As not every infection by a given virus causes the associated disease(s), which is marked by one or more sets of overt symptoms, shouldn't every virus species have its own page? I'm trying to separate such pages at Wiktionary. The separation is made both more necessary and a bit easier by the massive renaming that the ICTV is pushing through and possible further revolutionary naming changes, such as binomial names. DCDuring (talk) 09:26, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
What I'm doing on Wiktionary is making sure that we have pages for both and, indeed, for older names of diseases and viruses, but that's just lexicography.
For Wikipedia, the issue is conceptual clarity. I would think that some diseases have many viral agents as potential causes and that some viruses have multiple pathologies (or no pathologies), including in different host species. Mixing encyclopedia articles on the pathologies and the viral agents makes the articles much harder to write without confusing readers. DCDuring (talk) 03:05, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
In some cases (e.g. COVID-19 and SARS-CoV-2) the disease and the pathogen are treated separately. In other cases (e.g. Turtle fibropapillomatosis and Chelonid alphaherpesvirus 5) one redirects to the other. In fact, I created the article Chelonid alphaherpesvirus 5, which was subsequently noticed by others and merged into Turtle fibropapillomatosis. In cases where a disease is caused by multiple pathogens, I think everyone would agree having separate articles for the disease and each pathogen is necessary. In cases where there is only one pathogen, though, Wikipedia is inconsistent on whether that pathogen is considered more-or-less a synonym of the disease it causes. I don't have an opinion on which way is better. For enormously important diseases (e.g. COVID-19), treating the virus separately makes sense in my mind. For obscure diseases, are we really going to split the disease from the virus (e.g. Malva mosaic virus and Malva mosaic disease)? This question may have come up on the bacterial and fungal sides of Wikipedia too. Ypna (talk) 03:51, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
It seems particularly important now to encourage splitting because ICTV is often changing from names that include the disease name to names that emphasize the taxonomic/evolutionary relationships of the species. An example is classical swine fever virus, which is now Pestivirus C. I suspect that it will be easier to get contributions from virus taxonomists to articles that are about the virus and its taxonomy than to articles that are overwhelmingly about a disease. Now that ICTV has placed most species into families, orders, classes, phyla, kingdoms, and realms, it would be natural to have a taxobox for the virus. But it does not seem very natural in an article that is principally about a disease. Similarly images of viruses contribute little to an understanding of a disease, just as photos of a human organ ravaged by a disease contribute little to an understanding of the virus.
The issue is more timely for viruses and viral diseases because of the renaming of so many species, including new proposals for binomial names, and the filling out of the viral tree of quasi-life. In contrast articles about fungal, bacterial, and chromist diseases and their causal organisms have had some chance to stabilize.
I also find it a bit peculiar that the articles on diseases of all kinds have so little on the importance or lack thereof of the diseases. DCDuring (talk) 02:47, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
For various reasons, universal splitting probably isn't needed, but I suppose splits could be done for viruses that already have disease articles (though not vice versa i.e. not splitting diseases from virus articles unless the disease is notable on its own). Some kind of guideline may need to be added to WP:VIRUS's guidelines if this is done. I've gone through all redirects tagged under WP:VIRUS and found ~78 viruses that would be split from their accompanying disease article. This is probably close to all of them and most splits would be easy, so I don't imagine it being that burdensome of a task. A recent discussion about splitting Variola virus from Smallpox was held on the Smallpox article's talk page, so JzG and WhatamIdoing may want to comment as well. Velayinosu (talk) 02:35, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
First, in agreement with Ypna, we should stop being so anthropocentric. For example Tobacco mosaic virus would not benefit from splitting. Having said that, when splitting of clinically important articles has taken place, there can be unnecessary duplication. Take a look at Rotavirus and Rotaviral gastroenteritis for example. We have one Featured Article and a clinical article, clearly derived from it that has little to add. On the other hand HIV and HIV/AIDS nicely complement each other. Herpes simplex virus has some clinical content that correctly, is not included in Herpes simplex. On the other hand an argument could be made for merging Hepatitis B and Hepatitis B virus because it is, in my humble opinion, difficult to understand this disease without a good knowledge of the virus. We are not at a stage where we can have simple guideline on this: Every case needs an individual assessment. Graham Beards (talk) 08:58, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for giving the matter your attention. It seems to me that a way to approach this is to look at the list of 78 and any other