Talk:Virus/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Merging Virology

I propose merging Virology into Virus. I think the content in Virology, a neglected article, is covered better in this article and its progeny History of virology and Social history of viruses. Graham Beards (talk) 11:37, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

I need more convincing. The scientific study of something and the something are two quite different entities and surely an encyclopaedia should have both for such a major topic. Perhaps the problem is that the History section of Virus really should be in the Virology article, and doesn't belong here at all (we have Origins instead). The article here should focus on current knowledge about viruses, whereas the Virology article is the natural place for focusing on our evolving understanding of them over time, and the different ways we examine and think about them. -- Colin°^Talk 13:20, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

We have a similar issue with Bacteria and Bacteriology, where Bacteriology is somewhat neglected. On the other hand Bird and Ornithology complement each other nicely, so I see your point. Virology describes viruses more than the methods we use (and have ceased to use) to study them - and the history section there is a disjointed mixture of the two. I so I guess, my issue is with the poor state of Virology in that case. There is stuff that still belongs in both. Virus classification is totally artificial in that it bears no relationship to evolution; it's just a tool that virologists use. Yet Virus would be considered incomplete if it were not included. On reflection, if we took everything out of Virus that was strictly virology, I don't think there would be much left behind. For instance, is viral epidemiology not an aspect of virology? I think your suggestion might require re-writing both articles: something I don't want to take on at the moment. Graham Beards (talk) 14:00, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

PS. I know I might be biased but I see Virology as a subsection of Virus (but not vice versa of course):-) Graham Beards (talk) 14:46, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

You could try posting to WP:MED for more input/ideas. -- Colin°^Talk 15:22, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

I have decided to withdraw the suggestion and focus on improving Virology. Thanks for the useful advice. Graham Beards (talk) 14:42, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Note to any followers of this discussion: I have rewritten most of Virology avoiding where possible duplication to the content of this article. Comments are welcome over there.Graham Beards (talk) 13:04, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Novel virus into Virus

Doesn't contain enough content for a Mid-importance subject. No substantial edits except vandalism. FAdesdae378 23:19, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

I tend to agree. Novel viruses do not stay novel for very long (and some have been around for a very long time - we just haven't noticed them). The term can be defined in Virus. Graham Beards (talk) 09:06, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

As there has been no objections, I have completed the merger today. Graham Beards (talk) 12:17, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Plural

The topic plural form of words ending in -us has an extended and informative discussion about the plural of “virus”. That topic is briefly discussed in this article in the heading “Etymology”. I propose that this heading have a link to that article using the template “See also”. TomS TDotO (talk) 12:47, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't see why not. But the plural of "virus" is "viruses", which no one contests and has been sort of made official by the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses, the world's recognised authority. I would not like to see "virii" (yuk) suggested as an alternative. Graham Beards (talk) 13:57, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree with your distaste for “virii”. You will be pleased to hear that the article on plurals of “-us” does not suggest that, but favors “viruses”. As far as the International Committee’s stance, perhaps someone could add that. Thank you. TomS TDotO (talk) 15:53, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

It’s been a couple of days with no objection. I’ve made the same change for Platypus and Octopus with no objection, so I think that it is a benign change. So I’m going to make the change soon. Last chance to object. TomS TDotO (talk) 03:54, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Sources

The reference "Collier" is completely useless. Although it might be a well-known reference within the community, it's ambiguous for every non-expert reading this article. Please provide proper sources (author, name, edition, year etc). 31.16.14.51 (talk) 15:13, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Look at the first entry under Bibliography. You owe us an apology. Graham Beards (talk) 16:09, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Oh well, dumb me. I apologize solemnly. 31.16.14.51 (talk) 12:40, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Accepted. Best regards, Graham Beards (talk) 12:53, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Minor edit request: "divided up into"->"divided into"

• Specific text to be added or removed: Among RNA viruses and certain DNA viruses, the genome is often divided up into separate parts, in which case it is called segmented.
• Reason for the change: Poor writing style
• References supporting change: n/a

Thanks, 73.68.184.188 (talk) 16:50, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

•  Done Thank you for spotting that lapse. Graham Beards (talk) 17:15, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

minor edit request under "novel viruses"

"The SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus that caused the pandemic of covid disease is an example of a novel virus." to "The SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus that caused the COVID-19 pandemic [...]" for proper capitalisation and sounding more natural than "covid disease". thank you for filling this out if you do -- 2403:5807:7862:0:914E:BAA5:1B08:7F81 (talk) 12:50, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion which I have incorporated. - Graham Beards (talk) 13:08, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Submicroscopic

i want know that what is submicroscopic 106.205.32.249 (talk) 06:31, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Too small to be seen with an optical microscope. Graham Beards (talk) 06:32, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Suggested addition to the article

"In addition, some microorganisms are grazing directly on viruses, which can make up a significant amount of their nutrition. Also larger organisms like appendicularians and sponges can feed on viruses, but only make up a small part of their diet." Hipporoo (talk) 05:45, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

References

Mention of viruses as obligate parasites?

Just read a paper on the topic, and wondered if it would fit here. I try not to make content changes on larger pages without consulting the talk page first. FullyNatural (talk) 20:07, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

This is pretty much covered in the first sentence. Viruses aren't traditionally thought of as parasites as they are dependent on the host (cell) for much more than just nutrients. What was the paper? Graham Beards (talk) 10:14, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Here's the DOI link: https://doi.org/10.1016%2FB978-012373944-5.00323-0

You're right in saying viruses aren't typically thought of as viruses. FullyNatural (talk) 13:35, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

That might be the stupidest thing I've ever written. Of course I mean "parasites" not "viruses"... FullyNatural (talk) 13:41, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

That 2009 article looks like it was based on an earlier version of our article [1] and is not a good source. I don't think it would help our readers to add "obligate intracellular parasites" - it confuses more than it informs. Graham Beards (talk) 13:48, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Fair point, thanks for the insight! FullyNatural (talk) 19:09, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Recent edits

I have removed two recent edits. The first one, on the bubble theory, was cited to a single source that presents a hypothesis that has not yet been accepted by the scientific community and as such is a primary source. The second on life properties of viruses, added a little to what has already been said, and what on earth is a "mare spore"? The added text also suffered from padding, editorializing and below par prose. Graham Beards (talk) 11:00, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Replace illustration

I have replaced this illustration File:Influenza geneticshift.svg Reason:

• It is an inaccurate reproduction of the source . The two "parents" are correctly labeled, but in the original the progeny is not given a description whereas the Wikimedia reproduction labels the progeny as "highly pathogenic human strain". Accompanying text in the original explains that a human strain may acquire characteristics from a highly pathogenic avian strain, but makes no assumption about the characteristics of the progeny.

Bob (talk) 17:07, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

The original diagram dates from 2007 and it was not taken from the 2014 source! The cartoon was just a schematic used to illustrate reassortment. I think you should retract your comments here and at the Commons, but the new image you have added can stay IMHO. Graham Beards (talk) 17:58, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

References