Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Veterinary medicine/Archive 2

Strangles

Strangles currently says no vaccine is available. Does anyone here know what that is about? --Una Smith (talk) 14:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Beats me, other than lack of knowledge. I'd say go and fix it if you want, I certainly can verify that there is in fact a strangles vaccine, because I've been paying the vet annually for the intranasal thingy on my younger horses, still can't buy a vaccine to give it myself, though, unlike most other vaccines, Probably some interesting info to be had. Montanabw^(talk) 05:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know much about the strangles vaccine, but from what I understand the Intervet vaccine was withdrawn due to inefficacy in early 2007. I'm pretty sure the Pfizer vaccine (intramuscular) and the Fort Dodge vaccine (intranasal) are still available. I deleted the unavailable part from the article, but didn't replace it with anything up to date yet. --Joelmills (talk) 13:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Aha! Thanks for the brand name, Joelmills; that will help me find good quality information. My participation on Rotavirus has given me some ideas of what should be in veterinary infectious disease articles. The article is in desperate need of globalization, by the way. At least one intranasal vaccine is widely available in the US ... but what about the rest of the world? --Una Smith (talk) 18:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, all I have ever used is the intranasal. Or, to be precise, all my vet has ever used. One good source on strangles is here - Nov 2007 article in The Horse. Not a lot of detail on vaccines, but a number of links to other articles and a good overview of the basics. Hope this helps. Montanabw^(talk) 19:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks but for medical subjects I recommend using the medical literature and government agencies (because vaccines are licensed drugs). A bunch of WikiProject Medicine editors, not just me, can help. --Una Smith (talk) 04:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I actually looked around on pubmed for any recent articles on strangles dealing with vaccines, but the only ones I found didn't even give an abstract. Decent veterinary medicine journal articles can be hard to come buy if you don't actually have a subscription. --Joelmills (talk) 00:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Um, does it make any difference that The Horse is the AAEP's official magazine and though of popular tone, the vast majority of its articles are written by veterinarians, including the extensive article on strangles in their November 2007 hardcopy issue? I'm with Joel, sometimes we are stuck with the best available sources. But whatever. Just trying to help. Montanabw^(talk) 07:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. Ideally, we want a peer reviewed journal article. After that I usually look for a well respected textbook (and I actually have a pretty good online resource for vet med textbooks, but I couldn't find anything recent enough to help us). After that I look at conference proceedings (again, no luck). I'll take a look at Montanabw's link today or tomorrow and most likely use it, unless I see some COI. I didn't think of government agencies - the USDA approves vet vaccines, so I'll check there also. --Joelmills (talk) 17:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Joelmills. Most veterinarians, like most MDs, are not technical specialists. A consumer magazine, even The Horse, is just about the least reliable source I would accept for an encyclopedia article about a topic as technical as a vaccine. I would look first at government agencies. In fact, that's exactly what I did, and there I found the missing information. Thanks, all. --Una Smith (talk) 02:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I have online access to a lot of journals through my university, so if anyone needs some detail on any articles they can only get an abstract for then let me know and I'll try and get hold of it for you. Also, although it doesn't have any data on efficacy etc., www.noahcompendium.co.uk is a useful site for finding out the licensing of vaccines, in the UK at least. Alsiola vet (talk) 23:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

9th most view article

Here's an oddity, in 9th most viewed article on wikipedia in Feb was canine reproduction ! Current stats [1], I don't know if it's down to an internet viral or something but it is a huge number of views (almost 2,000,000) for a start class article! LeeVJ (talk) 22:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Pectus Excavatum

Pectus excavatum is the current medical collaboration of the week, and has a section on its occurence in animals. Could someone from the WikiProject help us out with that area? Thanks! §hep • ¡Talk to me! 18:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Elizabethan collar

One dog in a picture is listed as having received a wound on his neck from a "grass seed". Surely this is a typo?--Filll (talk | wpc) 22:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Not necessarily - take a look at foxtail (diaspore). --Joelmills (talk) 01:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

My fathers practice in the 50's could have been simply to remove grass seeds from the most unlikely parts of dog anatomy - both native and introduced grasses in some parts of australia travel significantly once they have entered - if only i had photos and cites its almost an article SatuSuro 02:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Canine Leishmaniasis

I noticed there is not a page for Canine Leishmaniasis ? I have started one on my user page (I believe this is how you are suppossed to do it?) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lisa.Cinciripini
I have tons of research and data on the topic but am new to wikipedia so would like to work with others on this page. Thank you Lisa.Cinciripini (talk) 17:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I have moved the article from my talk page to it's own page now Canine leishmaniasis Lisa.Cinciripini (talk) 23:37, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

• The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
• The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
• A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 21:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Who owns copyright?

