This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:08, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
I think merging relevant information is a good idea, also making "animal chiropractic" a redirect would be useful for future searches, also. Montanabw(talk)19:02, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Dear veterinary experts: This article was declined at Afc for having too much technical jargon. It will soon be deleted as a stale draft. Is this a notable topic, and should the article be kept and improved instead? —Anne Delong (talk) 16:25, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Frankly, IMHO, all it needs is some serious wikilinking of the technical jargon and a bit of formatting cleanup; I find it mroe readable than most of the math and physics articles that are already here! Montanabw(talk)01:23, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Montanabw, I can fix the section headings, anyway. The current title begins with "canine", but the article begins with just "ectopic". Is this a particular problem with dogs, or with mammals in general? There is already an article Ectopic ureter. —Anne Delong (talk) 16:48, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
This is a fairly rare condition in dogs, but can been seen in any mammal including humans where there is already a stub article at Ectopic ureter. I've personally seen it in a dog and a miniature horse. There is no difference in presentation that would warrant a separate article for animals (except the duplicated ureter common in humans is rare in animals), but the info could be merged into the human article. Froggerlauraribbit01:53, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, looking over the draft article, it seems that some of the information is general medical information which could be added to the mainspace article, and some is specifically about dogs, and this could be put into a separate section underneath. Unfortunately, I don't have the knowledge to sort this out. If any of you would like to move some of the content, I can handle the attribution if necessary. —Anne Delong (talk) 03:19, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
I've done a complete rewrite and reformatting of this list, and expanded it to some extent. However, I'm sure there are some or many plants that I've missed, so I would like to put it out there for everyone to look over and add to. I think this would be a nice little featured list for the project, so my only request is that any new entries be cited to reliable sources - I'll even format them for you! Dana boomer (talk) 22:46, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Nice looking list. I'm finishing up the semester this week, and I will try to read, comment, and add next week. Good job. --Kleopatra (talk) 23:37, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Article improvement candidates
We have some good company here, then. Can we find a horse disease, preferably a bacterium or parasite (African would be great), that also occurs in humans, as a group project, an article to get up to good article status? I can do a virus, also.
Do a google search some time on fecal egg counts in horses, you'll be surprised. I'd like to see it as a DYK to throw it in the face of my horsey friends. ;) --Kleopatra (talk) 03:45, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Worship. I'm not horsey, just grew up in horsey sets and seem to spend my life around horsey people. It appears that the old practice was routine worming, but the new practice is home fecal egg counting or veterinarian fecal egg counting with worming done only as necessary. --Kleopatra (talk) 04:47, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
LOL! Yes, that's true. Worming every 8 weeks, rotating wormer classes frequently to avoid resistance. Now disfavored in favor of worming when egg counts warrant, and arguing that wormer classes rotated too quickly actually increase resistance to a broader spectrum of wormers. I'm amused because what's old is new -- decades ago, before paste wormers were invented and we had to worm horses with a stomach tube (this was in the 1970s) we used fecal egg counts then too because tube worming required a vet and was not as cheap as a $5 tube of ivermectin is today. I never did worm every 8 weeks year-round, partly because I live where we have very cold winters, hence 4-5 months of minimal parasite trouble. Here's my question to you: What other domestic animals routinely use fecal egg counts to guide worming? (We'd just sort of worm the cat when it went in for shots whether it was needed or not...) Montanabw(talk)04:30, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
I suggest a horse disease/parasite for a group article to see how far we can go with a group of dedicated editors, to attract attention, and because it joins the common interests of a number of us who have expressed interest thus far.
