Talk:Devil facial tumour disease

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article is supported by WikiProject Veterinary medicine.

This project provides a central approach to Veterinary medicine-related subjects on Wikipedia.
Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Flag
Portal
 Devil facial tumour disease is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
This article is supported by WikiProject Tasmania.
This article is supported by WikiProject Australian biota.
Assessment comments

Australian spelling of tumor? tumour

Both spellings are pleniful on the net; the Australian variant should clearly be used in this context.

Tony 02:57, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, and that's how the Nature abstract spells it; I've left the link to canine transmissible venereal tumor with the non-U spelling, though, since that reflects the spelling in that article. --Calair 07:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


I heard this disease was spread because the animals' mating habits involve biting each other on the face... is this true or am I thinking of another animal/disease? Or maybe I'm entirely wrong altogether, heh... Robin Chen 22:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't "aggressive mating" cover that, though? - 220.237.30.150 09:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Further reading

"Further reading" sections should be avoiding. They push boundaries of both POV and advertising in Wikipedia. Can these books be moved as uncited references, or should they be removed entirely.--ZayZayEM 02:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

  • So remove them. Ona differnt note, see alsos should only really include links that aren't already in the article.--Peta 02:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
    • If they are really central to teh article, they should. Not everyone is going to read the article in detail.--ZayZayEM 08:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
      • A person is hardly doing to miss them in an article this short. --Peta 08:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes, Peta, but your original point was that it was against the rules, not that it wasn't necessary for short articles. I think that there is an excellent case for listing valuable links again at the end. Btw, you might like to use your spell-checker and brush up on your grammar. It's irritating to see a proof-reader and rule-invoker produce English that looks like chutney in a dog's bowl. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Myles325a (talk • contribs).
      • Please observe WP:Civility when editing; comments like the above don't really foster a productive atmosphere. --Calair 14:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
        • this is not a stub. Someone doing a brief skim might. It helps highlight articles that are very well related. I'll cede on tas devil main page, but not the veneral sarcoma.--ZayZayEM 11:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with the claim that HeLa has "nothing to do with DTFD". Both are cells that started out as cancers but have remained viable long after the death of their original host; I would've thought that was a fairly notable similarity. --Calair 04:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

  • It's a bit of a stretch, an immortal human cancer cell line that is used in research and is not a disease causing agent and an animal cancer that is transmittable, but not necessarily immortal. --Peta 04:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)