individual cases where the matter has arisen and see if there is a good reason for a split or a good reason not to split, and perhaps leave the rationale one way or the other on the talk page. It would be helpful to differentiate cases where the article, for disease or virus, is deficient from cases where a virus and its disease are in a one-to-one relationship. It wouldn't hurt to update virus names to those from ICTV 2019. I am sorry that I cannot help as I do not have more than a passing of understanding of either virology or pathology. I might be able to add the ICTV 2019 species names and taxoboxes. DCDuring (talk) 12:20, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Nearly all articles on Wikipedia have already been updated to conform with the 2019 ICTV release, and I'm working on the remaining ones. The list of potential splits is here:
Overall, a case-by-case approach seems to be preferred for the time being. As for the above list, we can go through it a certain number per week in an orderly and leisurely manner. If that is okay, then I'll move the list to the WikiProject's Open Tasks page and we can continue from there. Velayinosu (talk) 01:21, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Is there a presumption that the latest ICTV name should be used in preference to older ICTV names? Should commonly used abbreviations be used in preference to ICTV full names even when the abbreviation is based on an old ICTV name or a non-ICTV name? DCDuring (talk) 05:00, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
I would say yes the most recent taxonomic name is preferred. Older taxonomic names are often listed as synonyms. If a common name is more widely recognized than the taxonomic name then it might be acceptable as long as the taxonomic name is mentioned. The Coronavirus article is an example of all of these things. Velayinosu (talk) 01:41, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Good, that's what I try to do at Wiktionary, but usage in purely medical contexts often seems to favor abbreviations after a pro forma mention of the taxonomic name.
Just a thought – there may be some benefit in separating articles so they can be aimed at different readers. Articles about diseases are more likely to be read by patients, so could be written with an eye towards readability and avoiding jargon. Articles about pathogens may be more likely to be read by students or biologists, so precision and detail could take priority. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs)09:33, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
I tend to view this as 'Create a redirect if it does not already exist, and split when there is enough content for two substantial articles'. · · · Peter Southwood(talk): 10:35, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
These two lists have not had their taxonomy updated but I am unsure about the best way to approach them. Virus Information Table may have been made via a bot or script but the user who wrote it is no longer active. I don't know how List of virus taxa was updated. I updated List of virus species and similar lists via Excel for ease but don't know how that would work for these two lists. Both are very long and would be very time consuming to update manually. Does anyone have any ideas? Maybe deleting them instead of updating? Velayinosu (talk) 01:35, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
The desirability of deleting [List of virus species] has crossed my mind too. It's too large and the content too unstable to have any hope of being properly maintained, at least not without detracting significant effort away from other causes. Ypna (talk) 10:05, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
I realized that the alphabetic lists might be useful to provide links to articles that might not be linked to from other articles, though this is probably rare, e.g. a species has an article but its genus does not. Another option would be to reproduce the ICTV's table at "List of virus taxa" (maybe then rename it to "Table of virus taxonomy" or something like that) and delete the others. Is it necessary for the lists to be alphabetic? I'm still unsure and more opinions would be helpful. Velayinosu (talk) 02:20, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I think I'm almost done with the GA for an article I've put a lot of work into, Bat virome. The last sticking point seems to be the lead. The reviewer has requested a second opinion over concerns that the lead is too technical. Please do leave comments at the review page here so the GA for this important and topical article can finally finish! Thanks, Enwebb (talk) 20:55, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Viral interference
Can somebody knowledgeable please take a look at the viral interference article? There are a lot of different sources all with slightly different takes on this, and I'm finding it hard to integrate them all into the article. Is there a systematic review of the topic somewhere that could be of use for this? -- The Anome (talk) 10:55, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
When influenza virus replicates, it attaches to the interior cell surface using hemagglutinin, a molecule found on the surface of the virus that binds to sialic acid groups. Sialic acids are found on various glycoproteins at the host cell surface, and the virus exploits these groups to bind the host cell. In order for the virus to be released from the cell, neuraminidase must enzymatically cleave the sialic acid groups from host glycoproteins.