The highest priority horse medical articles in WPEQ are horse colic and laminitis. However, if the interest is in parasites, then I recommend the emerging diseases of current concern: [[African horse sickness], a virus, but one which appears to be heading north into Europe, (possibly as a result of climate change, but not a clear correlation as of yet), Equine viral arteritis (EVA), another viral condition, which is a big deal because it has a venerial mode of transmission between horses and leads to abortion in pregnant mares, and (finally a parasite) Equine protozoal myeloencephalitis (EPM) which is a risk to horses throughout much of the USA. Montanabw(talk) 16:35, 29 November 2010 (UTC) Oh yeah, and also Henipavirus, which is a big deal in Australia as it is transmissible to humans and often quite fatal!. Montanabw(talk)16:37, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm very interested in rabies and would like to get it or the in other animals article, to at GA status, then o FA. A friend got bit by a rabid bat a couple of months ago and just got her last shot, wow, they cost a fortune!
Montanabw, I'm also interested in the African horse sickness article. But for a first group article, I'd like to find something that is both horse, for the horse editors, and human, for the editors who work at the crossroads of human and animal communicable diseases or pathogens.
Henipavirus looks good, interesting genomics, various hosts, emerging impact on humans, not a Western World bias, lots of references at all levels.
Suggestion:
Doc James, Montanabw, everyone else, can we improve the Henipavirus article first to GA, then move onto vastly improving the rabies article? --Kleopatra (talk) 05:26, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Cross-fertilization, if you will with WP:Dogs may be another approach to take with the rabies article. More helpers. User:Cgoodwin, who is Australian, may be of help with Henipavirus. I'm probably not a lot of help on Henipa, but can at least keep an eye on the basics. Montanabw(talk)20:39, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Another interesting thing: According to this page, the single most popular horse article that happens to have a disease focus (we don't have rabies listed at WPEQ because it's a multi-species disease not super-common in horses), is West Nile virus. (#24 on the overall list). (Cellulitis is higher, but for non horse-related reasons, it's a minor deal in the horse world). Montanabw(talk)00:54, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Sounds good. Let's just pick something and get editing?
Fecal egg counts in horses -- the article plus a picture of a pile of wormy doo could get a DYK and FP front page
Henipavirus -- emerging, horses and human threat, non-Western focus
West Nile virus -- top accessed article, major topic, resurging, some familiarity but plenty for improvement and notice
All articles have sufficient web and off-line sources. If you don't know the topic, your ability to copyedit in general and arbitrate among good sources and order the article and make wiki style improvements and navigate links and categories and tell context writers what doesn't work or make sense, will be, as usual, necessary to improving the article.
I have not disappeared, however, I'm busy finishing up classes and other work for the next week. I suggest that we work on an article picked by the next voter, and I apologize for posting two of Montanabw's suggestions. I would like to start an official article improvement drive page here, even if only a few editors participate. We might catch more editors that way? I would like to start the drive sometime next weekend, maybe? And run an article for two weeks? --Kleopatra (talk) 01:41, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi Kleo, no prob. I'm helping get Appaloosa ready for FA, which is sort of where my own focus is at the moment (that and real life, as usual!). I think it does draw more attention to have some discussion on the WP project talk page. And when the time comes, either article is fine. Montanabw(talk)02:56, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Montanabw asks if we should include WikiProject Mammals in related projects. Although the project appears to be less devoted to the domestic side of animals than veterinary medicine is in general, there is quite a bit of cross-over with primary animals kept by humans as pets, the goat, cow, cat, dog articles are all within the scope of the project. Then what about WikiProject Birds? (Not really necessary to add Birds if we add Mammals, but something to think about.)
