Talk:Ehrlickiosis

This material should be moved to Ehrlichiosis -(unsigned entry by Caroldermoid at 14:00, 20 November 2006)


 * I tentatively agree. However, the page you reference is primarily about the infection of animals, most specifically dogs.  This article is specific to the recent discovery of human infection.  If the articles are merged, human infection must have its own section.


 * Alternately, this page could be renamed to reflect the correct spelling and changed to Ehrlichiosis (human). The other article could be changed to Ehrlichiosis (canine) or something similar.  Also, a disambiguation page could be setup and referenced by both articles.  This is somewhat similar to Parvovirus and Parvovirus B19 (although those virii are different species).  I think it may be worthwhile to keep these two articles separate if only due to the fact that the discovery of occurance in humans is relatively recent while animal infection is not (1935). Arx Fortis 03:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Merge - two versions of an article, one mis-spelt, should not be kept just because of animal / human differences. Most disorders should apply to the more important senario - us humans - with animals being discussed separately as appropriate. We do not have Myocardial infarction (human) and Myocardial infarction (animal) (in part as humans are animals in that by and large disease processes are similar). So for this instance Merge, and as human relevance is the "new" and developing field then in intro explain establishd animal role vs developing role in humans, discuss mostly in animals and then a separate section for humans. David Ruben Talk 03:49, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I've adjusted merge tag on this article to mergeto, thus pairing up with Ehrlichiosis's existing mergefrom tag. Thus above discussion copied to Talk:Ehrlichiosis where discussion should continue :-) David Ruben Talk 03:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC)