Jump to content

Talk:Enterovirus 71

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved by Anthony Appleyard on 29 July. ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 07:31, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


EV-71 → Enterovirus 71 — Enterovirus 71 is the proper name of this virus. Furthermore, "EV-71" is wrong even as an acronym since it should not be hyphenated. "EV71" is the correct abbreviation. Xenobiologista (talk) 06:59, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination appears to be based on the desire of the nominator to promote what they perceive to be the correct names. Perhaps WP:NC will support this name too, but as it stands, no case has been made for a move. Andrewa (talk) 07:26, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Cambodia information

[edit]

I have been volunteering in a small village south of Phnom Penh where many children have been sick and some adults have also been sick. Several children were taken to the children's hospital in Phnom Penh where they did recover. The numbers cited in the CNN report are very dated. One child in one of the neighboring villages died earlier this week, but most are recovering. The kindergartens and primary schools in Cambodia were closed for several days this week. Please seek out an update. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.29.249.54 (talk) 13:30, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Relatedly -- I am in touch with a person who was involved in the identification of this virus in Cambodia in 2012 based on the patients' symptoms which were similar to those she had seen in Taiwan in 1998. She notes the importance of the patient in the children's hospital in Siem Riep. She did not take time to write it up in a published journal, but if anyone is dedicated to expanding coverage of that aspect in this article you can contact me and perhaps we can fill it out with more sources. -- econterms (talk) 15:52, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

EV71 or EV-A71?

[edit]

Recently, an anonymous editor[1] update naming of virus from EV71 to EV-A71 and refer to source from ICTV[2], however other user (Flyer22 Frozen) reverted it back and claim ICTV is a poor source. While on my professional career, I refer this virus as EV71. But I dont think ICTV is poor source as they are the organisation that governs the taxonomy of viruses. So, I propose to restore anonymous edit as his edit is justifiable. Thanks. Ckfasdf (talk) 01:36, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: Even NCBI[3] said it was Enterovirus A71. So, I'll go ahead and edit it. Ckfasdf (talk) 01:24, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ckfasdf, the IP was changing the title in the lead, infobox and text elsewhere in the article away from "Enterovirus 71" to "Enterovirus A71." The title of the article is "Enterovirus 71." If the title in the lead and other text in the article is to go by "Enterovirus A71" instead, then the title of the article should also be changed. And whether or not the title should be changed is a WP:Common name and WP:NCMED matter. As for the sourcing, I see what you mean about calling that source a poor source. But changing the entire article based on it? See WP:MEDRS. I'll alert WP:Med and WP:Virus to this matter. No need to ping me when replying. This article is currently on my watchlist. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:43, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Noted, I will only change virus name in the lead, but still keep "Enterovirus 71 / EV71" throughout entire article as it is more commonly used name.Ckfasdf (talk) 01:58, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You also changed the infobox. As for the common name, that should be bolded in the lead. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:06, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
ICTV is a good source. It’s the preferred source for taxonomy for WikiProject Viruses, and has wider consensus in WP Tree of Life. However, they do not proscribe official names for infraspecific virus taxa. So as the critter in question is a strain or member virus and not a species, you have to list all names or aliases in the article, and use the most broadly accepted name as the title. Btw this article needs a {{virusbox}}. --Nessie (📥) 03:49, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for commenting, Nessie. Ckfasdf, the title of the article is still "Enterovirus 71." Given that and what Nessie stated above, don't you think it's best to change "Enterovirus A71 (EV-A71) is a virus of the genus Enterovirus in the Picornaviridae family, commonly known as Enterovirus 71 (EV71)" to "Enterovirus 71 (EV71), also known as Enterovirus A71 (EV-A71), is a virus of the genus Enterovirus in the Picornaviridae family."? NessieVL, any thoughts on that approach? Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 21:09, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, no need to change the article title (refer to WP:COMMONNAME) as "Enterovirus 71" is the common name and widely used in scholarly publication (see the reference section of this article for samples), meanwhile "Enterovirus A71" is the "official" name as mentioned on ICTV or NCBI. So, I don't think it's neccessary to change wording in the lead as well. Ckfasdf (talk) 22:15, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ckfasdf and Flyer22 Frozen:After I wrote the above, I can see where the A came from, is the species. In any event, assuming that a- is the 'common name', I would try something like this for the lede: "Enterovirus 71 (EV-71), also known as Enterovirus A71 (EV-A71), is a virus in the genus Enterovirus in the Picornaviridae family." That's fairly consistent with other viruses and species of cellular life. What do you think? the synonyms already redirect to this article, so users will get to the right place, and the lede confirms that the names are for the same virus.
BTW I'm glad to see both of you taking an interest in virus articles. I don't think I've seen ya'll around before. There's not much of us at WikiProject Viruses. I hope you can keep up the good work. --Nessie (📥) 02:21, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nessie, per my "21:09, 4 February 2020 (UTC)" post, I do prefer that we go with "Enterovirus 71 (EV-71), also known as Enterovirus A71 (EV-A71), is a virus in the genus Enterovirus in the Picornaviridae family." for the lead. It's what I proposed. But Ckfasdf prefers to have the lead begin with "Enterovirus A71 (EV-A71)" first.[reply]
As for editing virus articles, I'm more so a WP:Med editor in general. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:28, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
While I'd prefer to put something that more official first then something that more common. However, I realize that I am not really familiar on virus articles and that is my personal preference. It'll be also OK to put EV71 first then EV-A71 later. Regarding editing article, I also more WP:Med editor, but more into vaccine topics. Ckfasdf (talk) 02:40, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
concur w/ Flyer22("Enterovirus 71 (EV-71), also known as Enterovirus A71 (EV-A71), is a virus in the genus Enterovirus in the Picornaviridae family.")--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:07, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Changed it. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:09, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Enterovirus_71&oldid=1207120594"