Talk:Rotavirus: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
→‎rotavirus types: I don't think the article would be improved by adding that, but you can add you proposed text here and we can discuss this.
Line 72: Line 72:


:I don't think the article would be improved by adding that, but you can add you proposed text here and we can discuss this. [[User:Graham Beards|Graham Beards]] ([[User talk:Graham Beards|talk]]) 18:08, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
:I don't think the article would be improved by adding that, but you can add you proposed text here and we can discuss this. [[User:Graham Beards|Graham Beards]] ([[User talk:Graham Beards|talk]]) 18:08, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

== URLs redundant with identifier ==

To answer the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rotavirus&type=revision&diff=1019467506&oldid=1019467286 question about my edit] (sorry about not seeing it earlier): those URLs are redundant because the DOI already conveys the same information (where to locate the work in the publisher's website) and because the template already takes care of linkifying the title.

Also, at least [http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/pmidlookup?view=long&pmid=19056806] looks broken here (bad HTTPS certificate); the existing link [[doi:10.1093/ije/dyn260]] reaches the intended destination which is, I presume, [https://academic.oup.com/ije/article-pdf/38/6/1487/1937347/dyn260.pdf]. [[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 14:44, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Revision as of 14:44, 23 April 2021

Featured articleRotavirus is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 7, 2008.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
November 22, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
November 27, 2007Good article nomineeListed
March 15, 2008Featured article candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article

10 or 9 species

According to the ICTV there is only 9 species of rotavirus : A-J (without E): https://talk.ictvonline.org/taxonomy/ or https://talk.ictvonline.org/files/master-species-lists/m/msl/9601

Does anyone know whether species E still applies? --Julius Senegal (talk) 09:31, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I never saw the reasons the ICTV gave for dropping E. Is it a mistake in their list perhaps. RVE is found in pigs, albeit rarely. Graham Beards (talk) 15:07, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rotavirus E history says it was abolished with the 2019 taxonomy release. According to the Word document, it was abolished because there are no sequence data or isolates of Rotavirus E. E may exist but officially there are 9 species. Velayinosu (talk) 00:57, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your answers. Hence this should be corrected, or clarified that RVE has not been isolated yet? --Julius Senegal (talk) 08:14, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed the text to: "There are nine species of the genus, referred to as A, B, C, D, F, G, H, I and J. Rotavirus A, the most common species, causes more than 90% of rotavirus infections in humans. Rotavirus E, which is seen in pigs, has not been confirmed as a distinct species." Graham Beards (talk) 12:34, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Types of Rotavirus

Hi,

I am thinking to explain more about the specific types of the Rotavirus. I made some edits as well, but were reverted back due to some formatting issues. Can I include the history of the types in their particular section or it goes in the history section of the main article. Any more suggestions that i need to keep in mind while providing details about specific types. I have data about the primary characteristics of these types and their detection techniques. Also, kindly let me know about the issues on my last edit user: Graham Beards. Sidhujupinder (talk) 22:07, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The information was already in the Epidemiology section. Your additions were not an improvement. There were spelling and grammatical errors and the citations you added were old and inconsistently formatted. Extensive descriptions of group B rotavirus (and group C rotaviruses, which you did not mention) is not justified. See WP:BALASP. If you have anything new to add, it would be best to discuss it here first. Graham Beards (talk) 08:45, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

rotavirus types

Should I put new information about the rotaviruses under the section of epidemiology or create another section for it ? Sidhujupinder (talk) 03:09, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What new information do you want to add? Graham Beards (talk) 10:27, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I plan to add information about pathogenicity and history of origin of rotavirus species A-J separately. I saw species A and B has some information provided but the others are missing. Sidhujupinder (talk) 17:27, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the article would be improved by adding that, but you can add you proposed text here and we can discuss this. Graham Beards (talk) 18:08, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

URLs redundant with identifier

To answer the question about my edit (sorry about not seeing it earlier): those URLs are redundant because the DOI already conveys the same information (where to locate the work in the publisher's website) and because the template already takes care of linkifying the title.

Also, at least [1] looks broken here (bad HTTPS certificate); the existing link doi:10.1093/ije/dyn260 reaches the intended destination which is, I presume, [2]. Nemo 14:44, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]