I would say no, but I think it could be added. There may be FA potential to collaborate on certain domesticate mammal articles. Anyone feel strongly either way? --Kleopatra (talk) 06:38, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
I mostly noted that several "child" projects of WP Mammals are already listed, cat, dog, horse, etc. Mostly just an inquiry as to scope (we do address articles on sheep, cattle, etc...). Montanabw(talk)02:59, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
I think these links are useful, and for sheep and goats, the WP Mammals would be the place to go, so I'm leaning toward adding it. --Kleopatra (talk) 06:13, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
The full list of supported identifiers is given here (with dummy values):
{{cite journal
|author=John Smith
|year=2000
|title=How to Put Things into Other Things
|journal=Journal of Foobar
|volume=1 |issue=2 |pages=3–4
|arxiv=0123456789
|asin=0123456789
|bibcode=0123456789
|doi=0123456789
|jfm=0123456789
|jstor=0123456789
|lccn=0123456789
|isbn=0123456789
|issn=0123456789
|mr=0123456789
|oclc=0123456789
|ol=0123456789
|osti=0123456789
|rfc=0123456789
|pmc=0123456789
|pmid=0123456789
|ssrn=0123456789
|zbl=0123456789
|id={{para|id|____}}
}}
Obviously not all citations needs all parameters, but this streamlines the most popular ones and gives both better metadata and better appearances when printed. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books}03:29, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Hyaluronan + sorbitol
The article on Hyaluronan mentions the use for equine osteoporosis - so I've added the "WikiProject Veterinary medicine" tag to it's talk page.
I also note that in that article is says about the hyaluronan half life in Rabbits - and that the half life is increased via various different things including sorbitol - which is (according to that article) found in apples. Are there any external reference as to whether feeding sorbitol (in the form of apples?) to horses affects their hyaluronan half life - and whether that therefore slows the degradation of the synovial fluid ?? EdwardLane (talk) 09:18, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Interesting question, I don't know. May be worth looking to see what sort of research exists That said, you'd probably have to feed a LOT of apples for that sort of effect, most of the time a treat is just one or two, sometimes sliced. Montanabw(talk)19:28, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
If there is anyone out there in the Veterinary Medicine wikipedia community with some time on their hands, could someone have a look at the Sebaceous adenitis page I created? I'm a little stuck on the terminologies for descriptions of the condition. Anyway, if someone more knowledgeable on canine dermatology than myself could cast an eye over it I would be very grateful. Cheers --Keetanii (talk) 09:16, 19 July 2011 (UTC) P.S. If someone here feels like adding to the page, I have alot more references on my talk page.
Wikiproject Poultry
I would like to notify WikiProject Veterinary Medicine that a proposal for Wikiproject Poultry has been made and since many poultry disease articles will fall under WikiProject Poultry, I thought it best to notify you of the proposal. If anyone is interested in supporting this Wikiproject, please go to the hyperlink above. AnjwalkerTalk03:11, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
I'll slap a merge tag on all of them and see if the experts weigh in. I don't personally know, nor have I the time to research it myself, but I'll see if we can get someone to help sort it out. Montanabw(talk)23:11, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
RadioFan has merged the text from "Tammar sudden death syndrome" (old article) into "Tammar wallaby". I am concerned that this places undue weight about a relatively rare disease in the article "Tammar wallaby". Also, WP:MERGE states:-
"Merging should be avoided if
...
2. The separate topics could be expanded into longer standalone (but cross linked) articles
3. The topics are discrete subjects and deserve their own articles even though they may be short"
Need input on move request before making a move request
At Talk:Veterinary physician, we are at an impasse over whether to move the article back to "Veterinarian" or not. There are two ways to read WP:COMMONALITY, each support one side of the argument, and now the same four people (2 on each side) have been going back and forth on this for a few weeks with no resolution. In essence, because UK English uses other terms (Veterinary surgeon, etc.) for what in the USA is a DVM, we have a dispute over whether to use the more common word "Veterinarian" or a language-neutral term like "Veterinary phyician" (or something akin to it) as was done to resolve the "airplane/aeroplane" naming dispute by naming the article Fixed-wing aircraft. We'd like some more input from those who care before we submit this to the great wide-open-wiki with a move request. Please weigh in, and thanks! Montanabw(talk)22:41, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Montanabw that a fresh pair of eyes would help at the impasse at Vet Phys. I proposed renaming simply to Veterinarian, but there are concerns about this proposed move. DVMt (talk) 19:48, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Anyone else notice that AnomieBOT is putting MEDRS tags on a bunch of the veterinary articles? Does the project have a position on WP:MEDRS for our articles? Not to say that good sources aren't desirable, but not sure the absurdly high standard of only sourcing to peer-reviewed journals is applicable here. Thoughts? Montanabw(talk)15:32, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Veterinary Science editathon in London, UK
Wikimedia UK and Jisc are announcing an editathon at the Royal Veterinary College on November 20th. We will focus on common diseases that vets see in everyday practice, but contributions with any relevance to veterinary science are welcome. This is a free event, and in-person and online participation is encouraged. See the event page for more details. Cheers, MartinPoulter Jisc (talk) 13:03, 11 September 2013 (UTC) (link changed MartinPoulter Jisc (talk) 14:01, 19 September 2013 (UTC))
Blain
I've just completely rewritten the Blain (animal disease) article, which describes a disease of unknown etiology that was clearly common in the 18th and 19th centuries.
