Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Viruses

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Viruses (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Viruses, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of viruses on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 

Phlebovirus, Phlebovirus...[edit]

What are we going to do with this genus? Starting with the genus article, the taxobox has dozens of viruses listed. The "serogroups" section has all of these - and many more which may or may not exist - split into serocomplexes, presumably identifying each of the named viruses as a serotype of different species. When looking at the ICTV's taxonomy, Phlebovirus officially has nine species, not ten or 40+ (Bhanja virus may be a novel 10th member[1]). On WP though, some of the serotypes have their own articles, while most species don't. Toscana virus is a subspecies of the Sandfly fever Naples virus species, but Sandfly fever Naples virus has no article. This is one of the messier virus genera on WP, so it would be nice to have some clean up, but how should we deal with it?

I've thought of the creation of the nine species articles, with all of the serotypes/subtypes redirecting to the species article. So "Toscana virus", as well as "Karimabad virus" and "Tehran virus",[2] would redirect to "Sandfly fever Naples virus". This would greatly reduce the number of red links and make the Phlebovirus genus article and its species derivatives neater. Thoughts? ComfyKem (talk) 05:43, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I'd be interested in building up Phlebovirus by writing articles from the red links. I'd hold off redirects until things are better sorted. By that I mean, as the taxonomy of these species are still not clear yet, the serotypes can be unclassified for now. Malke 2010 (talk) 00:47, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
I think some degree of a standard does exist in this classification, just that the words serocomplex and species are being used as synonyms here. My primary reservations with creating an article for every single red link in this genus is that for most of them, there simply aren't enough sources to get the articles above a stub, and some of these serotypes are confirmed by the ICTV as belonging to a species. "Arbia virus" was merged into "Salehabad virus" in 1999.[3] And Adria virus, which I have created, and "Arumowot virus" and "Odrenisrou virus" have recently been proposed to also belong to Salehabad.[4] So wouldn't it be more organized to have a species article with general information on virology, and sections dedicated to each serotype (with redirects to the sections), unless that serotype is exceptionally notable? In that case, like for Toscana virus, it could have its own article. We would have 10-15 starts instead of 40-50 stubs for this genus. ComfyKem (talk) 05:15, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
ComfyKem Yes, it would be. Make the articles based on the serocomplexes and back it up with RS that shows there have been proposals in the literature to incorporate the unclassified species into the particular complex. Like the Arbia, Adria, Arumowot and Odrenisrou, for instance, are unclassified and its been proposed that they be moved into the Salehabad species complex. You have that RS already. You could start that article. Malke 2010 (talk) 19:26, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I'm not a taxonomist by any means, but with my research I have been looking a fair bit at viral taxonomy, and the Wikipedia pages on Viruses seem a bit of a mess in general (Phleboviruses being a good example of this, for the reasons outlined above). Is there a reason why the ICTV isn't used more widespread? It seems bizarre to have a consistent internationally recognised classification for these things, and then to ignore them (to a certain extent?) Daemon24 (talk) 19:50, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
We try to stick to the ICTV's guidelines, but some things happen. Many newer editors who are not familiar with the ICTV's role - or even its existence - in viral taxonomy may not be aware of the "rules" and end up botching taxoboxes et al. There is also the problem that many virus articles get left alone for long periods of time, so recent changes in taxonomy may not reach all virus articles (an argument to substantially reduce the number of virus stubs). There are other things that Malke mentions below, but practically all of the most important virus articles follow the standard, so it's mainly smaller, less viewed, and less important articles which mess the rules up. In these cases, you're welcome to clean up articles if necessary. ComfyKem (talk) 04:58, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Just wanted to make sure that if I did make any changes based on the ICTV breakdown, I wasn't wasting my time working against someone else's ideas! In fact the taxonomy of the Phleboviruses seems to be based upon the 7th/8th reports of the ICTV (where all the 50+ genus listed were actually correct). I'll start making some changes, using Phlebovirus as a starting point; if someonecould keep an eye on it to make sure it doesn't go horribly wrong, that would be greatly appreciated! Daemon24 (talk) 11:55, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Variola virus[edit]

Variola virus currently redirects. But in other languages there is a separate page for the virus d:Q11877169. Just posting this here in case somebody wants to improve inter-Wikipedia-linking. --Tobias1984 (talk) 09:18, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

It should have its own article and not redirect. I've had it on my list of things to do but I've recently had eye surgery and can't spend too much time on Wikipedia just yet. Malke 2010 (talk) 19:13, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Great. And take your time getting well :) --Tobias1984 (talk) 19:18, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Enterovirus 68[edit]

