Talk:Dropsy in fish

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Aquarium Fishes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Aquarium Fish articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Aquarium FishesWikipedia:WikiProject Aquarium FishesTemplate:WikiProject Aquarium FishesAquarium Fishes articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Veterinary medicine Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Veterinary medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Veterinary medicine on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Veterinary medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Veterinary medicineTemplate:WikiProject Veterinary medicineVeterinary medicine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Prognosis

The sentence "Prognosis of fish dropsy is not good." does not seem encyclopedic, nor is it very informative; more like a line from a movie, sit-com, or cartoon. Any thoughts or ideas? I did not want to be presumptuous and remove it without some feedback. More importantly: what should the sentence be replaced with if at all (something informative)?67.186.226.117 (talk) 14:10, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think that is a problem throughout the page: vague wording, and too-much how-to. I've been thinking of rewriting the whole thing, but it just hasn't been a high priority for me. As for that specific sentence, I don't think it's too bad, in that it's just a summary sentence for what comes directly after. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:35, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to argue that the statement is benign grammatical filler so the reader can predict the rest of the paragraph. For clarity I think when we use this term ("prognosis") in a medical context (like this article is) it should be more meaningful than "good" or "bad". We should find something verifiable to back up a specific statement; a standard way to describe a medical prognosis is as a percentage of population diagnosed with such a condition are cured/die/etc within a time frame. That would seem like a better use of an introductory sentence. (eg "Most fish with dropsy die within a week..." or "only 10% of fish suffering from dropsy survive past two weeks"). The "not good" statement we have now is not cited or verified. Which seems to be a bigger problem of this entire article. The only citation is a link to an Open Directory page (which isn't much different than citing "http://www.google.com/search?q=fish+health"). And btw, those are just examples, I have no research to cite on dropsy prognosis. Retran (talk) 17:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Original Research

Should this article be tagged as being all original research WP:PRIMARY? I don't see any citations. Where did this content get its authority to be here? Who knows if its even true? --Retran (talk) 17:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As it seems obvious that this article has absolutely no citations, I am placing the "unreferenced" header in the article. Retran (talk) 18:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External Links

Is it standard practice for Wikipedia articles to link to search engine and directory results pages? Is that very helpful to readers seeking encyclopedic content? This section ("External Links"), in this particular article, as it currently reads, I think, should be removed. --Retran (talk) 17:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Images

Continuing the citation theme; what is the source of the images, and their captions? How do we know they are indeed examples of this dropsy condition? Retran (talk) 18:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Treatment

It seems potentially dangerous that these treatments are listed here without primary citations. As I'm sure this treatment advice was put here in good faith, we need a source detailing these are indeed accepted treatments. Retran (talk) 18:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redone

I took out a lot of the uncited information and tightened up the remaining information and cited a reliable source. Most of the original article was more or less correct, but it was just poorly written and uncited. After removing the repetitive, vague and inaccurate parts, the article is now pretty short though, should it be marked a stub? Really the subject doesn't deserve much more of a description than is already here, but I feel that it's a useful article nonetheless.

Also, I took out the "unreferenced" header because I cited the info I put in, however, it's only a single source, so if someone wants to add a new header to indicate a need for additional sources, I wouldn't argue with that. Jvanhoy (talk) 17:25, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've got some additional sources that I've been meaning for a very long time to add to the page, and I'll try to get around to doing that. I agree that the page is likely to remain brief. Since "stub" implies that someone ought to make it longer, I don't think tagging is particularly useful in this case. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:01, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I concur, length is probably ok untagged. I have one or two more resources as well that I couldn't lay hands on this weekend. I guess whoever gets to it first will be fine. Thanks! Jvanhoy (talk) 14:32, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Title

I've never heard anyone refer to dropsy as "fish dropsy". Should we rename the page to "Dropsy" instead? Antrogh (talk) 04:18, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should leave the pagename as it is. Dropsy is also an informal name for edema in humans. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:51, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would Dropsy (fish disease) work? Antrogh (talk) 23:58, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that sounds OK to me. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:25, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Moved. Antrogh (talk) 00:24, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]