This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
WikiProject Viruses page. |
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 60 days |
Viruses Project‑class | |||||||
|
I have found/thought of a format for making a/fixing a virus stub article, it includes articles with Pathology too
If its not a stub, like Human betaherpesvirus 5, than this format would not work
If pathology doesnt exist, virology does noot need to be said as a section; move rest up
Main paragraph : <>, also known as <>, is a _ of the _ <> - /1/. (Causes disease, diseases). __ serve as natural hosts./2/
== Pathology
=== Clinical signs
=== Diagnosis
=== Treatment
== Hosts/2/
== Name
== Taxonomy (sometimes called "Species")
== Virology
=== Genome
=== Structure/Morphology
=== Lifecycle
=== Cellular effects
=== Replication
== History
...
/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-page 06:05, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
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 edited SARS-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.
Yaris678 ( talk) 14:41, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
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)
Zoonotic origins of COVID-19 has been nominated at Articles for Deletion. Interested editors may participate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zoonotic origins of COVID-19. TarnishedPath talk 09:47, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for your correction to the "Oryctes rhinoceros" page. As per the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses: ICTV ( https://ictv.global/) there are 2 types of names a)species names which should always be written in italic and b)virus names which should not be written in italic. For the Oryctes rinoceros virus the virus name is "Oryctes rhinoceros nudivirus" (not italic) and the species name is Alphanudivirus oryrhinocerotis (italic). In my view an unnecessarily complicated system. Bernhard Zelazny ( talk) 20:08, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
Your notes on the redirect page Alphanudivirus oryrhinocerotis: This problem is related to the taxonomic system of viruses, where virus names and virus species are basically different names for the same thing. Usually (but not always), there is only one virus name assigned to a given virus species. Therefore, it does not make sense to have different wiki pages for both. The virus name refers to the actual virus particles which we can see under the EM and study, whereas the virus species is an abstract concept, used by the virus taxonomists to express the relation between different viruses. If we translate this to the world of animals and plants, we would have for example an oak tree standing somewhere in a park. We would give this particular tree a name like "OakX125" (the virus name) and study its genetics up to the last nucleotide. From the results we come to the conclusion that "OakX125" (virus name) belongs to the species Quercus bicolor (the virus species). Most botanists would simply say this is a swamp white oak tree (Quercus bicolor), but for virus taxonomists there is a difference between this individual tree and the concept of the species Quercus bicolor. In the case of Alphanudivirus oryrhinocerotis, I simply wanted to avoid an ugly red link, created by the Virusbox template. I don't know if the template could be modified to avoid such red links (not my field). Of course, the template is correct in distinguishing between virus names and virus species. Bernhard Zelazny ( talk) 23:01, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
laboratory virologists write with ease that a particular virus infects, for instance, “European rabbits (Oryctolagus cuniculus)” (rather than erroneously writing that the virus infects “Oryctolagus cuniculus”)
A species cannot go extinct (except if humanity develops amnesia) but it can cease to have members when those go extinct.
|serotype=
, |strain=
and |virus=
, but these are for infraspecific entities, not the "virus name" for a "virus species". When articles have a serotype, strain or virus parameter there is usually an article for the species. Outside of virology, when Wikipedia says something "is a member of the species/genus/family" it can be understood that there are other members of the species/genus/family and that there is an article that covers all of them.|subdivision_ranks=
with "Member virus" to show a single "virus name".
Lloviu virus is one where Wikipedia uses the virus name as the title of the article, and
Sudan ebolavirus is one where Wikipedia uses the (old) virus species as the title. Doing it this way keeps the virus species from displaying as a link.I think this discussion deserves an audience. Could it be pasted (and continued if needs be) here Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Viruses? Best regards, Graham Beards ( talk) 10:52, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
WikiProject Viruses page. |
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 60 days |
Viruses Project‑class | |||||||
|
I have found/thought of a format for making a/fixing a virus stub article, it includes articles with Pathology too
If its not a stub, like Human betaherpesvirus 5, than this format would not work
If pathology doesnt exist, virology does noot need to be said as a section; move rest up
Main paragraph : <>, also known as <>, is a _ of the _ <> - /1/. (Causes disease, diseases). __ serve as natural hosts./2/
== Pathology
=== Clinical signs
=== Diagnosis
=== Treatment
== Hosts/2/
== Name
== Taxonomy (sometimes called "Species")
== Virology
=== Genome
=== Structure/Morphology
=== Lifecycle
=== Cellular effects
=== Replication
== History
...
/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-page 06:05, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
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 edited SARS-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.
Yaris678 ( talk) 14:41, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
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)
Zoonotic origins of COVID-19 has been nominated at Articles for Deletion. Interested editors may participate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zoonotic origins of COVID-19. TarnishedPath talk 09:47, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for your correction to the "Oryctes rhinoceros" page. As per the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses: ICTV ( https://ictv.global/) there are 2 types of names a)species names which should always be written in italic and b)virus names which should not be written in italic. For the Oryctes rinoceros virus the virus name is "Oryctes rhinoceros nudivirus" (not italic) and the species name is Alphanudivirus oryrhinocerotis (italic). In my view an unnecessarily complicated system. Bernhard Zelazny ( talk) 20:08, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
Your notes on the redirect page Alphanudivirus oryrhinocerotis: This problem is related to the taxonomic system of viruses, where virus names and virus species are basically different names for the same thing. Usually (but not always), there is only one virus name assigned to a given virus species. Therefore, it does not make sense to have different wiki pages for both. The virus name refers to the actual virus particles which we can see under the EM and study, whereas the virus species is an abstract concept, used by the virus taxonomists to express the relation between different viruses. If we translate this to the world of animals and plants, we would have for example an oak tree standing somewhere in a park. We would give this particular tree a name like "OakX125" (the virus name) and study its genetics up to the last nucleotide. From the results we come to the conclusion that "OakX125" (virus name) belongs to the species Quercus bicolor (the virus species). Most botanists would simply say this is a swamp white oak tree (Quercus bicolor), but for virus taxonomists there is a difference between this individual tree and the concept of the species Quercus bicolor. In the case of Alphanudivirus oryrhinocerotis, I simply wanted to avoid an ugly red link, created by the Virusbox template. I don't know if the template could be modified to avoid such red links (not my field). Of course, the template is correct in distinguishing between virus names and virus species. Bernhard Zelazny ( talk) 23:01, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
laboratory virologists write with ease that a particular virus infects, for instance, “European rabbits (Oryctolagus cuniculus)” (rather than erroneously writing that the virus infects “Oryctolagus cuniculus”)
A species cannot go extinct (except if humanity develops amnesia) but it can cease to have members when those go extinct.
|serotype=
, |strain=
and |virus=
, but these are for infraspecific entities, not the "virus name" for a "virus species". When articles have a serotype, strain or virus parameter there is usually an article for the species. Outside of virology, when Wikipedia says something "is a member of the species/genus/family" it can be understood that there are other members of the species/genus/family and that there is an article that covers all of them.|subdivision_ranks=
with "Member virus" to show a single "virus name".
Lloviu virus is one where Wikipedia uses the virus name as the title of the article, and
Sudan ebolavirus is one where Wikipedia uses the (old) virus species as the title. Doing it this way keeps the virus species from displaying as a link.I think this discussion deserves an audience. Could it be pasted (and continued if needs be) here Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Viruses? Best regards, Graham Beards ( talk) 10:52, 26 March 2024 (UTC)