The previous version conflated blain with distemper, apparently solely because of a misunderstanding of the sense of the use of the word "distemper" in the original eighteenth-century source: I've removed all that, and cited both 18th and 19th century sources that identify it as the same as "gloss-anthrax", and a modern source that clarifies that "gloss-anthrax" was not the same as modern-day anthrax, and makes a couple of suggestions as to what it might have been.
I'm currently working on a major restructuring and rewrite of the article, and wish to get it to at least B-class, but hopefully even higher. That way we can apply for DYK. If anyone is interested in helping out there is a draft version over here: User:CFCF/sandbox/Cranial nerve. Would do especially well with some help about veterinary medicine in the other animals section. CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 11:19, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Looks like it IS notable, actually, the animal passport issue is a big deal to prevent diseases from being transmitted across borders. I think the article should be moved into mainspace and linked at the dab page noted here. Montanabw(talk)23:21, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Apparently people on the project have "fought the good fight" and lost about the merging or identifying human/mammal crossover articles. Such as renal failure, and diabetes, quite common in small household pets and probably other mammals as well. The articles might contain high level stuff that applies to all mammals, or identify the ones it does apply to. The lower level articles would be named "renal failure (human)", renal failure (feline)" etc.
I'm sorry, I don't really understand what you mean with "opens up"? The result of very lengthy discussion over at WP:ANAT, where a very large body of editors were invited was that the main article such as renal failure should stay as human, with a short paragraph concerning animals, and a link to a more substantial article, for example renal failure (feline) on cats. -- CFCF🍌 (email) 08:21, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Reliable sources from research for veterinary medicine under WP:MEDRS
There has been some discussion here about what sources are reliable at Wikipedia as far as peer-review journal articles go for non-human medical content. Typically medical content is restricted to not allowing primary literature, and secondary reviews are the norm. When it comes to veterinary medicine, we can get people pushing unreliable findings from primary literature for WP:POV content, although not as often as in human health. With that in mind, I was asking over at that talkpage if veterinary medicine was included under MEDRS since it appears the guideline was written to cover all medical content and not just human health (or if people just forgot medicine doesn't pertain just to human health when writing it). Essentially I was asking if there really is a distinction to be made between what makes a source reliable here between human medicine and vet med. The only thing I can think of is that we aren't extrapolating from animal to human models, but usually testing on the animal of interest themselves for vet med. Otherwise it seems like all the issues that come up with primary sources are ubiquitous across most of the sciences in general. You can see more at the talk page discussion, but it would be nice to get more people with veterinary research experience or those who just deal with the literature a lot to weigh in on the conversation. Thanks! Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:08, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Birth in cattle; "... when there is external protrusion of the amniotic sac, or water bag, closely followed by the calf's front hooves being visible outside the introitus." Snowman (talk) 14:48, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Birth in dogs; "In the dog, the arrival of the first puppy is preceded by the bulging dark-colored sac appearing at the introitus." Snowman (talk) 14:48, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Addition of more jargon (that one is very obscure in vet med) will not help the reader understand the info any better. We use birth canal and vulva routinely. Froggerlauraribbit02:42, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
It is a popular article receiving abut 400 view per day. If anyone could expand the section on the birth of dogs or any other sections, that would be appreciated. Snowman (talk) 19:26, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Also, it appears to be a more vague word replacing a more specific term. I am reviewing the citations for these sections and if the source says "vulva," then vulva it must be unless someone provides a better source saying otherwise. Montanabw(talk)08:28, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
