Talk:Rotavirus/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Cross Immunity

Does immunity to one strain of the virus result in partial immunity to the others? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.203.58.1 (talk) 13:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes.--GrahamColm^Talk 15:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

It depends at great deal on how many generations the viruses are apart. Some strains could be completly diffrent from each other by now.Skeletor 0 (talk) 18:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

For an RNA virus, rotaviruses are remarkably stable genetically. The mutation rate is low and the same serotypes have been circulating in humans and other animals for decades. If rotaviruses were highly mutable, (like HIV), control of rotavirus disease by vaccination would not be possible. (See Rotavirus Vaccine Program). GrahamColm^Talk 15:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

That is quite interesting. I didn't think that any RNA viruses were that stable. Of course I don't know as much about this as you so why am I talking anyway?Skeletor 0 (talk) 17:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Talk away, this is the Talk page. Poliovirus is a stable RNA virus, hence the vaccine being so effective, as is Hepatitis A virus, Rubella virus, Measles and Mumps. It is the "newer" RNA viruses such as HIV that are highly mutable and thus difficult to develop vaccines against. GrahamColm^Talk 18:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

(Stale topic, but hey...) Per the Baltimore Classification, there are several groups of RNA viruses. HIV is an RNA retrovirus, and it is the "retro" aspect, the reverse transcription by which the virus is transcribed into a chromosome of the host's DNA, that introduces so much variation in HIV. On the other hand, equine infectious anemia (EIA) is also a retrovirus, yet seems to be far less variable than HIV. And there is a vaccine for EIA, in use in China for decades and purported to be highly effective but (as far as I know) it is used nowhere else. In the United States, EIA has been the subject of a national control program since the 1970's. I don't know what GrahamColm had in mind by "newer" RNA viruses. Newer recognition? Newer evolutionary history? Quibbles about details aside, HIV probably does have a very recent evolutionary history, compared to most other viruses infecting humans, but usually that newness would confer low diversity. --Una Smith (talk) 20:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Focus?

Children are referenced at least 28 times in this article. I am not a child, nor do I have any. I am trying to determine whether or not this virus has caused the gastroenteritis I've suffered for the past week, and all I see is a single confusing blurb about the "adult version." I suggest a cleanup for this article either making it less child-centric, or a clarification pointing out that this virus is so uncommon in adults that adults are barely worth discussing! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.246.221.99 (talk) 00:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The reason children are mentioned 28 times is that viral infections that travel the fecal-oral route are far more common in young children who are prone to the sort of habits that carry fecal contamination to their mouth than adults are, and because it is an important cause of childhood malnutrition, disease, and death. General encyclopedia articles are not written in any way to assist in self-diagnosis of diseases, so no rewrite of this article will help with what you seek. --Blechnic (talk) 02:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The difference between children and adults is not their hand washing habits, but the fact that adults are largely immune, having been already thoroughly infected when they were children. The article does try to make this point...I will look at it again. --Una Smith (talk) 19:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

This point has come up before, in various forms; other contributors here may recall months ago someone wanting details about rotavirus infecting cruise ship passengers. Yes, the lead does say (by omission) that rotavirus is not a major cause in adults, but readers are missing that point. Only a tiny minority of readers bother to give feedback, so I regard feedback re any misunderstanding as important. Especially if I notice the same misunderstanding more than once. Subject experts can read text that, with elegant economy of words, conveys meaning by omission, but most encyclopedia readers are not subject experts. I think this particular omission is a problem for readers. How about this? --Una Smith (talk) 20:29, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• For It is the leading cause of severe diarrhoea among infants and young children.
• Use It is a minor cause of severe diarrhoea among adults and the leading cause among infants and young children.

• Una, How about putting something at the end of here:

However, with each infection, immunity develops, (and) subsequent infections are less severe and adults are rarely affected. Graham. GrahamColm^Talk 20:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• Changed to:

However, with each infection, immunity develops, subsequent infections are less severe, and adults are rarely affected. GrahamColm^Talk 21:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Bots exclusion template

This article has the bots exclusion template ( {{bots}}) applied to it. This template should generally be a temporary fix until the article or bot can be changed, to resolve the underlying problem. Please explain here why the template is being used so that the article or bot can be fixed if possible. Rich Farmbrough, 16:18 7 September 2008 (GMT).

