Template talk:Baltimore (virus classification)

Name "Baltimore classification" no longer appropriate

This template seems to have been expanded beyond just the Baltimore classification (which as I understand it was just the I, II, III, IV, V, etc.) It now includes groupings above and below that level. A new title for the template is probably in order. Thoughts? Suggestions? Zodon (talk) 02:07, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsing - by DNA/RNA/etc. or by Baltimore class?

The template was fairly large, so I added collapsing.

First I tried it with making the groups DNA, RNA and retroviruses collapsible. e.g. [1]
Then tried collapsing by Baltimore class (I, II, etc.) [2]

They work out about the same screen size. Any thoughts about preferred version? Zodon (talk) 05:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Out of date

This template may be well out of date by now. Editing here to remember to update it later. Bervin61 (talk) 12:03, 19 March 2015 (UTC) Seems to be out of date again: Pithovirus not mentioned as member of NCLDV (of course fam. Pithoviridae is a proposal only). Paramyxoviridae are now of order ...--Ernsts (talk) 05:33, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indexing for Search Engines

Is it possible to make this template not to be indexed by Web search engines?

If I use a Web Search Engine (e. g. Startpage) 'every looking for any item mentioned in the template, then any article is presented as a hit that has the template included. Because of this there is a lot of useless hits that avoids finding any hits with real information. I zhink there should be a way as articles in one's user area are not indexed.

Kind regards! --Ernsts (talk) 16:33, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]