Microbiology Stub‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Microbiology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Microbiology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MicrobiologyWikipedia:WikiProject MicrobiologyTemplate:WikiProject MicrobiologyMicrobiology Stub This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Medicine Stub‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine Stub This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

I would agree that this should be merged with Y. pestis Jsmith86 (talk) 23:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Impossible, there are currently four articles for the disease and its manifestations, not including Y. pestis or the numerous outbreak articles. They need to be kept separate so they can develop, and to prevent the formation of a poorly organised, extremely long article. cyclosarin (talk) 08:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We started off, several years ago with one fairly comprehensive Bubonic plague article with a slight history based flavor. Then more medically oriented people had the bright idea to separate out the three variations, based on symptoms. An editor then asserted that the word "plague" could only be used in the medical sense, i.e. for the disease caused by Y. pestis. And so the use of the word "plague" became more complicated in other history of disease articles. As a historian rather than medic, it appears to me that the separate articles are excessive. I would think one larger 'medical' Y. pestis article might be better, with a basic explanation of the various symptoms. The three symptomatic diseases could remain as stubs. The historic incidents and impact of the disease could be addressed in yet another article. WBardwin (talk) 22:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the best way to resolve this would be to let Plague (disease) continue from the old "Bubonic plague" article (as it has), let Y. pestis discuss the microbiology and the sub-pages (bubonic, pneumonic...) discuss the clinical symptoms etc. As the main (plague - disease) article becomes more comprehensive it ought to combine general historical significance as well as some medical details. The most important part is to have one "main article" for the disease itself, which even in a medical context is associated with the term 'plague' not the name of the organism causing it. cyclosarin (talk) 18:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It can be "spread by human crap"!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.23.217.20 (talk) 20:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]