• I have removed the template which was left there by mistake. Graham Colm ^Talk 21:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I want to vaccinate dogs with Rotarix vaccine ! Will it work?! Doesn't it dangerous for the dog ?He has the wild virus and enteritis !

I want to vaccinate dogs with Rotarix vaccine ! Will it work?! Doesn't it dangerous for the dog ?He has the wild virus and enteritis !

If somebody can help me in this question please do it !

a 3 years old and a 6 months old dog, both of them hes chronic intermittating diarhoea. After the examination of the fecal samples in the veterinarian laboratory the diagnos vos Rotavirus !!

Has anybody data from experiences of using Rotarix vaccine in dogs ???!!!

my e-mail adress in Hungary, Erd : allatorvos@freemail.hu My telephone number : 06 20 216 6979 My website: allatorvos-erd.fw.hu

THANK YOU VERY MUTCH FOR YOUR HELP ! Matejevszki Aszen dr. veterinarian doctor —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.92.168.6 (talk) 12:03, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

• There is no evidence that the vaccine prevents canine rotavirus infections. In any case, it is too late, as the dogs already have the infection. In humans the vaccine prevents severe infections; it can not be used to treat infected children, (and probably dogs). I hope the dogs get better soon. Graham Colm ^Talk 12:50, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Any additional details on the age of vaccination?

Why are the vaccinations only available to very young infants? It would seem that a wider audience would benefit from vaccine. Does anyone have additional information on this? As an aside, this is a VERY well written and researched article. Kudos to those involved!

• Thanks for your kind comments about the article. The vaccines afford protection against group A rotaviruses only. Since nearly all people are naturally immune to group A rotavirus before they reach adulthood, vaccination of older children and adults would be pointless. Graham Colm ^Talk 19:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Icosahedral capsid?

The article states that Rotavirus has an icosahedral capsid (like T4 bacteriophages?)

Yet almost all the images show a strikingly spherical outer capsid having a very regular pattern of large-molecular protrusions. What gives? Also, can the structure of a rotavirus please be described to the same level of detail as that of T2/T4 bacteriophages? Also, can the method of forming endosomes during infection (presumably involving invagination) please be diagrammed? David Spector (talk) 19:17, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you take a look at this article, Truncated icosahedron, which shows how objects with icosahedral symmetry can be spheres. The outer capsid is formed from repeated pentamers and hexamers of the virus's protein VP7. The inner capsid is similarly formed by molecules of VP6. The protrusions are molecules of VP4. I don't think a diagram showing endocytosis of the virus particle would be helpful. Graham Colm (talk) 05:13, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Reorganisation

This article has just be reorganised "per MEDMOS". However, both WP:MEDMOS and WP:TECHNICAL discourage editors from putting highly technical articles at the start of an article (Virology). I note that in the MEDMOS discussion that added Virology to the suggested sections here both WhatAmIDoing and Graham Colm strongly felt Virology should go at the end, citing Rotavirus as an example. I think virology should be moved to the end and MEDMOS adjusted (guidelines should document best-practice, and this is a featured article).

I see that "Transmission" has been moved within "Virology". Where should the line be drawn?

What benefit was gained by renaming "Disease mechanisms" to "Pathophysiology"? Our FAs use "Mechanism". I think it is about time MEDMOS dropped "Pathophysiology" as jargon.

I see that "Diagnosis and detection" has been renamed "Diagnosis". However, some of the techniques described there don't appear to be used for diagnosis, just research.

The Virology section now has images "sandwiching" the text, which is discouraged per MOS:IMAGES.

I wonder if the long-standing MEDMOS order of having "Prevention" between "Diagnosis" and "Treatment" is right. Prevention is more of a public health issue more related to Epidemiology section than the physician aspects of diagnose and treat. Should this be moved? Several other FAs have the MEDMOS order, though this one didn't.