I've marked this article as missing information on veterinary implants. Could someone help rebalance the article by adding veterinary information? -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 11:45, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
I've put together a draft article and shared it on the Talk page asking a disinterested editor to take a look (I have a COI). user:MrBill3 took an at-a-glance look, but suggested I advertise on a relevant WikiProject. For the most part, the draft would clean up a lot of promotional-type material, however the area where my COI (and this WikiProject) is most relevant are some allegations of the pet food causing illness and death in pets. If anyone has a few minutes to take a look at this area in particular, I would greatly appreciate it. CorporateM (Talk) 16:54, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Comment on the WikiProject X proposal
Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
I am very interested. Probably User:DrMicro might be also, although the two of us are at slight odds right now over his unduly large taxoboxes. Microbes, microbes, microbes is my area. --Kleopatra (talk) 00:36, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
I just wanted to stop by and wish you good luck in re-starting the project. Sometime ago I decided to re-activate a number of the Animal WikiProjects and with some help from other users it has been very successful and we now have a very large number of participants, if you need any help on how to go about re-starting the project please dont hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Good Luck ZooPro02:16, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Count me in, at least for the horse articles! Been wanting to see more attention there for some time! We non-vets would love some folks with medical background to at least help us do some cleanup! Montanabw(talk)02:23, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Great, Montanabw, I'm familiar with your editing through either a lot of the disease articles I monitor, or through horse articles. --Kleopatra (talk) 03:49, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm in too, with the horse articles. I'm in the same boat as Montana - not a vet, but can help with general cleanup. Laminitis needs some help if you're looking for suggestions... :) Dana boomer (talk) 05:35, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I think it's a helpful boat to be in, editors with high interest in a topic who can contribute to the copyediting and monitoring of articles, even if you are not qualified to edit the technical aspects. I'm limited in vet med, except for diseases, mostly parasitic, but also some major viral, fungal, bacterial and prion diseases. I'm also challenged in spelling, although I try to spell check everything I submit. --Kleopatra (talk) 05:49, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
You have problems with spelling too? I am glad I will not be alone. I have good access to vet journals if anyone needs a copy of something they find on pubmed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:19, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Would be interested in helping too - I direct the WikiVet project which has lots of common interest with Wikipedia (we collaborate in the UK) and would be happy to share our content or review existing material - we would also value some help with our own site if you get a chance to take a look. Thanks Nick (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:28, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
I was wondering if Reston virus shouldn't be split up. The initial outbreak is notable on its own, considering the book "The Hot Zone", and all the coverage surrounding the incident, so a 1989 Ebola Reston outbreak article would contain much of what is in the history section, (which would be replaced by a summary), similar to how the Ebola virus (Ebola Zaire) article is built, where the initial discovery outbreak is not part of the article.
We need a general article at Cutaneous asthenia, presently redirecting inappropriately to Hereditary equine regional dermal asthenia. The condition affects other animals; e.g., it's one of the three leading causes of reports of "winged" cats, in which loose, damaged tissue hanging off the shoulder can flop as a cat runs and resemble flapping wings There's a relationship between cutaneous asthenia and human Ehlers–Danlos syndrome. Some bits of info on CA are at the Winged cat article, but I'm sure we could gather a lot more from veterinary sources, to also cover dogs, and other livestock than horses.
Anyway, this is essentially a split suggestion (not that there is much content to split), so the thread is centralized at the talk page of the article to which Cutaneous asthenia and synonym Dermal asthenia redirect.
