Talk:Ascaris lumbricoides

Untitled

very good.88.230.22.89 (talk) 06:08, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

note #1 sais only 1/6 are infected and not 1/4 as stated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quatso (talk • contribs) 16:59, 9 April 2012 (UTC) i have no idea i dont trust it because you can always edit — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.155.177.255 (talk) 02:39, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

good article.88.232.147.199 (talk) 18:40, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Why abbreviate the A of Ascaris?

Someone changed "Ascaris lumbricoides" to "A. lumbricoides" in a few places. I don't see the benefit of this and would be inclined to revert this. I think for the general public all these abbreviations are making it more difficult to understand these articles. What is the advantage of the abbreviation apart from saving a few characters of space? EvM-Susana (talk) 21:00, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

• The benefit/advantage is shortening scientific names by convention. According to the rules of binomial nomenclature (please see Binomial nomenclature#Writing binomial names, specifically 4th para), at first mention the scientific name should be in full, and from the next onward the generic name (first part of the name) should/could be abbreviated. This is particularly convenient when we write list of species under the same genus. In addition binomial should always be in italics. For scholarly restriction, never break these rules. Chhandama (talk) 11:15, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. That 4th para starts with: "The binomial name should generally be written in full. The exception to this is when several species from the same genus are being listed or discussed in the same paper or report, or the same species is mentioned repeatedly". I think for laypeople, articles are always easier to understand, the fewer abbreviations are used. So I think spelling Ascaris out is better, except maybe when several species of Ascaris are mentioned in the same sentence, or - as you say - when we are dealing with lists. But that is not the case for this page on Ascaris lumbricoides. Writing in italics: yes, noted, must adhere to that. EvM-Susana (talk) 11:36, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

(Am I wrong in thinking that?) You are still not getting the full meaning as you still say "that is not the case for this page". This is exactly the case. Asacaris lumbricoides is mentioned in the beginning, and afterwards it is abbreviated. Thus the statement the same species is mentioned repeatedly applies here. Even laypeople are obliged to learn, this is the rule of biology.Chhandama (talk) 03:18, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

The rule does not state that it must be abbreviated, it only says that it can be abbreviated. What I am saying is that if I have a sentence that says for example "Ascaris lumbricoides is a worm that infects many people." then I don't see an advantage at all in saying "A. lumbricoides is a worm that infects many people." The word "Ascaris" is more important for people to remember than the word "lumbricoides". Whereas if I have a sentences that says "There are many types of Ascaris species, for example A. lumbricoides, A. canis, A. equiim, A. mysterious, etc." then I would say, make it A and not Ascaris as it would be cumbersome to read. I am simply thinking in terms of how easy it is for a new person to read. A few weeks ago, I was reading these worm pages for the first time and I found it utterly confusing so the "A. xxx" and then "T. xxx" and then "S. xxx" and so forth. Each time I had to remember, aha, A stands for Ascaris, T stands for Taenia and so forth. EvM-Susana (talk) 11:24, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Moved information to the article on the disease

As for all helminth pages we try to keep it neat and tidy where we have one article about the organism and one article about the disease (that's Ascariasis in this case - see also the hatnote. Therefore, I have moved some information from this article to the disease article. There is actually more information that could/should be moved, like the part on symptoms and prevention. - You can see we've had the same discussion (and conclusion) for the other helminth pages as well. EvMsmile (talk) 01:07, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry about that! Better safe than sorry! --TJH2018talk 01:10, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

No worries; I should have written on the talk page first and then made the edit. Sorry about that. Hope you agree with my reasoning for the move? EvMsmile (talk) 01:23, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ascaris lumbricoides. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120915095302/http://daveproject.org:80/duodenum-ascaris-lumbricoides/2004-05-10/ to http://daveproject.org/duodenum-ascaris-lumbricoides/2004-05-10/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:47, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Educational Assignment

Hi. I'm a final year biology undergraduate from Imperial College London. As part of my Science Communications course, I intend to edit this article. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

Andi347 (talk) 13:41, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

What exactly do you see as the deficits with the current article? (longer reply at your talk page). Ajpolino (talk) 18:09, 7 March 2017 (UTC)