I feel like bolding the text in MEDMOS that says "Changing an established article simply to fit these guidelines might not be welcomed by other editors." MEDMOS has always been cautious in suggesting titles/orderings, because our disease articles are so varied. Colin°^Talk 11:36, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I have restored the article to the version of 30 August. The reorganisation was not an improvement – quite the contrary. I agree with Colin's comments: Such radical changes to this FA should have been discussed here first, then at the virus project, and lastly at the medicine project. This article has been stable since it was promoted to FA in 2008, apart from some updating of the references. I thought long and hard about where to put the virology section, and after discussions with other editors, decided that this, rather technical section, belonged at the end. Virologists will be interested in reading this section, but most lay readers will not be. Of course, I don't own this contribution, but neither does the medicine project. The article has been translated, as currently organised, and is featured on a least one other language Wikipedia. What on earth were these edits trying to achieve? I am open to suggestions on how to improve the article, but I think they should be discussed here first. Please remember that virologists, veterinarians, lay readers as well as health care professionals will be reading this article. I am rather annoyed. Graham Colm (talk) 17:52, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

New meta-study on mortality

Would it be appropriate to replace the WHO article cited in the lead (regarding worldwide mortality) with this, more up-to-date, systematic review? Gabbe (talk) 11:50, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes of course, but we would have to change the sentence a little to read "around 500,000". Graham Colm (talk) 12:53, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Done. Gabbe (talk) 11:02, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Gabbe, I was waiting for the article to appear on PubMed. Graham Colm (talk) 13:47, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I updated the "nearly 500,000" to "more than 450,000" based on the new meta-study on mortality. This estimate is now widely uses on the global health community.

If you don't agree with the application of "85 percent of whom live in developing countres" because it is based on the old estimate of 527,000 then perhaps a good approach would be to soften the language to "the majority of whom live in developing countries." ChildSurvival (talk) 20:18, 4 May 2012 (UTC)ChildSurvival

Thanks, I have done that. Graham Colm (talk) 20:29, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Update

I plan to update the references as much of the information is in books and review articles now. There are more (unused) sources compliant with WP:MEDRS, thanks to the success of the vaccine, compared to what was available when I first worked on the article. Graham Colm (talk) 20:34, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Grammar

"Stomach flu" is neither a proper noun nor a verb, and should have a definite article preceding it. The article is written text, and so should follow the rules of linguistics. Even still, the following are never used in grammatically correct speech:

• You've got stomach flu.
• I had stomach flu.
• Stomach flu is spreading.

The correct grammar is:

• You've got the stomach flu.
• I had the stomach flu.
• The stomach flu is spreading.

-- ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 20:01, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I'll also note that this article was switched to British English[1], so if not using "the" is a British English thing, I'll happily convert the rest of the article back to the original dialect. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 20:06, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Right here - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 20:11, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi, please see this discussion [2] regarding the version of English used. I must be mad engaging in a discussion over the presence or absence of a definitive article, but we don't say "the hepatitis B" or "the AIDS or "the measles" or "the rubella" or "the syphilis" or "the gonorrhoea", but we do use "the 'flu" or just "'flu". When there is an influenza epidemic, I might say "I have had the 'flu", at other times I would say "I have had 'flu". It is acceptable to say "also known as stomach 'flu" or "also known as the stomach 'flu", but in British English, in which this article was extensively expanded by me from a stub, it sounds odd. I will not continue to engage in this discussion because I have better things to do with my time here. Graham Colm (talk) 21:21, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, please see that previous discussion, for you are making the same lame mistake. I find it astounding that shortly after discussing the issue of editor retention, you engage in an edit war over the word "the" in a featured article, and then offer to piss off the expert who wrote it by translating the whole thing into an unfamiliar dialect just to make a point. Shame on you. Colin°^Talk 21:40, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I fail to see how one revert on my behalf makes an edit war, in addition to the fact that the revert by GrahamColm failed to mention it was a reversion of my edit. The use of the in this case is correct in both dialects and makes more sense, in my opinion... but apparently just raising such thoughts pisses people off. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 00:00, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Your revert was the second time you inserted "the" into the sentence, without discussion and without establishing consensus. That's edit warring. It is surprising how many people think you have to approach or exceed the 3RR before it becomes disruptive. I'm glad to see you've accepted that adding "the" is merely an improvement in "your opinion" rather than claiming the former was "grammatically incorrect". Your opening sentence in this section is just plain wrong. Raising such thoughts is fine and, although one might run the risk of looking silly by stating some false grammar "rule" with conviction, it is good to learn from others. Edit warring over such things is not fine. But what is worse is that, on discovering that perhaps there's a regional preference involved, you dug through the article history to see if you could find a way to change the entire article to your prefered dialect. Which is not only against our guideline on English variations but is extremely pointy too. Colin°^Talk 07:57, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Two points to make on that: 1) I'm one of the first editors of this article, so I was already aware it was switched. I just started digging to find out why and when. This is neither wrong nor pointy, but inquisitive (plus WP:RETAIN is a case against the change made in this article - it had significant content and a stable language dialect for several years; but I digress), regardless, in non-British English, it is grammatically incorrect. 2) I don't need to establish consensus to insert it the first time. I reverted once. This does not make an edit war. Full stop. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 13:51, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

