Talk:Quittor

Term or condition

Is this article about the term or is it about the medical condition? If it's about the term, then this page should be moved to Wiktionary. If it's about the condition, then we should alter the article's wording to take out spurious phrases like "term used to describe." — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 01:35, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

It's a condition, but the word "quittor" is archaic, that was my point. The thing is a stub in need of expansion, but I haven't the time to tackle it. I know you loathe the use of the term "term," but please don't be changing the nuance of an article in your attempts to weed out that word, that's all. Montanabw^(talk) 00:06, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean by "archaic"? Do you mean it's old or do you mean it's outdated? If it's outdated, why don't the dictionaries I've looked at say as much and what is the term that has replaced it? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 01:44, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Mostly old, and a rare condition today. http://www.merckvetmanual.com/mvm/index.jsp?cfile=htm/bc/90727.htm ; http://equimed.com/diseases-and-conditions/reference/quittor and basically in two forms, subcutaneous and cartilaginous. Other terms used include "graveled." Do what you want with that, I haven't the time to do a lot of wordsmithing on this one, have other projects... Montanabw^(talk) 20:44, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

"Archaic" when applied to terms means that it is outdated. I'll try to edit the article according to the sources you've provided, but I don't see a point in keeping the claim that the term is archaic when it doesn't seem to be. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 22:48, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

That was an improvement; I did a bit of wordsmithing on it. 05:09, 16 September 2012 (UTC)