Talk:DNA virus

Archives

Positive or negative (ssDNA)

Is the genome of ssDNA viruses assumed to have a positive orientation (i.e., same as the corresponding mRNA) unless otherwise specified? In reviewing the Baltimore Class II virus families on Viralzone and ICTV, I note that they usually don't specify positive or negative, except when the do -- ?? Compare the following articles on Viralzone:

Smacoviridae: doesn't specify positive or negative.

Anelloviridae: specifies negative.

Spiraviridae: specifies positive.

Bidnaviridae: "Equal amount of positive and negative strands are encapsidated."

So, the question arises, why is Class II, ssDNA viruses, one big class with both positive and negative DNAs, whereas for ssRNA viruses, the positives and negatives are given separate classes?

Anyway, this positive/negative issue needs to be clarified here, I would think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:9000:AC08:A600:648D:D753:3EA1:A647 (talk) 18:11, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You should read Baltimore classification. Graham Beards (talk) 18:49, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or redirect

I previously redirected this article to Baltimore classification#DNA viruses as part of updating and reorganizing Baltimore group articles, but my redirect was undone. I'm starting this section to get opinions on what people think should be done with this article. As is, the bulk of this article is unsourced, outdated, or is miscellaneous information that would not be included in a higher quality article. A complete rewrite is needed, but doing so may be duplicating information from Baltimore classification as well as the three DNA virus realm articles (Duplo/Mono/Varidnaviria), though it may be beneficial to have some information from those four articles in one place. Should this article be kept and rewritten/improved or redirected? Velayinosu (talk) 01:35, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirected to Baltimore classification. Graham Beards (talk) 08:13, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a bit of a mess, so a redirect is the easiest way forward. In the Baltimore classification article, a brief summary about DNA viruses as a whole (perhaps taking parts from this article's lead) right after the Baltimore classification#DNA viruses header would be good, so the redirect was smoother for the reader. --Guest2625 (talk) 09:09, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This should not be done without a WP:MERGE discussion. This is an important article as there is a large amount of sources, and it is in common usage, see Google Scholar [1] for the fact that this term is used in a large number of academic sources. It does not justify merging without going through process. Jules (Mrjulesd) 07:31, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]