Talk:Pediculosis

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Human Pediculosis[edit]

Pediculosis humanus capitis is exclusive to humans. However, pediculosis is a general term for "lice infestation", e.g., note the ~50,000- hits on Google for "pediculosis + cattle", and tons of other examples regarding other animals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.137.37.60 (talk) 1 September 2007

This article seems to be primarily about head lice infestation or Pediculosis humanus capitis. I think the previous poster brings up a good point. Should this article be moved to Pediculosis in humans? I definitely think it should contain more information regarding infestations of the other two species of lice that involve human hosts. We should probably look at how this can be better indexed with Treatment of human head lice. Ursasapien (talk) 11:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm opposed, at present, to moving this article. The term pediculosis (by itself) is commonly used to refer to the human disease(s). For example, see the The Merck Manual. And for that reason alone, I see no need to further qualify this article's present title. I welcome non-human pediculosis content (i.e., infestation by insects of the suborder Anoplura), and I think that content could be reasonably accomodated in this article. Noca2plus (talk) 17:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The logical solution, consistent with general wiki habits, would be to move the article to either "Pediculosis (human)" or "Pediculosis humanus capitis". It is definitely wrong to refer only to the common usage without somehow clarifying that it's only a subset, and providing coverage of the umbrella meaning of the term.
Even better than renaming it, we could simply break it down into segments, one on the general pediculosis, one for humanus capitis, and perhaps another for brief details of various other significant forms.
Leaving it failing to even mention that it's only talking about a specific subset of pediculosis is clearly unacceptable.--Kaz (talk) 00:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

African Americans and Lice[edit]

I've edited the bit about African Americans and lice. I'd rather have just deleted it, as it seemed like speculation, and without corroboration, it seems irrelevant. The second sentence of it was nonsense, so I deleted it. If someone wants to delete the sentence, there'll be no complain from me.Rat (talk) 23:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why do they reference "African Americans"? Do we not have data on "African Africans" or other people groups? Ursasapien (talk) 11:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's true that pediculosis is less common in blacks. I've added a ref to support this. But so far as I know, the mechanism is not known, so I deleted that portion. If I come across a ref that mentions the current speculation, I'll add that back in. Noca2plus (talk) 18:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Pediculosis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:34, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pediculosis. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 23:18, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pediculosis&oldid=1209679576"