You are just plain wrong about edit warring. Yes, you don't need to establish consensus the first time (BOLD) but after being clearly reverted by Graham, you should have discussed. Instead you treated Graham like you might a vandal and just reverted back your edit. Effectively saying, I don't care what Graham thinks, my edit is going in damit. If you still don't understand what you did wrong, then go ask someone wise because I've had enough and you don't seem to want to listen. Colin°^Talk 15:59, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Btw, the "significant content" you refer to was in fact created by a 100% copy/paste of Bad Bug Book: Rotavirus. Colin°^Talk 19:08, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

The "stomach flu" fact is a minor issue for this article per WP:WEIGHT. Sources (lay and professional) discussing rotavirus nearly always fail to mention "stomach flu" but are happy to use the word "gastroenteritis". Many sources discussing gastroenteritis mention the various lay terms, of which "stomach flu" is merely one. For this reason, I've moved "stomach flu" out of the lead sentence (it isn't a key or defining fact) but have kept it in the lead further down. Colin°^Talk 19:08, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps it is more common over here. From my understanding (growing up in a family of nurses), stomach flu or 24 hour flu refers to infectious viral or bacterial enteritis (thus not caused by food-poisoning). Stomach flu currently redirects to the enteritis article (which didn't exist when I originally added the term many years ago). - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 19:15, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Organization

I propose we split this article into two similar to the follow:

• Hepatitis C and Hepatitis C virus
• Hepatitis B and Hepatitis B virus

We could name these Rotavirus gastroenteritis and Rotavirus (virus) maybe. The first would deal with the disease. The second would deal with the virology. It would keep things clear for our readers.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:25, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

See earlier discussion at User talk:GrahamColm/Archive1#Rotavirus and rotaviral enteritis, which examined the issue with proposed versions at User:Colin/Rotavirus and User:Colin/Rotaviral enteritis, the latter of which is an ICD10 name. Colin°^Talk 11:17, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Excellent glad to see you agreed with me in the past :-) I have no strong feeling about the name and would be happy with "rotaviral enteritis" I see two main reasons for this change 1) it would help create some form of consistency between disease related articles. 2) it would keep content more generally orientated with respect to our readership. I am not talking about separating the virology just providing it due weight within a main disease oriented article with a sub article dealing with virology in depth (a general audience will be more interested in the disease rotavirus cases than the protein structure of the virus ). We do this for many of our articles. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:31, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the proposal. This is a relatively short, self-contained Featured Article, that has been stable (apart from my updating) for four years. I have received praise for this article from lay readers and specialists, having expanded it from a stub. The splitting of Hepatitis B didn't work; Hepatitis B virus was created in short-lived bout of enthusiasm and has been neglected ever since. The virology remains in the parent article. I don't understand how splitting the article will "keep things clear for our readers". Recent edits have contravened policy, where it says "Editors are asked to take particular care when editing a Featured article; it is considerate to discuss significant changes of text or images on the talk page first. Explaining civilly why sources and policies support a particular version of a featured article does not constitute ownership". This is the second time this has been done by the same editor, despite earlier discussions. I am restoring the version as of yesterday, pending a full discussion and consensus here. Graham Colm (talk) 17:42, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

There are a number of other concerns including:

A number of old primary sources that need updating including: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6436397 (1984 primary source), https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2570978 (1989 primary source), https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17596825 ( a primary source of a small number of cases ), https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8752285 (a 1996 primary source), https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6144874 (1984 primary source), https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2555422 (1989 primary source).

