User talk:Jojnee
Welcome!
[edit]
|
Thinking about a new name for template
[edit]Hi Thanks for your messages on my talk. I've been thinking about things a bit, and I've come to the conclusion that maybe the best thing would be to request a move for Template:Organisms et al. to something like Template:Self-replicating organic structures. This would officially broaden its scope to include prions and so forth. Or maybe just rename Template:Organisms and comparable organic structures, and be done with it?
I'd be interested in your views. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 12:04, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
- Hello Jules. Thanks for the message. I think it might be a reasonable action. Additionally, if needed, please feel absolutely free to make use of the template I’ve created. :) I rely on your intuition, too. --Jojnee (talk) 13:45, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
- Hi I've updated it somewhat and moved it to Template:Self-replicating organic structures. I think its good not to name it "Organisms..." as it mainly focuses on non-cellular entities. Please take a look. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 17:26, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Jules. Thanks for the comment. It looks great! I have to admit I’m a fan of the "Subviral agents" part, because I feel it may be helpful (especially) for average readers. I’d have some additional suggestions re. "Virus dependent":
1. I propose to leave "Satellite (biology)" there (next to "Defective interfering particle") while making "Satellite viruses" and "Satellite nucleic acids" its subdivisions.
2. Because (as for now) the only known dsDNA satellite viruses are virophages, I propose to include Virophage in the bracket next to dsDNA within "Satellite virus".
3. Because the classification of ssRNA satellites is not clear, and only few of them are referred to as virusoids, I propose to leave "ssRNA" alone (without subdivisions, especially since they haven’t their own Wikipedia articles), and include only "Virusoid" in the bracket there.
After all, you did a good job! Your edit is an improvement, and if you accept and implement my proposals, I’ll absolutely enjoy the updated design. Thanks a lot! --Jojnee (talk) 18:30, 3 June 2020 (UTC)- Thanks for that!
- Sounds fine.
- Well we could do so. However if you read Virophage it says
Unlike satellite viruses, virophages have a parasitic effect on their co-infecting virus.
. So the article seems to draw a distinction, but I don't mind too much really. - I based it off Satellite (biology)#Classification, which divides them into three groups. But it could be removed, as put as before.
- I don't quite understand it, but it should be fine.
- Basically its your turn now! Change it how you like. I will discuss if any point arise, but I will probably do so on Template talk:Self-replicating organic structures to try to keep discussions in one place. So have fun!. All the best --Jules (Mrjulesd) 18:45, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for that!
Virus classification Comment
[edit]Hi there, I hope you're good. I though I'd explain my edits there wrt Satellite-like nucleic acids:
- I separated satellite-like nucleic acid from satellite nucleic acid on the basis of an ICTV report. You can read it here: [1]. Since ICTV saw a distinction I thought maybe we should.
- So why are they held to be different? I think the "satellite-like" bit came from them being considered to be somewhere between genomic elements and satellites. Since they help the helper virus, shouldn't they be considered to be genomic elements? Well not exactly as they are optional components of helper viruses. So they could be seen as "optional genomic components" but at the same time they could be seen as "satellite-like nucleic acid". I think that's the reason for them holding the distinction, its not clear which category they should be held in. Also satellites are generally seen as being parasitic, they don't help the helper virus at all.
- The other thing you've got to realize is that definitions tend to be a little "woolly". For example: Defective interfering particles: aren't they really a type of satellite virus? They fit the definitions easily. However sources don't really support this so they are held differently, even if this isn't that logical to do so.
Anyway your views on this? --Jules (Mrjulesd) 17:20, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Jules. Thank you for the message. Hope you’re doing well. I am aware the matter is complicated and controversial. The reason why I made the edit is because the ICTV report doesn’t seem to separate both categories very clearly. We can read: In addition to the true satellites…; Groundnut rosette virus satellite RNA* Tobacco bushy top virus satellite RNA* * These may be regarded as a satellite-like RNAs; The distinction between satellite nucleic acids, satellite-like nucleic acids and virus genomic components can be subtle and these agents are not always easy to categorize; additionally, betasatellites are described as satellite-like nucleic acids as well as satellites at the same time, the similar case is HDV, etc. The ICTV also decided to put all of these agents into one category and classify them together. Tbh, I agree with all your words. However, it seems that the strict distinction there is not possible at the moment; still, it’s reasonable to mention "satellite-like nucleic acids", that’s obvious for me. I tried to do my best, but if you feel an another solution would be better, please feel free to revert or change it. :) PS. DIPs are (de facto) viral mutants of their parental viruses, whereas satellites seem to have different origins. Again, it’s probably not very clear, too. Even for scientists… Have a nice day! --Jojnee (talk) 18:05, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
- Hi thanks for your comments. I agree that terminology is hazy and ill-defined. Another one I've always wandered about is delta virus. its a fully-fledged virus with an independent viral envelope and nucleocapsid. At least you would think it would be seen as a satellite virus, but the ICTV define it as as a "Hepadnavirus-associated satellite-like RNAs". I think most likely because it has Hepatitis B surface antigens, but its a bit of a fudge. DIPs are indeed viral mutants, but as they need parental virus coinfection they meet the normal definitions of satellite viruses.
- Anyway I hope this doesn't put you off contributing, you're doing a great job and I appreciate your input. All the best --Jules (Mrjulesd) 19:43, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you for the recent edit Jules, I strongly appreciate your support. Perhaps it would be a good idea to unify the classification in the Satellite (biology) article with the updated one in the Subviral agents section? Additionally, it seems that some entries from the ICTV report are missing in the article’s taxonomy section, e.g. Tobacco bushy top virus satellite RNA and Beet necrotic yellow vein virus RNA5. I don’t know whether it was intentional, but it feels quite random… I think we should fill all the gaps there. What are your thoughts, my friend? :) --Jojnee (talk) 21:05, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
- Hi my friend. Well it all sounds good really! All sensible suggestions. Do do it if you wish, and ping me if you want my advice about anything, if I'm around I'll answer. Cheers --Jules (Mrjulesd) 15:55, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you for the recent edit Jules, I strongly appreciate your support. Perhaps it would be a good idea to unify the classification in the Satellite (biology) article with the updated one in the Subviral agents section? Additionally, it seems that some entries from the ICTV report are missing in the article’s taxonomy section, e.g. Tobacco bushy top virus satellite RNA and Beet necrotic yellow vein virus RNA5. I don’t know whether it was intentional, but it feels quite random… I think we should fill all the gaps there. What are your thoughts, my friend? :) --Jojnee (talk) 21:05, 19 June 2020 (UTC)