Talk:Bartonella rochalimae

Previous article deletion
I deleted this article earlier because it was a copyright violation directly from the NIH website. I have recreated it, and placed it at the In the News segment of the Wikipedia Main Page. Nishkid64 (talk) 21:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Nice work. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 21:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Also thanks for making the correction to the title (how stupid of me; I bolded and italicized at ITN, but not in the article :-P). Nishkid64 (talk)  21:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem :) By the way, I've linked to the article on the WP:CLINMED and WP:MICRO Talk pages (actually did so while the previous version was still up) so it's hopefully being watched. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 21:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Could you also see if the Taxobox is correct? There's one part I wasn't quite sure about (see the missing field in the taxobox). Nishkid64 (talk)  21:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Taxobox looks fine. Since the description was published within the last 48 hours, the "binomial auth" will have to wait a little while for confirmation.... -- MarcoTolo 22:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Sometimes I can't believe Wikipedia is not a news medium :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * What NIH website or page was this a copy from? As a US government site, some parts of the NIH website are in the public domain and therefore there is nothing wrong with us reusing them including copying them directly. Indeed a number of our articles are in whole or in part (or were originally before they were modified) copied from US government sources. Unfortunately, far too often people don't clearly indicate that the material was copied directly. While there is no legal requirement to do so, it is a requirement under wikipedian policies and it is also vitally important as it helps avoid confusion as to the legality of the copied text. Especially since other sources often copy public domain material themselves without properly referencing the source but claim copyright of it. Nil Einne 04:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks pretty good so far. I'll join you guys in watching the article. MastCell Talk 22:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

So how dangerous is this bacteria? Could it result in a pandemic?--84.217.113.249 21:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't know yet. We'll have to wait and see. So far, it affected only one person, and the subject almost died. However, she made a recovery after extensive top-notch medical treatment. Nishkid64 (talk)  23:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * One would assume it's sensitive to a similar range of antibiotics as other Bartonella species, though I don't know this for a fact. MastCell Talk 23:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

This nomenclature choice has the potential of being rather confusing, as the terminology of Bartonella and Rochilamaea have been changed so often in fairly recent times (and had the confusion of Afipia felis thrown in as a putative agent of cat-scratch fever). see this 1996 review for an overview. We probably should point this out in the article. - Nunh-huh 00:14, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * [ To assist in moving on, I've archiving some off-topic discussion, for which I take full responsibility, at /Silliness. ] MastCell Talk 15:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Bartonella Infection Capability
Just wanted to point out that "the new discovery is the sixth identified Bartonella species that can infect humans[1]" in this article seems to disagree with "at least eight Bartonella species are known to infect humans[2]" in the Bartonella article. izalithium 02:52, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, the actual source at Bartonella says "at least eight species or subspecies of which have been reported to cause zoonotic infections." Since this was prior to the discovery of Bartonella rochalimae, I'm guessing there are 5 species and 3 sub-species that can cause infection in humans. With the newest discovery, it's now 6 and 3, respectively. Nishkid64 (talk) 18:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I've corrected the wording in Bartonella. As noted, the "correct" number should probably now be nine "species or subspecies", but its probably safer to wait a few weeks for an actual source to verify the number. -- MarcoTolo 00:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I've added a mention of the new discovery, as the sixth Bartonella species and ninth overall member. Nishkid64 (talk) 00:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

number species in this genus can infect humans
this page and source says there are 6 species but the Bartonella page says there are 8. both have sources. Elie 22:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * See the discussion directly above. The source at the Bartonella article refers to species and sub-species, which probably adds up to eight. Nishkid64 (talk) 00:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bartonella rochalimae. 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/20070607071359/http://pub.ucsf.edu/newsservices/releases/200706061/ to http://pub.ucsf.edu/newsservices/releases/200706061/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:43, 15 July 2017 (UTC)