I'm cool with creating cutaneous asthenia as a stand-alone page, either as an overview with links to articles about each animal it affects or just as a dab page to articles about each animal. HERDA is a very, very big deal in the horse world, (something like 25% of all quarter horses of reining and cutting bloodlines are carriers... that's a problem!)and as such has adequate notability for a stand-alone article. But I think an article about the disease in cats or other animals is a good idea too. Montanabw(talk)03:49, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I do not think such a proposal actually is warranted, many projects go up and down, and why confuse the veterinary with human? Surely that simply provides an avenue for misunderstandings
The more I look at other projects that the claims of inactivity or moribund gives another project primacy over another can create one a mess, and I would strongly suggest that any proposers or supporters have a look at the nautical area of wikipedia to see what an incredible rate of cognitive dissonance can be created for an outsider to see the evolution of the current framework - ships, ports, nautical, and so on are in an unintelligble set of projects that show what can happen. As no one else has commented here, I would shift my response to strong oppose, specially of the nature of the medical aspect of wikipedia, better to leave alone and separate than merge in any way JarrahTree00:41, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
It is as though the project eds at med (where the proposal is being discussed as well) would be the last to actually glean a response from, they should recuse themselves on the basis that they belong to a project that is a possible subsumer of this project. It is something else wrong with wikipedia, if there was any actual legitimate even ground process for such a suggestion, it should be somewhere like project council, neutral ground and more possible participants, and not simply amongst the friends at med. I can see why people so easily despair of processes in place here. JarrahTree00:55, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
The group that's suggested to be merged into a task force – if there is any group left – can unilaterally veto the idea.
The group that suggested to be the target "subsumer" can refuse.
If neither group objects, then anyone can move the pages and update the various templates.
However, it needs to be decided by actual participants in a project, not by outsiders with good advice. Since membership lists are always outdated and frequently wrong, the simplest way to determine who is participating in a group is to look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Directory/Description/WikiProject Veterinary medicine. It says that there are zero people active on this talk page, and neither you nor I are listed among the editors who work on these articles. Therefore, objections from us don't really make any difference. (Well, I could object on grounds that I'm highly active with the proposed subsumer, but (a) I'd probably be outvoted and (b) I know from long experience that there are no active members of VETMED, so I don't think it matters what happens to the project pages.)
It may be useful to remember that WP:WikiProjects are groups of people, not subject areas. What matters is the social connections. If two groups of people don't want to play together, then outsiders like us can't force them (in practice). And if they do, then we can't stop them (although we can make it harder for them). WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:26, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
I really appreciate the trouble you have taken in your explanation - it is very well done. I still think it is a no-brainer to have vetmed as part of medicine. Thanks again - JarrahTree06:32, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
If people within the vetmed area wish a second opinion on something, I would not object to someone posting such a request at WT:MED as here is fairly inactive. That is all. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:38, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
I oppose the idea of downgrading this project to a task force; animal health is already prone to be subsumed as an irrelevant sidebar to human health. The problem is not that we have too few editors on vet med articles, the problem is a) Not all articles on animal health are tagged for vetmed (they get tagged for the animals involved, horses, dogs, cats, etc.) and b) These animal projects tend to be fairly quiet at project talk, even where editors are madly editing away. (Actually, I think drama avoidance is a plus, not a minus!) I'd suggest posting this at the various animal project pages -- horse, dog, cat, cattle, livestock, agriculture, horse racing, and so on. Montanabw(talk)03:43, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Lack of drama doesn't really seem like a valid claim here. Plenty of projects have plenty of activity in the coordination of the project itself as well as active members without "drama" either at the project or at the relevant pages. We have neither here, which is pretty strong justification for merging our inactive project. Vet med is a branch of medicine after all, and WP:MED does not lay claim to human-only medicine either. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:18, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Montanabw makes an extremely important point. There is an incredible amount of work going on with editing non-human animal based articles, but many of these go on without involving the project level. The collegiate attitude of these editors should be respected. I also agree with Montanabw's point that any movement of the project should be more widely "advertised". DrChrissy(talk)16:43, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
::::I suppose given that the rest of the conversation has been directed to the WP:MED project, we really should continue this chat there. Montanabw(talk)19:36, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!