See also sections are not recommended per WP:MEDMOS. Bacterial gastroenteritis redirects to gastroenteritis which is already linked in the text

It is unclear if this article is about a disease or a virus. It partly applies WP:MEDMOS but not really. I have moved the disease related content to rotavirus enteritis to create a disease related article. And this can be kept at as the virus related article. Does WP:VIRUS have a recommended structure of articles pertaining to viruses to maintain consistency across the field?

It is not recommended that articles have multiple infoboxes in the lead.

The UNICEF quote is basically a duplication of text in the epidemiology section.

Not sure why we have this [3] as an external link.

We have a section called "Infections of animals" Humans are animals thus we use "infections in other animals" per WP:MEDMOS Anyway will continue working on the other page.

Why both "Diagnosis and detection" when one would think one is enough

BTW forgot about having done this 3 years ago. With respect to the hepatitis B virus article it is much longer than the summary present in the hepatitis B article. BTW one of our policies is WP:BOLD. I will not re address these concerns by editing the article and will simply them here. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:59, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

We also have herpes simplex and herpes simplex virus. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:35, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

• With regard to the sources, please see above under the heading Update and the article history. I am working on the sources, in between other commitments both here and in real life.
• The See Also section can be trimmed or deleted, since there is a link to gastroenteritis in the article.
• All of those ICD infoboxes should be done away with in my opinion - they don't contain any useful information.
• The UNICEF quote box is a standard way of highlighting key facts.
• I suggest you take a closer look at the external link in question, it's about controlling diarrhoeal disease in the countries where it is still a major health issue.
• Your point about humans being animals is too trivial to be worthy of discussion.
• You didn't do this 3 years ago; it was only 8 months ago.
• You have contravened policy twice, and you are going against Wikipedia:Content forking by creating Rotavirus enteritis and pasting content from this article, and Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia by not providing attribution.
• Wikiproject viruses is not that active, so we only have our Featured Articles to use as a guide, and this article is one of them.

None of the points you have raised above are valid reasons for your actions. I get rather frustrated with WP:MED almost dictating what readers should know. I deliberately put the virology at the bottom of the article so readers could chose whether to read it or not. Some may find it inspiring to see just how much is known about this pathogen. (I also see that you have unilaterally decided that phagocytes (another FA) do not fall under the scope of WP:Med why not?) Rotavirus was vigorously reviewed for it's FA nom, and none of your points were raised. If you have strong views why not take this contribution to WP:FAR? I am all for being bold but your cavalier editing has been disruptive. Graham Colm (talk) 19:50, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Attribution was given in the first edit as seen here [4] Yes you are right I did rearrange in Sept of last year rather than 3 years ago but I did not split any content. I do not see what I have done as a co tract. Feel free to remove the infobox disease. Removed phagocyte as per this guideline regarding cell signaling [5]. But that has nothing to do with this article.

Do you not think there should be a recommended format for articles on viruses? I have managed to write 11 GA and have worked extensive on two FAs with my cavalier disruptive editing. If you would prefer to do this through WP:FAR I guess we could. Anyway the content you write is definitely of high quality just a little virus oriented. This article by word count for example is 37% virology 63% other stuff. Thus there is an issue of WP:DUE Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:28, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

And we also have dengue fever and dengue virus. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:36, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I contributed to Dengue fever as you may recall. The discussion about Phagocyte should not take place here, but, the assessment says "unless there is significant medical information in the article". I consider the section headed "Host damage by phagocytes" significant. The edit summary in question says, "split off from rotavirus to write from a disease", it should have said "copied". I think this is getting rather silly. You don't like to see the virology in the article, but I do. And now you have created an article that very few readers will search for and one that just duplicates this one and probably would not survive a deletion proposal. Put "rotavirus" in the Google search box and see which page is at the top. It's this one, and has been for years. Who is going to search for "Rotavirus enteritis" for goodness sake? Graham Colm (talk) 20:52, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I find if articles that deal with a similar subject have a consistent layout they are easier to edit and read which why I continue to bring this up. Yes the term rotavirus gets the most hits. Sure I could have/should have said copied from rotavirus rather than split (I see the term as nearly synonymous but yes copied would be more correct). Not sure if it would survive a deletion request but this would generate more discussion on how best to layout medical content which may be useful. With respect to phagocyte I am not sure if one section is enough to have something WPMED. Lead and a bunch of other elements where within WPMED but my position is we should limit WPMED to Lead poisoning etc. I did not mean this change as a slit against that article or your work. I really appreciated your efforts on dengue fever and of course remember your involvement (one reason why I brought it up). I like to see an overview of virology in articles it is just stuff like tables of the 11 proteins with the kDa and number of basepairs that is a little to much detail as an overview. Hepatitis_C#Virology which I worked on could probably use more. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:44, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