From the figure in the article that summarizes the influenza replication cycle, it looks to me as if the virus attaches to the exterior cell surface, not to the interior one. Is this correct, and should the word "interior" be removed? Thanks, AxelBoldt (talk) 02:53, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
OK, thanks. But am I misreading this figure ? It seems that the neuraminidase and hemagglutinin are incorporated into the cell membrane, pointing to the outside (after step 5b) and then you have budding and release in step 7. I’m assuming that after step 5b, the two proteins sit in Golgi’s membrane, pointing to the inside of Golgi, and then that membrane merges with the cell membrane, so that the two proteins would now point outside. I’m not seeing any stage of the process where the virus particle is attached to the interior cell surface using hemagglutinin. AxelBoldt (talk) 17:13, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
I can't understand all of it, it's very hard to read for me, but figure 6 in that paper seems to be much better than our figure. (The article is published under CC-BY, so we should be able to use that figure here.) From what I gather, newly produced hemagglutinin is embedded in the Golgi membrane, pointing towards the inside of Golgi, and when that membrane merges with the cell membrane, Golgi's inside becomes the cell's outside, so that hemagglutinin now points outside of the cell. After budding, this piece of membrane becomes the virus envelope, so that hemagglutinin now points outside of the virus, as it should. I'm not seeing a point in hemagglutinin's life cycle where it could attach to the inside of the cell surface. They do mention that, after budding, hemagglutinin on the new virus attaches to sialic acid on the cell surface and on other virus particles, and neuraminidase cuts the virus free. AxelBoldt (talk) 17:20, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
1493 Hispaniola Influenza epidemic.
Terrible article, very low detail and virtually no information. This is a rather important event for viruses and epidemics, but it is out of my knowledge range. Someone who is knowledgeable on the subject, please work on this. Article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Randyratrhombus (talk • contribs) 19:29, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Polymycoviridae misclassification?
In the 2019 Riboviria ICTV document, Polymycoviridae is listed as a proposed unassigned family of Orthornavirae because it is dsRNA and encodes RdRp. In the species master list and the ICTV's website, however, it is listed as an unassigned family of Riboviria outside of Orthornavirae. How should we address this and future situations like this? Velayinosu (talk) 01:39, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
The best way to ask about a possible correction or clarification is to contact the ICTV directly. The 2019 Riboviria document does say:
Until additional genomic data are acquired and detailed analyses are performed, we propose not to assign genus Deltavirus to the realm Riboviria; to keep taxa Albetovirus, Aumaivirus, Papanivirus, Sarthroviridae, and Virtovirus unassigned to higher-ranked taxa within realm Riboviria; and to assign Birnaviridae, Botybirnavirus, Permutotetraviridae, and Polymycoviridae [proposed] to kingdom Orthornavirae but to leave them unassigned to higher ranks within this kingdom.
This implies that Polymycoviridae should have been placed unassigned into Orthornavirae. However, Polymycoviridae being placed unassigned in Riboviria is technically not incorrect, since the realm can contain unassigned viruses that eventually go into kingdom Orthornavirae. Three possible ways to contact the ICTV: use the "for questions or help, send an email to info@ictvonline.org", email Fungal and Protist Viruses Subcommittee Chair: Peter Simmonds, or post a question on the ICTV discussion board. Without a correction, there are two reliable sources (the species master list and the ICTV document), so on the talk page the editors would decide which one to go with on a case-by-case basis. --Guest2625 (talk) 08:55, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
It might be useful to update Spillover infection. I ran across the term in an article about the search for SARS-CoV-2's origins, and I'd like to link to it on some pages. Specifically, I think it would be helpful to have information about how (un)likely it is to get the whole story for any particular event. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:26, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Hello! You are invited to join the Brooklyn based Sure We Can community for our 3rd NYC COVID-19 themed Wikipedia Edit-a-thon / translate-a-thon - ONLINE - Saturday, Feb 6th, 2021 11am - 1pm. The edit-a-thon is part of Sure We Can's work with NYC Health + Hospitals to stop the spread of Covid-19. We plan to continue to work on translating the COVID-19 pandemic in New York City article into the many languages spoken in New York City; as well as, work on other ideas about how information on wikipedia could slow the spread of Covid-19.
I've been working on a tool for the past few months that you may find useful, especially if you create new articles. Wikipedia:Sandbox organiser is a set of tools to help you better organise your draft articles and other pages in your userspace. It also includes areas to keep your to do lists, bookmarks, list of tools. You can customise your sandbox organiser to add new features and sections. Once created you can access it simply by clicking the sandbox link at the top of the page. You can create and then customise your own sandbox organiser just by clicking the button on the page. All ideas for improvements and other versions would be really appreciated.
Huge thanks to PrimeHunter and NavinoEvans for their work on the technical parts, without them it wouldn't have happened.
Lowest morphologically heterogenous taxonomic rank of viruses
I'm wondering if anyone knows what the lowest morphologically heterogenous taxonomic rank of viruses is. For instance, are there any genera where one species is icosahedral and another species is icosahedral-enveloped? If not, is there any such family? How high do you need to go until the answer is "yes"? Google search doesn't seem to be able to answer such an esoteric question. Ypna (talk) 14:47, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Interesting question. It will be above family. Paramyxoviridae and Rhabdoviridae (both non-segmented ssRNA) are in the order Mononegavirales) but their morphology is quite different. The higher hierarchical levels are difficult to establish and have more to do with human imagination than evolution. Graham Beards (talk) 15:37, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. I did some searching and I found an example of a family that does have more than one morphology: Phycodnaviridae. The genus Coccolithovirus is icosahedral-enveloped whereas all other genera are just icosahedral. I don't know whether other family-level examples exist. Ypna (talk) 06:08, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Suggested sections for an entry for a Virus
I have started a discussion on improving the structure of SARS-CoV-2, specially at the separation of non-virology subjects that are currently placed under "Virology". A user pointed me on the templates structure made for diseases, as in WP:MEDORDER. However, that guideline has no template available for a page on a virus, which sometimes stand independent of the disease. A search on the archive of the talk page, led me to this diff with a specific proposal that did not received further consensus, it seems. Please visit the discussion and comment. Forich (talk) 17:08, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
This would not be appropriate for all viruses. We have bacteriophages and plant viruses to take into account for example. And for viruses of humans we usually, but not always, have a separate article for the virus and the disease(s). A proscriptive structure for all virus-related articles will not be helpful.Graham Beards (talk) 17:20, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Uniform pattern for bacteriophage common name article titles?
I hadn't realised this inconsistency; thanks for mentioning it. As I understand it, according to WIKIPEDIA:COMMONNAME we should be using whichever form is most commonly used elsewhere. If 'M13 bacteriophage' really is the most common form, and so is 'Bacteriophage P2', then it would be appropriate for Wikipedia to have this inconsistent nomenclature. Ypna (talk) 00:27, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
I've been working on updating articles. It seems like less work than last year so most articles should be updated by the end of this month. I can give a summary of major changes after I've gone through it all. Velayinosu (talk) 21:22, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
I'd like to request for someone knowledgeable to create an article for influenza mortality rate. I'm not sure where to best request an article – feel free to move this section somewhere suitable.
I came across this term in the article for the 1977 Russian flu:
> The Russian flu was relatively benign, with an estimated influenza mortality rate (not the infection fatality rate or the case fatality rate) around 5 in every 100,000 population, less than that of the typical seasonal influenza (~6 in every 100,000 population).
> the influenza mortality rate (IMR) of the 1977 flu was calculated to be <5 out of 100,000, less than typical seasonal influenza infections (IMR of 6/100,000 people)
It sounds like "influenza mortality rate" is a term of art in epidemiology with a distinct definition. So I think it would be great to have an article defining it.
I have created a stub for Canine coronavirus HuPn-2018 aka CCoV-HuPn-2018, a novel canine coronavirus found infecting children in Malaysia. Given that the patients had to be hospitalized and provided oxygen, and that this is a coronavirus that may be caught from dogs, it needs a look from editors here to make sure the article gets fleshed out. I am not very familiar with viral taxonomy, so please take a look. Thanks, Abductive (reasoning)22:50, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
These viruses have never been classified as species by the ICTV, and they return zero results on PubMed, PMC, and GenBank, but they can be found in archived webpages of the ICTVdB. Overall, they seem to have very little notability. Velayinosu (talk) 02:16, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
I don't know anything about the scientist or the specific research in question, but I would like to comment that it is the quality of the research that determines whether that research can be considered reliable; the reputation of the scientist who conducted it (and other things like the prestige of their university) are not really relevant unless you need to make a quick estimate on the reliability. The individual researcher is even less relevant if the research is published in a peer-reviewed journal. Lastly, even a new post-doc will have had at least ~8 years of university training behind them; I think saying such a person has no expertise or authority would be unfair. Ypna (talk) 10:28, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
I think it is more important to note that Alina Chan does not have any formal training in virology or even in a virology lab. She simply uses viruses as tools in her non-virology research. She's mostly a yeast biochemist who just started frantically publishing about SARS-2 having an artificial origin after the beginning of the pandemic. See her bibliography here. That's why she raises red flags to me. Not to say she cannot be worth listening to, but just to say that we should all take things said from non-virologists with a grain of salt when the overwhelming consensus among people with formal training is that this virus likely has a natural emergence, but that an investigation is warranted. --Shibbolethink(♔♕)14:30, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
I recently nominated two virus articles for deletion with the same rationale: both had very low notability with zero results on PubMed, no sequence information on GenBank, and no ICTV recognition. Since then, I found a few dozen articles like that, mostly of obscure plant viruses. In my opinion, just because a virus exists doesn't mean it should have an article, and I have considered whether there should be minimum notability criteria for viruses. The following is what I came up with:
Individual viruses should meet at least two of the following criteria to have an article:
1. The virus is classified as a species by the ICTV or is a notable member virus of a species.
2. The virus has at least part of its genome sequenced and accessible via GenBank.
3. The virus has received significant attention in at least one secondary source accessible via PubMed.
A "notable member virus" under criterion 1 is a member virus that satisfies criteria 2 and 3. Examples of this are SARS-CoV-1 and SARS-CoV-2. Whether viruses are properly contextualized should also be considered. For example, it may make more sense in some cases for article development to occur at the genus level rather than creating an article for every species in that genus. Examples of this are Deltavirus and Rotavirus.
What thoughts do you all have on this? If there is support for something like this, then we can work on it and add it to the WikiProject guidelines. Shibbolethink you participated in the deletion discussions so you might want to share your opinions. Velayinosu (talk) 02:40, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Segreto, R., & Deigin, Y. (2021). The genetic structure of SARS-CoV-2 does not rule out a laboratory origin. BioEssays, 43, e2000240. https://doi.org/10.1002/bies.202000240.
Feel free to participate with your opinion on its reliability, the discussion is not new but I think it needs to be cemented it that avenue. Forich (talk) 22:27, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
Do we have any articles about the concept of "Viral Subtypes"?
When searching on the net for my virology course, I came up with some questions. They are listed as the following.
What defines a virus subtype?
How did viruses evolve into many subtypes? What is the mechanism behind the phenomenon?
Are there any benefits for viruses when it's evolved into many subtypes.
I tried to look up my Internet but ended up with some papers about the subtypes of a single type of virus, like influenza A. [1] I couldn't find any information purely on "viral subtypes". Additionally, Wikipedia haven't made it an article yet. Should we include the topic as a new article or we add it on an existing one? Is it worth creating a new article for?
Zlover0407 (talk) 15:48, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Johan Hultin, the pathologist who discovered tissues containing traces of the 1918 flu from graves in the Alaskan permafrost, has died. Any help with the article would be appreciated. Thriley (talk) 07:24, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Macfarlane Burnet Featured article review
I have nominated Macfarlane Burnet for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:29, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)
It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.
The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.
Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.
Your input would be appreciated in the debate on Talk:History of smallpox. The article, the bulk of which was written before 2013, suffers from old age. A lot of new results published in 2016 and later are not reflected at all. Thanks for your help! Renerpho (talk) 02:13, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Hi, I have spent the past few days rewriting this (neglected) article. Any comments are welcome on the Talk Page there. Best. Graham Beards (talk) 14:59, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
I was just reading the [nomenclatural code for viruses and noticed a big change. It's article 3.21 (and the proposal for this can be found here). Virus species names now should be binomial; exactly two words, with the first word being the genus name (this is long-standing practices for plants, animal and prokaryotes). Virus species names may be Latinized, but are not required to be. This will take some time to implement. It appears most species on ICTV are still using non-binomial names.
The code doesn't address the status of existing non-binomial names that don't yet have a binomial; I feel like that is a big oversight. There are recently updated pages on ICTV that are using non-binomial names.
Virus names at all ranks should be italicised. This was already the case. I had forgotten about that aspect, but I guess that is a reason to continue using {{Virusbox}}. Plantdrew (talk) 16:51, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
Yes. But the common name is never italicised (or capitalised). Here's and example they give:
An example of the classification of a positive-sense RNA virus is: gill-associated virus (GAV); species Gill-associated virus; subgenus Tipravirus; genus Okavirus; subfamily Okanivirinae; family Roniviridae; suborder Ronidovirineae; order Nidovirales; class Pisoniviricetes; phylum Pisuviricota; kingdom Orthornavirae; realm Riboviria.
Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.
No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.
However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 22:23, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
An editor has started an RfC about whether the announcement by the FBI and the U.S. Department of Energy that they support the COVID-19 lab leak theory should be in the lede of the COVID-19 lab leak theory article. Editors are invited to contribute. TarnishedPathtalk01:56, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
A basic virus Article format
I have found/thought of a format for making a/fixing a virus stub article, it includes articles with Pathology too
...
/1/:
if its a species, say the subfamily and family
if its a genus, say the subfamily, family, and suborder
if its a family, say the order, subclass, and class
... if X say X+1, X+1.5, X+2
/2/:
if less info; then do not have a whole section on it
>>>Webcloudd@their-talk-page06:05, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
I think this is too prescriptive. There's a danger of conflating the virus and the disease. How would bacteriophages or endogenous retroviruses fit into this? In any case, shouldn't Hosts come before Pathology? And isn't Lifecycle and Replication the same thing? Isn't Cellular effects part of Pathology? Graham Beards (talk) 09:56, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
0. do you mean prescriptive?
1. if so, this is not really something new, its based on something ive seen so id call it a combination of prescriptive and descriptive:
- ive seen like A before B and B before C but never A and C at the same time, then i say A, B, C in order
ive seen pathology come before virus info more than the opposite
ive seen Genome Structure Replication come in that order too many times
yes there is a danger of conflating the virus and the disease, but i think if they are stubs, there is no use in making the virus and the disease 2 different pages if you can just do a redirect.
2. yes you are correct now that i think hosts should come before pathology, but the ones ive seen, i think hosts have come after pathology
3. hmm idk i think i saw a few pages that differentiated them
4. bacteriophages or endogenous retrovirus would not fit into this, as this is for "normal" virus articles that are stubs and do not have a seperate disease pages
5. oopsies i put cellular effects outside of pathology
6. and ofcourse its a basic format not supposed to be followed to a dot (i dont know why i put the notes as they definitely are too prescriptive)
This is difficult to follow. Could you write in correct English please. What do you mean by "too many times"? And what on earth is a normal virus? This is a poorly thought out proposal, which is unlikely to be adopted. Graham Beards (talk) 09:31, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
1 Too many: Excessive (used with countable nouns) , thus i am saying i have seen it an excessive number of times? is that not correct english?
2. a normal virus is one that is not a phage, a virusoid, a satellite, an Retrotransposon, or a DIP; I do not understand why bacteriophages would be prevented from fitting into that order.