On WT:MEDMOS there is a discussion about who owns the copyright to medical images. How about veterinary medical images? --Una Smith (talk) 02:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for including us, and this something I've spent some time thinking about. At least a third of the images I've uploaded are either microscopic images of parasites or pathology slides, so I don't worry about them. I took the photo with my camera and it is not part of the patient record, so I unequivocally own the copyright. I also own the copyright on images of patients - again, my camera, and I do not include them in the record (I even go so far sometimes as to take two photos, one for me and one for the patient's record). If the patient is identifiable either by appearance or rareness of the condition, I ask the client's permission. Never had a refusal yet. I don't actually get documentation of this - it's just an oral agreement. The x-rays to me is the more interesting question. About two years ago I researched this question and came up with nothing. I was taking photos of x-rays set up on a viewer and cropping out patient info, so I at least owned the copyright to the photo I took, if not to the x-ray (well, never to the x-ray). I eventually decided that the copyright to the x-ray probably belonged to the clinic owner. I asked him, "Hey, do you care if I use these?" And he said no problem, so I quit worrying about it. I could see someone in a hospital getting in trouble with this - what if the radiologist wanted to publish a case report on an unusual disease, and they found out that wikimedia beat them to the punch and published the x-ray? --Joelmills (talk) 02:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• I tend to agree with you that you hold the copyright in images you create that are not part of the patient file. But, I think there is an important distinction between parasite and pathology slides, and arguably more pathology slides should be part of the patient file.
• What do you ask the client for? Permission to photograph? Permission to publish? Permission to hold copyright? Does your asking permission in any way reflect a view that the client may hold the copyright because, well, they are the client?
• You own the photographic copy of a radiograph but, just as if you copy a book cover or other work under copyright, you do not own the copyright to your photograph. A lot of images get tossed off Wikimedia Commons for that reason. So please be careful.
• Permission to use is not a license, and Commons requires a license; a license grants permission to all users, not just to you. A lot of images get tossed off Commons for that reason too. So, again, please be careful.
• Why don't you make your own radiographs?
• Some veterinarians, especially mobile service veterinarians, avoid keeping any records. It has been my experience they prefer to give the client all patient records and images. When asked about copyright, their reply to me usually has been that copyright belongs to the client in any case, as their service is a work for hire.
• Do you upload your images to Wikipedia, or to Commons? --Una Smith (talk) 04:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll answer your questions best as I can - to be honest I haven't considered some of the things you've asked.