PS. Perhaps we should move one and maybe do something with Norovirus? And I would be happy to work with you on Gastroenteritis, your current GA nomination, if you have FA aspirations. Graham Colm (talk) 21:08, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

If you are needing publications Open Medicine is interested in having Wikipedia article submitted to them for further peer review followed by pubmed indexing as outlined here. This is something we could look at doing with gastroenteritis Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:50, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

More on history?

http://www.australasianscience.com.au/article/issue-november-2013/saving-young-lives-million.html-0

posted by Cool Nerd (talk) 18:56, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

This is not entirely accurate and it is more relevant to Ruth Bishop. Graham Colm (talk) 05:58, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

7 Groups

The article currently says there are types A-E. Aren't there seven groups, A-G? See the Miguel O'Ryan paper already cited on this page. 140.180.254.156 (talk) 01:08, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Recent edits

I have reverted recent edits for three reasons:

• The changes to the History section, which were copied directly from Carter and Saunders, were not accurate and I will contact the authors of the book point out this error.
• The changes to the replication section were also copied from the same source. In this case, the information is debated rather than inaccurate.
• The references had been messed up by changing the names of defined citations, presumably by mistaking them for ISBN numbers, (possibly by a bot). Graham Beards (talk) 07:27, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Quote box

The quote box in the Epidemiology section contains out-of-date numbers for rotavirus deaths in children under the age of 5. The latest estimates come from this article: http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/content/62/suppl_2/S96.full — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChildSurvival (talk • contribs) 19:27, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes I agree. I have deleted the quote box. I'll take a look at the other data and update if necessary. Thanks. Graham Beards (talk) 20:30, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Other Updates

In the section Prevention the following sentence occur: "In Europe, hospitalisation rates following infection by rotavirus have decreased from 65% to 84% following the introduction of the vaccine." Should likely be changed to "...have decreased by 65% to 84% following...".

The link "faecal-oral route": I am going to change to “fecal-oral route” since it links to a page titled the same.

The article is written in British English see WP:ENGVAR and this should not be changed. Graham Beards (talk) 05:58, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

The top heading on the virus under species lists Species A through H, but in the section titled “Epidemiology” only Rotavirus A, B, and C are mentioned. It would be good to find articles talking about some of these other types of rotavirus.

That's because only species A, B and C infect humans. And epidemiology refers only to humans. Graham Beards (talk) 06:04, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

I found that Group A, B, and C have been found in humans and other mammals while Group E has been detected only in pigs and Groups D, F, and G have been found only in birds. This could be added to "Other Animals" section as well.

The article states: “Almost every child has been infected with rotavirus by age five” and then cited an article that says nothing of the sort. Rather, this article examined literature published 2000-2004 about rotavirus cases in children and found that the proportion of diarrheal hospitalizations due to rotavirus have increased between the observed years. This original citation is important to me to fix since the claim has no foundation in literature.

The source says "The disease is ubiquitous, affecting nearly all children by the age of 5 years." Graham Beards (talk) 06:04, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Paige1.0 (talk) 21:22, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

What would be useful is an update on the viral proteins see [6] Graham Beards (talk) 10:13, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Rotavirus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20121209041049/http://vir.sgmjournals.org/cgi/reprint/76/11/2633 to http://vir.sgmjournals.org/cgi/reprint/76/11/2633
• Added archive https://archive.is/20120526030014/http://vir.sgmjournals.org/cgi/reprint/77/9/2059 to http://vir.sgmjournals.org/cgi/reprint/77/9/2059
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160712033209/http://rotacouncil.org/toolkit/rotavirus-burden-vaccine-introduction-map/ to http://rotacouncil.org/toolkit/rotavirus-burden-vaccine-introduction-map/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:14, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rotavirus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170310044843/https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/table-of-contents.html to https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/table-of-contents.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:17, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Rotavirus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20120526030014/http://vir.sgmjournals.org/cgi/reprint/77/9/2059 to http://vir.sgmjournals.org/cgi/reprint/77/9/2059
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160712033209/http://rotacouncil.org/toolkit/rotavirus-burden-vaccine-introduction-map/ to http://rotacouncil.org/toolkit/rotavirus-burden-vaccine-introduction-map/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:35, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

