Talk:Klebsiella pneumoniae carbapenemase

Klebsiella pneumoniae carbapenemase
Translingual entry. In the translingual community that uses this term  (a species name, in italics) seems to be used attributively as a modifier to chemical term carbapenemase (not italicized). This seems SoP. The same may be true for more casual use in English, but that is a separable matter.

The whole mess of related MWEs surrounding this in both English and Translingual L2s needs review. This seems like the best place to start. If this passes, then the rest almost certainly would pass RfD, whatever redundancy-eliminating cleanup they might need. DCDuring TALK 13:06, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Basically, it's totally wrong. Originally it was a produced by  - this would be SoP. Now, KPC refers to  produced by other bacteria. I would just delete it. SemperBlotto (talk) 17:33, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The misnomer principle would say we should keep it if the SoP name is misleading as to the actual meaning in use. DCDuring TALK 15:54, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeed, that to me sounds like a reason to keep (but improve). Mglovesfun (talk) 19:22, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It might not be too easy to attest the non-SoP definition. Who would like to take a crack at an alternative definition?
 * Perhaps, these definitions ought to be RfVed. In the course of the RfV maybe better definitions will emerge. If no one is willing and able to find good attestation for the definitions, then we are incapable of including it, whether or not it is in fact part of the language. DCDuring TALK 19:39, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I opened WT:RFV, to clarify whether the non-SOP sense is attested. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:29, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Moved to RfV. There appears to be no consensus to delete the term if it is verifiable as a misnomer in use. bd2412 T 15:55, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

RFV discussion: August 2014–July 2015

 * Rfv-sense: (pathology) a superbug strain of Klebsiella pneumoniae bacteria that produces carbapenemase
 * Rfv-sense: (biochemistry) a carbapenemase enzyme produced by Klebsiella pneumoniae bacteria

The term exists; the question is which of the two senses is attested per WT:ATTEST. I propose you place the attesting quotations at Citations:Klebsiella pneumoniae carbapenemase, since if the 1st sense is not attested, the 2nd can be later deleted as sum of parts via RFD. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:28, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It seems that the biochemistry sense is used in Carbapenemase. It seems to include at least four types, which types may be subject to further division. IOW, the term reflects our current state of knowledge, but may not refer to a specific chemical whose composition and structure is well-established. As such I don't know in what sense it will really seem to be a term as more is understood. Perhaps users view it as SoP now. DCDuring TALK 13:00, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * From reading abstracts it appears that there is a gene which spreads among bacteria that enables them to create the K. pneumoniae carbapenase, so the notion that there is a strain the identity of which is stable enough to warrant treatment as a taxon seems unlikely. For example, does not have a taxon called Klebsiella pneumoniae carbapenemase.
 * I feel that this is beyond my access to the scientific literature and probably my paygrade. If we do not have and cannot recruit a contributor with better access and knowledge, I would rather we deleted the pathology sense. The biochem sense would provide an interested user with a term to be used in further research. The pathology sense looks like it leads up a blind alley. DCDuring TALK 13:24, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * OTOH, this may be an important gateway to the phenomenon or rapidly spreading drug-resistance among pathogens that we would be remiss to neglect. DCDuring TALK 13:26, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * That's all very nice (or not, depending on one's taste), but I really request attesting quotations; these absent, I request that this be ultimately deleted. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:48, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I know you are only interested in formal procedure, so I apologize for boring you. I don't know how to cite this properly in this case. I'd appreciate someone else trying or offering constructive advice or support. DCDuring TALK 17:10, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * RFV is not "formal procedure" in any pejorative sense; it is a process used to discover whether, as far as we know, a term or sense is attested. The material requested via RFV are usually attesting quotations, or at least links to them. You know that by now, having spent multiple years around here, so I not sure what to make of your above responses. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:37, 31 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The enzyme sense is well and unambiguously attested; see ; I've typed up four citations on the citations page. The other sense, defining the term as the bacteria seems like a misunderstanding, and I've removed it. - -sche (discuss) 21:57, 17 July 2015 (UTC)