• Pathology slides - these are not slides I've also submitted to a pathologist, they are ones I'm reading myself. We don't keep any slides, just record findings in the record.
• I ask the client if it's OK to photograph and put a photo of their pet's condition on Wikipedia in order to illustrate that condition for others. I haven't even thought about the copyright question - I always upload under a free license. People know I'm not selling these photos, but they also know others can use them for whatever they want.
• Of course you are right about the radiograph photos, I misspoke. I never would own copyright to those. That's why I asked my boss if he minded if I used them. As to why I don't make my own radiographs, it's because we have technicians for that, and it would drive them crazy if I tried to butt in and take the x-ray every time I thought it might be interesting.
• Record keeping is one of the most time-consuming parts of my job, but I wouldn't dream of not keeping records. What if there is a complaint, or even worse, a lawsuit? Without any records it would be very difficult to defend the practice. AAHA requires good record keeping anyway. It's always been our opinion that the records belong to the animal hospital.
• Commons, always. Hereis a link to my gallery. As you can see, there are only a few radiographs on there.
• I guess the only problem I can forsee is with radiographs, and that would only be an issue if the animal hospital I worked for objected to their use under a free license. But there has been no objection. Common sense, I think, is the best way to approach this kind of thing, and honesty with the clients. --Joelmills (talk) 23:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, a technician who makes a radiograph to order does not own the copyright; that clearly is a work for hire situation. A technician does not decide what to radiograph, or when. The hard question here is does the practice own the copyright, or does the patient? The records themselves belong to the practice; the copyright may not. See US Copyright Office Circular 9, Works Made for Hire under the 1976 Copyright Act. As you obtain the client's permission to post on Wikimedia Commons, and the photos in question are in addition to any you take for the patient's medical record, I think you're all clear. I think the big question we are struggling with on Commons is this: if an uploader claims copyright but is unwilling to say why the copyright is theirs (eg, by disclosing private information such as that the uploader is an oncologist and the image is of a patient), the image is likely to be deleted. Two important principles of Commons are at odds here: privacy, and evidence of having the right to publish. --Una Smith (talk) 02:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I assume that an image like that would only be challenged if either there was a complaint from the patient or if it was seen published elsewhere. Proving copyright would be difficult in most cases I think. --Joelmills (talk) 02:06, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

• In Australia this matter has already been clearly defined. Patients or Clients have no hold over radiographic images or pathological slides. The patient pays for the diagnosis or interpretation of those images/slides. The veterinary practice holds the ownership/copyright of the image, out of interest, NOT the radiographer be it the vet or veterinary technician/nurse. benjicharlton (talk) 09:31, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Veterinary vaccinations

There is an article on vaccines for dogs and cats and a bit on flu vaccines in animals, but is there a general article on vaccinations in veterinary medicine that I just can't find?

Are vaccines routinely used in animal husbandry or just for companion animals? (i.e. is there a lack-of-article because it just isn't that notable?) SDY (talk) 22:27, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

It's lacking because no one has written it - I think it would be notable. Vaccines are used for pretty much every domestic animal. --Joelmills (talk) 01:37, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I've been poking at the vaccine article, looking at some reorganization, and I'm trying to figure out how much of it will have to be direct research or if there's an article to link to. Looks like it'll just have to stay at Vaccine for now. SDY (talk) 03:56, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Articles flagged for cleanup

Currently, 636 articles are assigned to this project, of which 135, or 21.2%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 14 July 2008.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. More than 150 projects and work groups have already subscribed, and adding a subscription for yours is easy - just place the following template on your project page:

{{User:WolterBot/Cleanup listing subscription|banner=WikiProject Veterinary medicine}}

If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page; I'm not watching this page. --B. Wolterding (talk) 16:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Veterinary medicine

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 23:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Any BVA members here?

I found a 2007 article which states that British vet association now supports raw feeding. Is that true? Can anyone with access summarize what the policy brief here says?--Dodo bird (talk) 10:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm a member but their website is throwing an error at me at the moment. I'll check again later and hopefully get something for you. Alsiola vet (talk) 23:05, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I messed up the article link in the first comment, it's here(last para).--Dodo bird (talk) 02:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Image needs replacement

Hello all...

An image used in the Cherry eye article, specifically Image:Bulldog with cherry eye.jpg, has a little bit of a licensing issue. The image was uploaded back when the rules around image uploading were less restrictive. It is presumed that the uploader was willing to license the picture under the GFDL license but was not clear in that regard. As such, the image, while not at risk of deletion, is likely not clearly licensed to allow for free use in any future use of this article. If anyone has an image that can replace this, or can go take one and upload it, it would be best.

You have your mission, take your camera and start clicking.--Jordan 1972 (talk) 22:01, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Enterolith needs a photo

Enterolith has been nominated for a Wikipedia:Did you know. If selected, it will appear on the Main Page for a day. Given the subject matter, possibly tomorrow, Halloween. Does anyone have a handy photo of an enterolith? --Una Smith (talk) 21:15, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

British Veterinary Association

I just made this as it was a red link but it's a very basic stub, if any of you could expand it, that'd be great:) Sticky Parkin 01:12, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Project banner

Can someone figure out what's wrong with the image in this project's banner? It's too large and jagged. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:45, 24 December 2008 (UTC)