Talk:Sudden oak death

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was No move. Redirects will be created for convenience. Duja► 14:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

This request was put onto WP:RM on 9 February 2007 but the discussion page was Talk:Sudden Oak Death (note upper case) which did not exist. Further it was placed there without a move template on this page. So this conversation was hard to find. For this reason I am reformating the request and resubmitting it. I have made a good faith attempt to include the opinions expressed in the Discussion section in the Survey. If I have made a mistake please adjust your entry ASAP. --Philip Baird Shearer 11:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it might be best, since P. ramorum infects many more species than just oak, that this article has it's title changed to Phytophora ramorum. (a Mentally Efficient Loonies And Nice Insane Elephants creation 11:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Survey

Please add Support of Oppose below

• Support, a Mentally Efficient Loonies And Nice Insane Elephants creation 11:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose I'd be inclined to keep the name "sudden oak death" regardless of host. Kingdon 03:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose I would say that Ramorum dieback would deserve a separate article. Somanypeople 22:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Additional comments

I think it might be best, since P. ramorum infects many more species than just oak, that this article has it's title changed to Phytophora ramorum. (a Mentally Efficient Loonies And Nice Insane Elephants creation 11:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC))

I partially agree. I think that it should be broken into two separtate articles, one on sudden oak death and the other on Phytophora ramorum. The information that is specific to the disease be included with the disease article and the taxon, fungal identification info be included in the Phytophora ramorum article.Somanypeople 21:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to keep the name "sudden oak death" regardless of host. In communication with the general public (signs at trailheads and such, I don't remember ever seeing any name other than "sudden oak death"). Even scientists sometimes call it sudden oak death when applied to non-oak hosts (for example "Non-oak native plants are the main hosts for sudden oak death" from the references). As for splitting into pages for the disease versus the organism, there's some logic to that. If you look at Salmonella typhi versus Typhoid fever, for example, there's some duplication between the two, but on the whole it seems to work OK. The two issues (whether to have a disease page and whether the term "sudden oak death" can apply to a disease of non-oaks) are largely separate, though. Kingdon 03:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Well if we take examples of other plant pathogen articals, many are called by the species name and not the diesease name. For instance rice blast was renamed M. grisea despite the fact it barely causes any note-worthy diseases on other species. P. ramorum has a very large species range. If we broke into two articles, would we then need a third for Ramorum dieback as it couldn't really go here (doesn't affect oaks!) and wouldn't fit in with P. ramorum if that was just taxonomy.(a Mentally Efficient Loonies And Nice Insane Elephants creation 19:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC))

I would say that Ramorum dieback would deserve a separate article. My feeling is that any disease (pathogen/plant species combination) that is of significant importance should have it's own article.Somanypeople 22:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I think we can just have one article with a redirect from the other name. It really does not matter which. If the article gets really long, then split it into an article for the disease symptomology and a separate article for the pathogen. -Arch dude 00:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Question on "fungus." The organism is not a fungus. It's a fungoid protist. which measn that it is not even in the same kingdom as the fungi.Apparently, this distinction is somewhat recent, Do we need to do anything about this? -Arch dude 00:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't say in the article it's a fungus does it? I labbeled it as an oomycete. Plant pathologists do called Oomycetes diseases fungal diseases, because via convergent evolution both kingdoms use exactly the same mechanism of biotrophic pathogenesis. So we also still say fungicide, even when we are using them to kill oomycetes. (a Mentally Efficient Loonies And Nice Insane Elephants creation 13:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC))

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.