Talk:List of dog diseases

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Dogs Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dogs, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Dogs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

[edit] MPS

Schipperke article has an addition of MPS IIIB with a link to this U Penn article which IDs it as Mucopolysaccharidosis type IIIB aka Sanfilippo syndrome type IIIB; not sure which name to use here or where to list it. Elf | Talk 00:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] disease links

Some of the links on this page go to pages that are about a human disease (or mostly about a human disease or diseases) which may have significantly different characteristics to the equivalent disease in dogs, if there is one. Perhaps such links could be transformed into red links by adding "in dogs" (ie change link "hemolytic anemia" to "hemolytic anaemia in dogs"). Snowman 22:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

My plan is to eventually either add dog info to those articles or creat new ones (Hemolytic anemia in dogs), but it'll be a long while before I can get to all of them. I would rather have the blue link in place for now so that someone interested in the subject can at least get some info about it. We could put a little something next to each link stating that there is no vet info there yet.

Regarding the references tag, I'm not sure about the best way to reference this article. All of these diseases exist in dogs. I know that from personal experience. However, we could have an inline ref for each disease from various text books at my disposal, or just put one blanket ref at the bottom to the Merck Veterinary Manual which should cover the vast majority of those listed. Any thoughts? As to the experts tag, what exactly are you looking for to improve this article? How about a brief description after each about its manifestation in dogs? --Joelmills 05:01, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Please liaise with the wikiproject medicine; potentially dogs, cats, horses, parrots, cows, pigs, chickens, snakes, sheep and more could all be added to the medicine pages, so perhaps pages could have "in animals" added (ie "hemolyic anaemia in animals") and split off into different animals when indicated. Some pages are already organised like this (there is a "blood groups" page and a "blood groups in animals" page. Snowman 15:19, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that an expert is needed, because I feel that basic concepts about this page need to be reconsidered. Links going to human pages are not appropriate in giving accurate information about dog diseases, especially without explanation. I think that you should be clear and state that there is not a page on a particular disease in dogs and not have links to human diseases. You might get more pages made if you used red links. I guess that you are confusing potential editors and readers. Snowman 15:19, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I get your point about how this article could be potentially confusing, but I still think having a note saying, "there is no dog info yet" next to links pointing to human disease is better than no link at all. It would take me a very long time to make a good article on every dog disease there is, let alone including that disease's manifestation in all other animals it affects.

I also don't think it is necessary to have a separate article in cases where that article would be very short; it's easier to have a section of that article entitled "X in dogs" then to have a stubby article of the same name. Compare Legg-Calvé-Perthes syndrome, Brucellosis, Cryptorchidism, and Cleft, to Bladder stone (animal), Familial renal disease in animals, and Lymphoma in animals. But I will definitely contact the wikiproject and get their take on it.

As far as experts go, check out Category:Wikipedians with DVM degree. It's pretty sparse, just me and another guy who specializes in dermatology. I'm in general practice, so I would never say that I'm an expert in my field on any one disease, but I would say I'm an expert in dog diseases in general. I don't mind working on this article alone, but I would appreciate some help on formatting and making it look good. Any help you can provide would be great. Do you think my above suggestion of a brief desciption in this article about how each disease affects dogs would be appropriate (properly referenced of course)? If the link does not go to an article that has specific mention of the disease in dogs, that can be easily noted in the description. Once again, any help would be appreciated. I got burned out on Wikipedia a couple of months ago trying to do the veterinary medicine articles on my own. --Joelmills 02:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I will take a long time to make all the relevant pages on dog diseases. The wiki has only been going for a few years, which is a very short time in the potential life of the wiki of 100s or 1000s of years. I expect all these pages will be made gradually over the decades, so why not start with an appropriate data structure now. I think that links to human disease on this page should be replaced with red links; people can look up the human equivalent of a dog disease, if they want too, and they will not have any expectations that the diseases in dogs and humans will be similar. Snowman 11:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you that we need the proper structure in place right now. On Sunday I'll put together the idea that I outlayed above. If you still think it makes the page too ambiguous, we'll work out a compromise. I probably just haven't done a very good job explaining my idea. --Joelmills 04:40, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I would imagine that the way to do it is to create veterinary medicine stubs linked from the top of each page about the human disease like this: {{dablink|This article is about XXX disease in humans. To read about XXX disease in animals, please see [[XXX disease (non-human)]].}} and then build up the veterinary stubs when possible. That may be a way of getting readers to help contribute to expanding articles. I don't have any experience of animal diseases, only human ones. --apers0n 20:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

That's a good idea, Apers, but wouldn't a dablink with a red-linked article name be discouraged? If it's not, then it sounds like a good way to encourage editing on those stubs. How do you feel about having a section of the article on human disease dedicated to that disease in veterinary medicine, if it's pretty short? --Joelmills 03:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)