Hello, Please note that Organ (anatomy), which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by — MusikBottalk00:08, 16 January 2017 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team
Dog vs canine, cat vs feline, etc.?
Is there any general consensus on word usage in section headings of dog versus canine, or cat versus feline, etc.? (If this discussion has already occurred elsewhere, sorry, & please can you direct me there)? DferDaisy (talk) 02:31, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Project resurrection
Well folks, the above merge suggestion has resulted in some new members and energy. So now, what do we do about it? We do have a lot of articles that would benefit from cleanup. Perhaps we need to create some cross-links on the project page and a feed for article alerts. Perhaps some of the WP:MED folks who maintain that project would be willing to help us out here?
Typical of any project - even the monster projects like milhist, ships, med or the rest - the most signficant item that indicates where they understand (ie the project members themselves showing whether they understand their project or not) is project assessment, going to the talk pages of articles not yet assessed, it is always a good way of clarifying a project is anywhere near understanding how both sides of article pages work - classic sign of imbalance in the monsters is where a range of new category pages are created that relate to the project, and they are not caught by project tags on the category talk page to 'bring in' to the fold. Also unassessed pages are always a good sign as to whether participants in a project are involved in understanding the assessment process. JarrahTree10:59, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
For WikiProject revival, it has been suggested to first find out who is still active in the project (as in this article from The Signpost or here at WP:REVIVE). Then the participants know who to work with to get started with project assessment, fixing broken tools, etc. Does anyone else think determining which members are active is a good place to start? DferDaisy (talk) 20:34, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
There are 14 members of this WikiProject who have made an edit to Wikipedia since 01 January 2016 (per the participant edit counter). I propose to split the list of members into active and inactive participants. This may seem like busywork (which I am volunteering myself for) but I think it would help to know who else is likely to be actively participating in this project (or at least participating in Wikipeida, unless anyone can suggest how to determine who is editing pages within the project scope?). If possible, I would like to do that by creating a project sub-page, so that the member list isn't overpowering the rest of the main project page. However, I don't want to make any unilateral decisions about this - all feedback gratefully received. DferDaisy (talk) 01:11, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Article assessment: Importance scale
I've updated the importance scale based on that at Wiki Project Medicine. This seems to me like a more understandable way of allowing consistent determination of article importance, as the previous instructions have resulted in a rather haphazard categorization. I've put this talk here, in case interested parties are not specifically watching the assessment page. DferDaisy (talk) 03:04, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Both articles state that the term castration refers specifically to testicles and is thus specific to males, though that is incorrect. Castration refers to the surgical removal of organs producing haploid cells, usually performed for the purpose of sterilisation. That means, removing a female's ovaries entirely also is castration. Before I go on changing stuff, I just wanted to check up with everyone to coordinate how to do so. -ImmernochEkelAlfred(Spam me! (or send me serious messages, whatever you like))22:19, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
The term "castration" is sometimes also used to refer to the removal of the ovaries in the female.
To avoid duplicating details regarding castration in the neutering article, perhaps the paragraph in the neutering article could be reworded along the lines of the text about females:
spaying is usually reserved for female animals
In general, most people use the term castration only for males, even if that is not the exact dictionary definition. DferDaisy (talk) 19:32, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
The thing is, the wording "sometimes also used to refer to" implies that being incorrect, just like "rifle" "sometimes being used to refer to low-caliber long-barrel smooth-bore firearms", like the Steyr ACR (Advanced Combat Rifle), even though the name itself, "rifle" originates from its definition: a rifled barrel. No matter whether most people use it that way, the information is incorrect and should be changed.
