Talk:Parasitic worm

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

  • some* of them can be deadly but I certainly don't think you could surmise to call parasitic worms smart. I suggest a rewrite of the introduction, at least.

CHanley 04:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] merge from

The article Intestinal worms is also small and in need of content. it would be better to merge that article to this one. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 21:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Parasitic Worm diseases.

May I add that "Parasitic worms, along with the Mosquitoes, are the most deadly disease carriers known to man."? The Winged Yoshi —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Winged Yoshi (talk • contribs) 20:24, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NOTE:

NOTE: someone can help me with the BOTRIDIA (spanish word of the greek BOTRYDION = cluster) word traslate —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eduardozazueta (talk • contribs) 10:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Just Asking.........

Are there any parasitic worm that harm other parasitic worm? I mean is, is there parasitic worm inside a parasitic worm? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.87.228.194 (talk) 06:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What to do with this article

(moved here from user talk pages)

I'm sorry that you think my proposal for the move of parasitic worm to a disambiguation page was prompted by an "invalid reason." Could you point out that reason specifically? I realize that since you made this page you have some person investment with it, but it is inaccurate and misleading in that it emphasizes a group of animals that are unrelated in everything but their body shape and lifestyle. This is akin to grouping crocodiles with elephants because they both free living quadrupeds. All factual information on the article in redundant with information of other articles (see platyhelminthes and nematoda) I have created a disambiguation page that parasitic worm should link to. You can find it at parasitic worm (disambiguation). Plcoffey 19:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plcoffey (talk • contribs)


I have no doubts that you have sufficient expertise underlying your opinion. At the same time please don't confuse exact scientific taxonomy with English language. There is a widely used term "helminth" ans it deserves an article which explains its usage. If it is obsolete or erroneous, an encyclopedic article must explain this (all based on reputable references). Making it into a disambiguation page is sweeping the problem under the carpet.

By the way, please review the article worm from the same your positions. Since this article does not have a taxobox (as, e.g., at the top of "Flatworm"), I suspect this is a rather inexact term as well. If it is so, this must be clearly explained. `'Míkka>t 19:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The article in question is parasitic worm not helminth and while I agree that helminth is a term in the english language (an outdated one), parasitic worm and helminth are not the same thing. By the article's definition helminth simply refers to nematodes and platyhelminths. The article is crap, but would be appropriate if the article were entitled helminth, however it's parasitic worm and that term could mean any number to the things listed in the disambiguation page. Feel free to create an article entitled helminth and put a link to it from parasitic worm (disambiguation).Plcoffey 20:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Additionally, I read the worm article, and it differs from the article in question in that is makes clear that "worms" are unrelated organisms. Although it still needs work it doesn't have the built in fallacies that parasitic worm does. Plcoffey 20:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Colleague, your answer makes it absolutely clear that "helminth / parasitic worm" topics must be detailed somewhere. It is clear for you that the current article is crap. Someone wrote this crap. It means this crap was in someone's brains. A function of wikipedia is do replace crap by correct explanations. Once again, simply deleting crap is sweeping it under the carpet. I am not an expert in parasitology or biology. And as a stupid layman I demand these articles so that I can reduce my stupidity. This is purpose of an encyclopedia, isn't it?
As to your suggestion "feel free to create", unfortunately I cannot: I don't have any expertise and I would not want to multiply the amount of crap :-) At the same time, unfortunately I cannot accept your word that the whole article is crap. It looks rather plausible. This is exactly the purpose of WP:AFD a broad discussion, so that the fate of an article is not decided by a 1-2 persons.
I am not going to continue this discussion. I presented all my arguments and cannot add anything more since I am not an expert. But as a layman sorry, I don't share your opinion that the topic is devoid of any content. The topic is very clearly defined: they are parasites and they are worms or look like worms. By your logic the article "Microorganism" has no rights to exist either and must be turned into a disambiguation between bacteria, fungi, archaea, protists, etc. `'Míkka>t 23:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough, if you don't want to continue the discussion I'm going to try and clear up the matter for any other possible editors. The word helminth denotes an older (taxonomically speaking, outdated) term. It refers to a grouping of Nematodes and Platyhelminths (two unrelated clades). In my experience, (I realize this is not a valid source) parasitologists do not use this term anymore, or use it only to describe the platyhelminthes. This nonetheless is still a term in the english language, I agree with Míkka on that, and this article (poorly) describes this term. The problem here lies in the fact that the title of this article (parasitic worm) is not synonymous with helminth. "Parasitic worm" could mean any number of things (hince my creation of the parasitic worm (disambiguation)), the links cited there prove that point.
My views of the correct course of action are that this article should be moved to helminth and that parasitic worm should redirect to the disambiguation. There is now a helminth link on the disambiguation page to direct people interested in the term. Regarding the examples cited (worm and microorganism) they are both models which this future helminth article could use as templates. They both reflect groupings that taxonomically invalid, but culturally important. They handle this problem by clearly stating that the terms reflect polyphyletic groupings, re-iterating the differences between actual monophyletic groups and providing links to the appropriate pages. Míkka's comment that my logic indicates that microorganism should be turned into a disambiguation page are actually somewhat correct, microorganism is essentially a large very detailed and illustrated disambiguation, is it not? Again, as Míkka says the purpose of the encyclopedia is to reduce stupidity, and doesn't a disambiguation point people in the right directions? Plcoffey 01:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Your last two sentences indicate a possible misunderstanding. In wikipedia, disambiguation pages are mere navigation tools, without any explanation; they are not encyclopedic articles. There is no such thing as "detailed and illustrated disambiguation". Just the opposite: wikipedia:Disambiguation are very terse pages without devoid of any protracted explanations or references and citations. Therefore I was very disturbed when you suggested to turn Parasitic worm into a disambiguation page. On the other hand, if, following your terminology, you can write a "detailed and illustrated disambiguation" for "parasitic worm", including, e.g., the history/evolution of the notion, use/abuse of the term, etc., this would be great. `'Míkka>t 23:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I understand very well what a disambiguation page is, I was simply trying to point out that in principle the pages mentioned above function in the same way, removing ambiguity and pointing the user in a more correct direction. Plcoffey 20:42, 13 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plcoffey (talk • contribs)
Plcoffey, if you can find a reference that details the word "helminth" as being something distinct from "parasitic worm", then it would be good to create a separate page for helminth rather than having the term redirect here. I cannot find such a definition. Looking at the current OED, the only definition given is "A worm, esp. an intestinal worm." Another possibility is simply removing mention of it in the lead (and retain the redirect of helminth to parasitic worm). You can see that nuclein (an archaic word for DNA) does something similar.
As for articles covering things related by function, but not by evolution, I think you'll just have to live with it. People want information on parasitic worms, they go here, there's no good reason to break that functional aspect and confuse the readers. Warm-blooded is an example of a page covering unrelated organisms sharing a common feature. The article should be clear that parasitic worms are a diverse set of evolutionarily distant organisms. Madeleine ✉ ✍ 04:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)