Talk:Virus

One Hundred Times Smaller

Explain to me what the term "one hundred times smaller" means... It is both scientifically and grammatically impossible. To use such a term is sloppy, amateurish and unprofessional and for a resource like Wikipedia which is clamouring for respectability, to have such things only adds fodder to claims that it is an unreliable resource. I will be changing the line to "one one-hundredth" every time it is reverted until such time that it is left alone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.144.130.215 (talk) 17:23, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

For goodness sake calm down. Objects' being described as "X times smaller" is idiomatic in British English, but I have changed the wording to "much smaller" Honestly, your demand and florid comments are totally over the top. Graham Colm (talk) 19:24, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I assure you I am very calm, yet annoyed at the low level of writing skills and the insistence upon using of their tortured products. "x times smaller" is not idiomatic in British English, it's a bastardisation of the English language that ultimately has no true meaning. I have on several occasions attempted to bring a semblance of respectability to this resources, only to have my efforts thwarted by people who like to think themselves eloquent when they can barely read or write past a low high school level. 68.144.130.215 (talk) 03:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I fail to see how "one one-hundredth the size" is any better than "one hundred times smaller". The same criticism regarding the vagueness of the implied dimension applies to both expressions. "One one-hundredth the size" may just as easily refer to length or area or volume. Also, I agree with Graham Colm in deeming 68.144.130.215's remarks uncivil.

You may be knowledgeable in the subject, but that doesn't automatically extend into an ability to write about it fluidly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.144.130.215 (talk) 04:28, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

There are over 170,000 academic papers using the phrase "times smaller" in the sense it was used in this article (see here). Given that it's widely used in British and American English, and even scholarly literature, I see no issue in using the idiom here. Please be more civil in your remarks, 68.144.130.215. Emw (talk) 13:09, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

But what does it mean? Length? Volume? Mass? This is not clear. Tomi P (talk) 21:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Same query, is this linear or volumetric comparison? They are significantly different (I also dont like 100 times smaller, but at least if a dimension is added it has a comprehensible meaning)Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 06:56, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Respiration produces carbon dioxide

"The effects of marine viruses are far-reaching; by increasing the amount of respiration in the oceans, viruses are indirectly responsible for reducing the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by approximately 3 gigatonnes of carbon per year."

This sentence does not make sense, since respiration produces carbon dioxide. The cited article does not say what this sentence does.Graham853 (talk) 20:51, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Good point, I think photosynthesis would be a more accurate word, and I will edit the article accordingly. Graham Colm (talk) 21:05, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

How would bacteriophages increase the amount of photosynthesis? The cause and effect relationship is not at all clear to me. 68.197.174.59 (talk) 20:11, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

In the first paragraph it says, "The organic molecules released from the bacterial cells by the viruses stimulates fresh bacterial and algal growth". By the way, plant respiration is more complex than animal respiration and oxygen is produced by this process. [1] Graham Colm (talk) 20:32, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't doubt viruses recycle carbon through the ecosystem, but a stimulation of algal growth does not necessarily lead to decreased levels of carbon dioxide in the long term. Besides, viruses also and lyse algae, so on the whole, they may not necessarily cause a net increase in the level of photosynthesis. I think the point could definitely use more elaboration, perhaps in the marine bacteriophage article. 68.197.174.59 (talk) 21:38, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Is this consistent?

In one place the article says "5,000 viruses have been described in detail", but another part talks of "2,000 recognised species of animal, plant, and bacterial viruses". 86.186.34.238 (talk) 03:51, 3 December 2010 (UTC).

Yes it is. 2000 refers to recognised species, that is by the International Committee for Taxonomy of Viruses. They need to catch up :-) Graham Colm (talk) 18:43, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

"most abundant type of biological entity"

The preamble reads 'Viruses are found in almost every ecosystem on Earth and are the most abundant type of biological entity." What is that supposed to mean? Most widely spread? Certainly not number of species, there are many more Insect species for example. Can it mean greatest number of individual organisms? Nope, Bacteria are more 'abundant' if that is the measured criteria. We need to clarify this claim or remove it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.3.142.136 (talk) 07:31, 30 December 2010 (UTC) #

Bacteria are not more abundant, see marine bacteriophage. Graham Colm (talk) 16:21, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Not sure if this completely makes sense...

"The origin of viruses is unclear because they do not form fossils, so molecular techniques have been the most useful means of investigating how they arose. These techniques rely on the availability of ancient viral DNA or RNA, but, unfortunately, most of the viruses that have been preserved and stored in laboratories are less than 90 years old."

So, it's saying that molecular techniques have been most useful, yet these techniques rely on ancient DNA or RNA that actually does not exist? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.2.205 (talk) 02:07, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree, the wording can be improved; the problem is caused by the use of the word "ancient". In the case of viruses the most "ancient" DNA/RNA available for study is only about 90 years old, which limits the method. I will tweak the text accordingly. Graham Colm (talk) 10:08, 12 February 2011 (UTC)