Talk:Obelisk (biology): Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 00:54, 1 February 2024

Viruses Unassessed High‑importance

	Viruses portal This article 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.VirusesWikipedia:WikiProject VirusesTemplate:WikiProject Virusesvirus articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Obelisk - merger(s) would help?

Currently - seems there's several wikilinks to the purportedly newly discovered life form "obelisk" - "Obelisk (virology)" and "Obelisk (life form)" and "Obelisk (viroid)" - perhaps some merger(s) would help? - Comments Welcome - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 14:10, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support mergers JM (talk) 14:13, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At least two of these three names are a bit problematic:

Obelisk (life form): Many scientists don't consider viruses as life forms, for subviral agents it is even more doubtful.
Obelisk (viroid): The references consider obelisks as substantially different from known viroids, we should await the position of ICTV for both update of The International Code of Virus Classification and Nomenclature and updated and ratified ICTV Virus Taxonomy containing obelisks (to be mentioned: 1. there is no proposal yet for implementing obelisks, so it could pend some years; 2. the circular form of their RNA is similar to viroids, but obelisks contain genes that are unlike any discovered so far in other genoms, which may indicate a completely new realm).
Obelisk (virology) is O.K. due to Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Naming the specific topic articles, but the parenthetical disambiguation specifies the context to which the topic applies, not the generic class. The options could be Obelisk (viruslike entity) or Obelisk (viroid-like entity). --Petr Karel (talk) 15:55, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Science (journal) uses viruslike entity. JM (talk) 15:59, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I used "(virology)" because the subject is quite obviously being studied by virologists. I'm very, very curious how this topic develops...--Paragem (talk) 20:51, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that all proposed names are better than "(life form)". I also suggest "(biology)". When I read the Nature article, its description seems to be less sensational than the article (and especially the proposed WP:ITN/C entry). —Paleo Neonate – 00:54, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the news nomination

An item related to this article has been nominated to appear on the Main Page in the "In the news" section. You can visit the nomination to take part in the discussion. Editors are encouraged to update the article with information obtained from reliable news sources to include recent events.
Notice date: 31 January 2024. Please remove this template when the nomination process has concluded, replacing it with Template:ITN talk if appropriate.

Better image

Don't you think that the current image (an Egyptian obelisk) it is a bit confusing ?

I think a proper image could be something like this of a viroid :

Alexcalamaro (talk) 18:44, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, the RNA folds into an obelisk-like shape, not into rods. Also, the RNA might spiral around its longitudinal axis. Maybe we could just hang around like sloths for a while, and look what illustrations the scientific journals will come up with--Paragem (talk) 20:53, 31 January 2024 (UTC).[reply]

@@ Line 14: / Line 14: @@
 :I used "(virology)" because the subject is quite obviously being studied by virologists. I'm very, very curious how this topic develops...--[[User:Paragem|Paragem]] ([[User talk:Paragem|talk]]) 20:51, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
+:I think that all proposed names are better than "(life form)".  I also suggest "(biology)".  When I read the Nature article, its description seems to be less sensational than the article (and especially the proposed [[WP:ITN/C]] entry).  —[[User:PaleoNeonate|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#44a;text-shadow:2px 2px 3px DimGray;">Paleo</span>]][[User talk:PaleoNeonate|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#272;text-shadow:2px 2px 3px DimGray;">Neonate</span>]] – 00:54, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 == In the news nomination ==