There are emerging reports suggesting that Enterovirus 68 may be responsible for a recent outbreak of polio-like paralytic infectious disease in California. See [5], [6]. There's nothing in the Enterovirus article about this now. I imagine there should be, but since WP:MEDRS probably applies here, haven't been able to find any suitable refs. Is there a special exception for breaking-news medical stories like this? -- Emerine (talk) 16:47, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

  • I have made a stub. There are hundreds of results in Google Scholar for Enterovirus 68. Abductive (reasoning) 16:17, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Italics for family names?[edit]

I have noticed that many virus articles italicize taxonomic names higher than genus. This is an error, right? Abductive (reasoning) 02:29, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

No, it is not an error. Read section 3 IX - "Rules for Orthography" ComfyKem (talk) 14:02, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Oh, thanks. Abductive (reasoning) 05:33, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Inconsistency[edit]

I am admittedly unfamiliar to this WikiProject, and more familiar with articles for cellular organisms. Having said that, it appears to me that there is a lack of consistency for virus articles, or at least in several articles I visited that are associated with the Nucleocytoplasmic large DNA viruses article (yes, I found my way here from the main page). Without the intention to seem arrogant, I listed of some of things I've noticed so far:

General
  • Despite being standard to italicise families, titles of family articles are not italicised

Nucleocytoplasmic large DNA viruses

  • Lists Pithovirus as a family rather than Pithoviridae
  • Links to Pandoravirus rather than Pandoraviridae
  • Does not list Pithoviridae in taxobox

Asfarviridae

  • Asfivirus in taxobox is not bold, despite Asfarviridae being monotypic

Ascovirus

  • Article is titled by genus rather than family
  • Ascovirus in taxobox is not bold, despite Ascoviridae being monotypic

Iridoviridae

  • Iridoviridae in taxobox is not bold

Marseilleviridae

  • Monotypic genus, Marseillevirus, is a separate article rather than keeping info. at family and making name bold in taxobox
  • Marseilleviridae in taxobox is not italicised or bold

Megaviridae

  • Megaviridae in taxobox is not bold

Mimiviridae

  • Mimiviridae in taxobox has not been italicised and is not bold

Pandoraviridae

  • Monotypic genus, Pandoravirus, has separate article rather than keeping info. at family and making name bold in taxobox

Pithovirus

  • Article is titled by genus rather than family!
  • Both Pithoviridae and Pithovirus are not bold

I would appreciate it if anyone could confirm that these are actually mistakes before I go ahead and ruin it all. One particularly big change would be moving Pithovirus to Pithoviridae, given that it is currently linked on the main page. I fear these (believed) problems are not confined to just Nucleocytoplasmic large DNA viruses articles. If so, I guess it would be a reflection of virus classification only getting to it's feet. JamesDouch (talk) 12:23, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

There is a lot of inconsistency. But any editor can create separate articles about a species, genus, family, etc. So long as they have reliable sources, there shouldn't be a problem. Especially among the emerging viruses, it's best to allow for separate articles. Regarding Pithovirus, I would not move it to the family name. It would be better to create an article about the family. As you may be aware, virus families can be extremely divergent. An article about the characteristics of the family would be welcome. But attempting to put everything into one article can be problematic and leave the article susceptible to vandalism.
As for the inconsistency in italics/bold in names, that's just down to editors being focused on the topic, getting the reliable sources, and putting it all together, especially when creating the article. It's easy to miss those details. Also, some editors might not be aware of the convention as not every editor has a background in the topic. Malke 2010 (talk) 17:29, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
But wouldn't it be conventional to merge two articles that describe the same thing? For example, Marseilleviridae apparently only contains one genus, Marseillevirus, and therefore all content is actually referring to the same thing. In other WikiProjects at least, it's conventional to merge such articles to the highest ranking taxon. Assuming this is not your convention, then how far in the other direction is it normally taken? Should one article be created for the monotypic Pithovirus, and then another for Pithovirus sibericum? JamesDouch (talk) 22:39, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
The knowledge base in virology is rapidly changing as new technologies emerge. The articles you mention above will easily be expanded over time, and likely sooner than later. Keeping things separate keeps things coherent and provides an excellent framework to build up Wikipedia's virus content. Malke 2010 (talk) 00:16, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Viruses talk:Flavivirus[edit]

There appear to be conflicting statements below: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flavivirus

"Most of these viruses are transmitted by the bite from an infected arthropod (mosquito or tick) and hence, classified as arboviruses. " seems to conflict with the later statement: "The known non-arboviruses of the flavivirus family either reproduce in arthropods or vertebrates, but not both."

If it's a non-arbovirus how would it reproduce in an arthropod?

1medhead (talk) 22:16, 5 April 2014 (UTC)1medhead

Although it is not a formal term in virus classification, an arbovirus is one that is transmitted to humans via arthropods not just a virus that reproduces in arthropods. There is no contradiction. Graham Colm (talk) 10:54, 6 April 2014 (UTC)