References

Italics

According to the link referenced by @Graham Beards: How to write a virus name, "Like a species name, a higher taxon name is written in italics and begins with a capital letter." As Rotavirus is a genus, it is italicized. Also, Template:Virusbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) is the preferred taxobox for viral taxa, as consensus shows. --Nessie (talk) 21:28, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

The ICTV source goes on to say: "A virus name should never be italicized, even when it includes the name of a host species or genus, and should be written in lower case. This ensures that it is distinguishable from a species name, which otherwise might be identical. The first letters of words in a virus name, including the first word, should only begin with a capital when these words are proper nouns (including host genus names but not virus genus names) or start a sentence. Single letters in virus names, including alphanumerical strain designations, may be capitalized. In most texts, virus names are used much more frequently than species names and may, therefore, be abbreviated." (My emphasis). I have had this problem before with editors who are not familiar with viral nomenclature. And why does the taxobox not give the family Reoviridae? Graham Beards (talk) 21:30, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

You confuse the infraspecific clade virus, which is akin to Strain (biology), with the domain virus. Rotavirus is a genus, not a member virus. --Nessie (talk) 21:34, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Clearly, you are out of your depth with regard to viral taxonomy and nomenclature. I suggest you familiarise yourself with the links I have provided. We do not write Hepatitis B Virus we write hepatitis B virus. Same with poliovirus, hepatitis C virus and cytomegalovirus. However, we capitalise the names of of viruses that are derived from proper nouns, eg. Ebola virus, but we do not use italics. Graham Beards (talk) 21:41, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

You are the confused one. Hepatitis B virus and poliovirus are not species, genus, or higher clades of virus. It is not italicized. Cytomegalovirus is a genus, and like is on ICTV's site, it is italicized. --Nessie (talk) 21:52, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

FFS read the sources. Over and out. Graham Beards (talk) 21:54, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

You haven't cited any sources. @Peter coxhead: you've had to work on the orthography for the taxonomy templates, can you clarify things? --Nessie (talk) 21:59, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure how this thread started, but the situation seems quite clear.

• It has been agreed that we should follow the latest ICTV taxonomy, which can be accessed as an Excel spreadsheet at [7], and which has been set up here at List of virus taxa.
• The names of all the taxa listed in this source are italicized.
• The lowest rank in the list is species. Ranks lower than this, e.g. strains or entities at the rank of virus, do not have italicized names. Care has to be taken when using the word "virus" because it can be used generally, as in "the virus family Reoviridae" or to refer to a rank below species.
• Strictly speaking, taxa not recognized by the ICTV should not have italicized names. However, this seems to me slightly problematic in Wikipedia, where we have to follow WP:NPOV and WP:OFFICIALNAMES are not always regarded as definitive.
• A tricky issue, which occurs elsewhere, is when the scientific name and the commonly used English name for a group of organisms are the same, a situation which is not restricted to viruses (e.g. members of the genus Rhododendron are rhododendrons). The advice given at Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants#The use of botanical names as common names seems to me to apply here. If possible, use the English name in the plural (here "rotaviruses" in this case) so that it is clearly distinguished from the genus name (here Rotavirus).

Peter coxhead (talk) 23:01, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks Peter. I agree entirely with you wrt when commonly used English name for a group of organisms are the same. This is what ICTV addressed in the link I gave. Graham Beards (talk) 23:09, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

I've been through the article, italicizing when it's clear that a species name is used, and pluralizing when the English name is used and the sense allows (quite a few uses were already plural). It's always a matter of judgement as to when one or the other usage is intended, so I'm happy for others to make changes. But the principle should be to be clear as to which use is which. Peter coxhead (talk) 23:23, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Peter. That was a wise resolution and one that I will apply in other virus articles. Graham Beards (talk) 23:27, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)