Talk:Severe combined immunodeficiency (non-human)

	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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Equine Low‑importance

	Horses portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Equine, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of articles relating to horses, asses, zebras, hybrids, equine health, equine sports, etc. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the barn.EquineWikipedia:WikiProject EquineTemplate:WikiProject Equineequine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

MoveMerge[edit]

This should be moved to Severe combined immunodeficiency (horse). It only deals with the horse variant. X-SCID, a sex-linked SCID is present in canines. I am fairly sure there are other SCID variants present in other animals too. (eg. SCID mouse)--ZayZayEM (talk) 03:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO, I think it is better to add the info on SCID in other animals to this article, as it isn't all that long and there is plenty of room to add info. I was using the model from Cerebellar hypoplasia (non-human) as a guide. I didn't add anything about SCID in other animals because I am not sufficiently familiar enough to do so at this point. But I oppose a move; I kind of hate having a bunch of short, stubby articles out there, personally, so am all for expanding this one. Something similar was done with cerebellar abiotrophy. Maybe we could merge SCID mouse, though the research angle on that particular article may be an issue, but I will link it for now. Montanabw^(talk) 07:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah merging would be fine, and seems a good idea. I have a few papers on Canine X-SCID I might try introduce. --ZayZayEM (talk) 07:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it. I can wordsmith and smooth out any rough spots, but I'm no help on content, I just know the horse disease and genetics 101. Montanabw^(talk) 07:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My knowledge of canine SCID is limited, but I can also try to add some info on it. X-SCID is pretty well described in a laboratory setting due to its similarity to human SCID, but I don't have much on its natural history. There is an autosomal recessive form in Jack Russell Terriers also, that is similar to the disease in Arabians. I'll try to work on it tomorrow. --Joelmills (talk) 01:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if this was legal[edit]

I placed redirects to the relevant sections in the particular organism-specific categories. I think it is more appropriate. These pages are being listed on the category pages, and will direct interested readers to the relevant section directly rather than having to deal with the TOC. I think this works better, but I'm not sure if I'm somehow gaming the system innapropriately.--ZayZayEM (talk) 06:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SCID in dogs - Category:Dog diseases
SCID in horses - Category:Horse disease & Category:Arabian and part-Arabian horses
SCID mouse - Category:Mice

I'm not worried about "gaming" I just want people to find what they need. So, readded some categories here to make the article pop up where it is most likely to be sought. My thinking is that it is better to put things in MORE specific categories than in the broad ones. People with a sick horse will look in horse categories, ditto for dogs. Room for discussion, as always. Montanabw^(talk) 04:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think redirects should have categories, and I don't like to have the wrong article title in a category index...people can figure it out. But I guess it isn't a moral issue for me, in the category, the two links are side by side, which looks a little odd, IMHO. People CAN scroll and I'm not sure the TOC is a problem. It's handy, I suppose. I just want the necessary cats in the main article, that's my concern. Montanabw^(talk) 04:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at Category:Arabian and part-Arabian horses and Category:Dog diseases you will find SCID listed under "S" on both pages. This page is listed under those cats. I do not mind if we unlist the redirects and relist this page, but we should not list this page twice. I think the redirect works better as it uses a title people will be looking for in the place people will be looking for it.--ZayZayEM (talk) 05:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am OK with not listing the page twice and my concern is that the redirect trick is not going to be deemed "legal" by the wikigods. I won't revert the article again, but I am really concerned that your redirect is not going to be "legal" given the wiki guidelines on double redircts. I do fear that getting tossed. Read Wikipedia:Double_redirects and see what you think. Montanabw^(talk) 19:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think categorizing the redirects is fine. I've done it plenty over the last two years without any problems. --Joelmills (talk) 00:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I'm cool with it, then. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Montanabw (talk • contribs) 17:52, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the section about the SCID mouse it says that due to their lack of V(D)J recombination they can't activate complement. Is this true? It sounds a bit far. I presume they mean that the classical pathway (ie complement becoming activated by binding to antibodies), but the other two pathways should be intact? 131.111.186.95 (talk) 14:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]