3. I do not know what you mean by correct english, if you mean to say that you can not comprehend it, then sorry.
4. Well, again; this is not a new thing, but one that i have already seen, but yes it is quite poorly thought out, partly because I spent less than an hour on it.
5. This is not supposed to be a proposal; think of it like a boilerplate that you can start on but freely edit; such as my proposal to move the pathology to a separate article when it gets larger.
If we look at the info box in the article on SARS-CoV-2 we see it is a strain of the species SARS-related coronavirus, from the sub-genus Sarbecovirus. The only problem is that SARS-related coronavirus is (at least according to the article) the same thing as Sarbecovirus.
Seeing that Sarbecovirus was picked up as a sub-genus by the template, I assumed this must be correct when I editedSARS-related coronavirus, which had a similar issue. But now I see that articles about SARS-CoV-1 and SARS-CoV-2 have this issue, I thought I should try to get a consensus here before editing more articles.
This subject is confused slightly by the term "SARS-related coronavirus" being used in old texts (before SARS-CoV-2) to refer specifially to SARS-CoV-1, which was just called SARS-CoV at the time. I think the terms "SARS-related coronavirus" and Sarbecovirus are both now used to refer to clade of betacoronaviruses that includes both SARS-CoV-1 and SARS-CoV-2.
I guess this is complicated by the definition of a species being harder for a virus than for sexually-reproducing organism, but I thought we should at least try to be consistent, unless there is a good reason not to.
Reading this Nature article from March 2020 it looks like Sarbecovirus was already recognised as a subgenus of Betacoronavirus before SARS-COV2 was observed, and that article shows the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses renaming 2019-nCoV as SARS-CoV2 and placing it within the subgenus Sarbecovirus.
As the Wikipedia article itself makes clear, the name SARS-related coronavirus is potentially misleading as it can refer to Sarbecovirus or to the more-specific SARS-CoV1.
Sarbecovirus is a subgenus with a single species. Severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus is the scientific name of that species, which is often abbreviated to "SARS-related coronavirus". When a genus (or subgenus) has only one species, Wikipedia covers the genus and the species in a single article. Plantdrew (talk) 02:39, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out. I wouldn't have guessed that. It seems a bit bonkers to create a subgenus with only one species, but reading it more closely, that is what the Nature article I mention above says.
I just now looked at this page about Betacoronavirus on the website of the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses. The Member Species table at the bottom lists SARS-CoV-1 and SARS-CoV-2 separately, but states that they are both of the species "Severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus". The Member Species table doesn't have multiple lines for any other subgenus. So the table supports the conclusion that there is only one species in the genus, but it is sort of recognising that this is a bit odd.
Another interesting thing I noticed about that table is that the sub-genera Embecovirus, Merbecovirus and Nobecovirus each contain more than one species, whereas Hibecovirus (like Sarbecovirus) contains only one. This helps me to see why they bothered to create a subgenus with only one species. The aim is create the five sub-genera of Betacoronavirus. Some of these have more than one species, which is why there is the need to create subgenera. The ones that have only one species exist to show that the variation of these sub-genera from the others is at a similar level.
My apologies if all the above was obvious. It was mostly me thinking aloud.
There technically isn't any guideline about how to deal with monotypic virus (and bacteria) taxa. There is WP:MONOTYPICFAUNA and WP:MONOTYPICFLORA covering animals and plants respectively. The animal guideline doesn't mention subgenera. The plant guideline suggests that monotypic subgenera should be at the species title.
I'm not particularly inclined to mess with Hibecovirus/Bat Hp-betacoronavirus Zhejiang2013 at the moment. Virus taxonomists have recently adopted binomial nomenclature for species; some species have been renamed, and all will be renamed in the near future. Bat Hp-betacoronavirus Zhejiang2013 will receive a new name sometime soon. Plantdrew (talk) 17:50, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
Polio at FAR
I have nominated Polio for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 15:01, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:COVID-19 pandemic § Remove duplicated content. Important discussion relating to the treatment of viruses and pandemics such as HIV. This could set precedent for the treatment of other viruses so more input is welcome. {{u|Gtoffoletto}} talk 10:37, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
.jpg)