Alright, I go with common language, however, Righting great wrongs refers to living or dead persons or topics of religion, politics etc. whose factual correctness is questionable. The term castration however has a set definition that is right. Your mentioned WP: article refers to original content, which this definition most certainly isn't. -ImmernochEkelAlfred(Spam me! (or send me serious messages, whatever you like))23:18, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Does anyone know what this horse disease might be called in modern times? Every source I find on it is from like, the 1800s. I don't know a thing about horses or horse medicine but I would very much like to de-orphan this page, either by linking to it or merging it elsewhere. ♠PMC♠ (talk)07:50, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
this source suggests it is basically some kind of abcess. It appeared to be mostly a problem with heavy draft horses, one snippet I cannot fully access suggested it may be linked to infections from an improperly fitted harness. One source said it was a “distemper” and I kind of wonder if they were describing pigeon fever. I don’t know the answer, but it is a very interesting question. Montanabw(talk)06:41, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
I also came across sources talking about pigeon fever and thought it might be the same, but I really know absolutely nothing on the topic and was not confident linking or merging without speaking to better-informed people. ♠PMC♠ (talk)09:12, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Project navigation: Page tabs and new page for project participants
My aim is to make the project easier to navigate, so I've added page tabs to the project, and moved the list of participants to its own page. There were a few different tab templates available; I chose Template:Page tabs because it allows an external link (to the cleanup listing) in a tab. Template:Start tab is also available, and there are probably others. If these changes have not improved the navigation (or layout), or a different approach would be better, please let me know. DferDaisy (talk) 02:01, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Looks good; I think there is a userbox as well as the project tag; many projects add a link to the project userbox so participants can put them on their userpages -- another way to find one another. Montanabw(talk)23:17, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
The following text was in the body of the main project page in the "Open tasks" section, but as it looks more like a part of a discussion, I've moved it to here instead rather than deleting it. DferDaisy (talk) 02:39, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
A symbol for this Wikiproject - Image:Esclapius stick.svg could be modified by adding a V to it, if anyone has talent in that direction. Otherwise, any appropriate free image would be good.
I see now that this isn't an open task any more, really, because there is an image in use with a V. Anyway, I completed what I was doing: here is a picture: File:Esclapius stick Colour V.svg
There's a lot of material out there on the human version, as well as the strange and semi-recent market for veterinary ones (predicated mostly on a projective and anthropomorphizing folk belief, especially among dog fanciers, that castrated male pets or livestock may suffer psychological trauma, though it sometimes has to do with maintaining the appearance of show animals).
There might be enough info around for a stand-alone article, but definitely enough for a subsection at Prosthesis. I don't presently have access to HighBeam and the other journal search stuff; forgot to renew that through WP:LIBRARY. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 09:50, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.
Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.
We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:25, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Shouldn't there be an article on COVID-19 / SARS-CoV-2 in animals? There's a small section about it in the COVID-19 article right now (cats, dogs, tigers; plus the possible animal origin) -- 65.94.170.207 (talk) 22:34, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
Methadone in canine / feline analgesia
I'm a lay person, so don't feel knowledgeable enough to edit the methadone article, so I've instead added a comment on the talk page highlighting the fact that the page has no information about its use in veterinary medicine. Does anyone feel up to the job? ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 20:02, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Myxobolus cerebralis Featured article review
I have nominated Myxobolus cerebralis for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:18, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
Turkey Tail Mushroom / Trametes versicolor
I am requesting additional editor's input on discussion and recent edits to Trametes_versicolor from a veterinary medicine perspective. Please see edit history and talk page. Thank you. DrGvago (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:58, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)
It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.
The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.
Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.
Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.
No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.
However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 22:21, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Autism spectrum in animals and intellectual disability in animals
There are two articles that have recently been created, both of them poorly sourced, where insight from people with veterinary knowledge would be helpful:
