Talk:Walking pneumonia

message: Reasons for merge:
*Significant information overlaps such as treatment, symptoms, pathology. Not information explaining differences.
*Walking pneumonia hasn't been significantly edited since its creation over 2 years ago.
*Walking pneumonia lacked references since its creation. It has external site references, but certainly no content with references for over a year now.
*Walking pneumonia has been stub for over 2 years.
*Previous discussion for merge didn't result in content for article; just debate about semantics of diagnosis, of which the umbrella term Pneumonia is clearly still agreed upon.
*Walking pneumonia as a term can redirect to the Pneumonia page. 
It seems the article for walking pneumonia just doesn't warrant it's own article. It's a stub that provides little information and while the subject matter is notable enough to warrant it's own article eventually, it would probably receive more contributions and garner a larger audience on the Pneumonia article. 
Please keep related comments threaded to this. Use ":" prior to your comment to Indicate threading. Please use a bolded Agree or Disagree to indicate stance and follow with your comment. Please use signatures. --68.77.23.42 (talk) 13:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge Proposal with [[Pneumonia]] 

message: Removed link to Heath Ledger article - this is not referenced in the article. If someone wants to place it in context, please feel free. Aaeamdar (talk) 18:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Misc. Discussion

message: Reasons:
*It seems according to both the pneumonia article and the Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) that "walking pneumonia" is a secondary term still in use. It would seem more useful and appropriate to add on to CAP any unique details of walking pneumonia there. 
*This article hasn't been significantly edited since its creation over 2 years ago.
*It's lacked references since its creation. It's been tagged as needing references for over half a year now and still doesn't have any.
--76.214.197.61 19:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I think you have some good points there, but Walking pneumonia generally refers to CAPs from specific organisms such as mycoplasma.  I suppose we could merge the article as a subsection wtihin CAP.  My thought is that this is a weak keep, and it definitely at least deserves an AfD process. Djma12 (talk) 04:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough! I'll propose a merge, and if there's no response, we'll put it up in AfD. --76.214.197.61 16:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed deletion. 

message: I'm proposing that the article walking pneumonia is merged with community-acquired pneumonia.
Reasons:
* Significant information overlaps such as
::-Treatment
::-Symptoms
::-Pathology
* It seems according to both the pneumonia article and the Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) that "walking pneumonia" is a secondary term still in use. It would seem more useful and appropriate to add on to CAP any unique details of walking pneumonia there.
* Walking pneumonia hasn't been significantly edited since its creation over 2 years ago.
* Walking pneumonia lacked references since its creation. It's been tagged as needing references for over half a year now and still doesn't have any.
If there is a substantial difference between walking pneumonia and community-acquired pneumonia that would require it's own article, we could create the page later, but as it stands now it seems to be a better idea to combine with community-acquired pneumonia since the article is significantly more comprehensive and information overlaps. --76.214.197.61 17:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It may be more meaningful to merge this article with atypical pneumonia rather than community acquired pneumonia.  Just my two cents. Djma12 (talk) 03:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree it should be merged, don't care what with. It's a lay concept which doesn't have much pathologic basis. InvictaHOG 06:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

text: That's what redirects are for... ever type in something and it leads you to an article of a different name? For instance, if you search for House cat you get cat, but that certainly wouldn't warrant an article for them separately. --68.77.23.42 (talk) 13:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: somehow the fact that this was an obsolete, lay term rather than a useful medical one was edited out of the article.  I've replaced it, and removed the misinformation that it's only used in cases of mycoplasma pneumonia - just not true. I concur with the opinions above that this could be covered in about one sentence in the community acquired pneumonia article and ought to be merged. - Nunh-huh 02:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The notion that lay terms in current, common use are obsolete is not NPOV, or else displays ignorance as to the meaning of the word "obsolete". "Walking pneumonia", while not a precise medical term, is by no means obsolete, witness the website http://www.walkingpneumonia.org/ ;-) and the fact that there is in fact no precise medical synonym for the term. I don't think there's any more reason to deprecate the term "walking pneumonia" and by calling it "obsolete" than there would be for saying the same about "Jerusalem artichoke". So I removed the inaccurate descriptor from the pertinent paragraph of the "Pneumonia" article. --Haruo (talk) 11:50, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  obsolete