNA mapped?
editAnyone 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)
Known cases
editAs 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)
Eradication?
editHow 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)
- 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)
- 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)
Endangered
editDoes Wikipedia have some sort of rule about which animals show conservation status on their page? Erik Carson (talk) 18:17, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- 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)
Requested move 15 December 2018
edit- 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)
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)
- 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)
- oppose per Peter coxhead--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:16, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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.
Mode of transmission, pathogenesis, lifecycle, preventions and control of Dracunculus medinensis
edit1. Dauda praise Zyenom (talk) 23:15, 30 September 2024 (UTC)