Talk:Norwalk virus
 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
 | The contents of the Norwalk virus page were merged into Norovirus on 2016-12-30 and it now redirects there. For the contribution history and old versions of the merged article please see its history. |
Merger with Norovirus page
[edit]- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
- The result of this discussion, while not heavily trafficked, was to merge. which seems uncontroversial. — soupvector (talk) 14:26, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Despite a few fine points about correct naming of the virus, there is nothing here that isn't already covered in the norovirus page, which is much more comprehensive. I recommend all references to Norwalk Virus be redirected to Norovirus, and let the naming argument be presented there. I will say that I do like the introductory image on this page best though. --71.82.64.203 (talk) 03:43, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- Support – Having two separate articles just to make the point that one is the genus and the other is the species makes no sense, and is just confusing. Let there be only one article, titled with the most common name, which appears to be Norovirus, and put everything into it, including the explanation of the genus-vs-species subtlety. --Deeday-UK (talk) 19:19, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support – Providing two articles about one phenomenon is absurd and confusing. Many more articles could be generated, highlighting one point or another; all equally redundant and thus valueless. Ornithikos (talk) 02:34, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.