Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Viruses
From Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the WikiProject Viruses page. |
|
| Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4 |
| WikiProject Viruses | (Rated Project-class) | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||
Abolished species that aren't member viruses of existing species[edit]
For viruses that were previously classified as species and which are not considered strains/isolates of an existing species, what do we do with them? Isla Vista virus, Muleshoe virus, Rio Segundo virus, and Helenium virus Y are each this type of virus.[1][2] Do we keep, delete, merge, redirect, or something else? Velayinosu (talk) 02:56, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
- A redirect seems to be the more logical approach. Graham Beards (talk) 14:01, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
- Redirect to the genera they belong to? Velayinosu (talk) 03:14, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
WikiProject statistics charts[edit]
I've added charts of statistics to Wikipedia:WikiProject Viruses/Statistics like what the U.S. Roads WikiProject does if anyone wants to take a look. Velayinosu (talk) 02:33, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Minimum notability guideline for viruses[edit]
I recently nominated two virus articles for deletion with the same rationale: both had very low notability with zero results on PubMed, no sequence information on GenBank, and no ICTV recognition. Since then, I found a few dozen articles like that, mostly of obscure plant viruses. In my opinion, just because a virus exists doesn't mean it should have an article, and I have considered whether there should be minimum notability criteria for viruses. The following is what I came up with:
- Individual viruses should meet at least two of the following criteria to have an article:
- 1. The virus is classified as a species by the ICTV or is a notable member virus of a species.
- 2. The virus has at least part of its genome sequenced and accessible via GenBank.
- 3. The virus has received significant attention in at least one secondary source accessible via PubMed.
- A "notable member virus" under criterion 1 is a member virus that satisfies criteria 2 and 3. Examples of this are SARS-CoV-1 and SARS-CoV-2. Whether viruses are properly contextualized should also be considered. For example, it may make more sense in some cases for article development to occur at the genus level rather than creating an article for every species in that genus. Examples of this are Deltavirus and Rotavirus.
What thoughts do you all have on this? If there is support for something like this, then we can work on it and add it to the WikiProject guidelines. Shibbolethink you participated in the deletion discussions so you might want to share your opinions. Velayinosu (talk) 02:40, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Do we have any articles about the concept of "Viral Subtypes"?[edit]
When searching on the net for my virology course, I came up with some questions. They are listed as the following.
- What defines a virus subtype?
- How did viruses evolve into many subtypes? What is the mechanism behind the phenomenon?
- Are there any benefits for viruses when it's evolved into many subtypes.
I tried to look up my Internet but ended up with some papers about the subtypes of a single type of virus, like influenza A. [1] I couldn't find any information purely on "viral subtypes". Additionally, Wikipedia haven't made it an article yet. Should we include the topic as a new article or we add it on an existing one? Is it worth creating a new article for? Zlover0407 (talk) 15:48, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- See Viral quasispecies. Graham Beards (talk) 15:57, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Zlover0407: ICTV does not define any ranks below species. The differences between subtypes, strains, variants, member viruses, isolates, serotypes, etc. are nebulous and overlapping. One virologist will use multiple terms interchangeably, another will rank them, and a third will rank them differently. That's why the articles in Category:Infraspecific virus taxa ( 76 ) are kinda messy. I don't think ICTV will clean it up until they stabilise the higher ranks a bit more. But you could probably write an article on infraspecific virus taxa discussing all this. --awkwafaba (📥) 23:33, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
References
- ^ Ziegler, T.; Hall, H.; Sánchez-Fauquier, A.; Gamble, W. C.; Cox, N. J. (1995). "Type- and subtype-specific detection of influenza viruses in clinical specimens by rapid culture assay". Journal of Clinical Microbiology. 33 (2): 318–321. doi:10.1128/jcm.33.2.318-321.1995. PMC 227940. PMID 7714186.
Any professional virologists here?[edit]
Please consider adding Category:Wikipedian virologists to your user page! In my head, I think this probably makes sense for anyone with an advanced degree (MS, PhD, MPH, MD) whose academic work has been primarily in virology or working on viruses. It's a good thing for processes like Wikipedia:Expert help. Thanks! :) --Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 21:23, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
A peer-reviewed paper by Segreto and Deigin at WP:RSN[edit]
Please read the discussion on WP:RSN about the reliability for this topic, of the source:
Segreto, R., & Deigin, Y. (2021). The genetic structure of SARS-CoV-2 does not rule out a laboratory origin. BioEssays, 43, e2000240. https://doi.org/10.1002/bies.202000240.
Feel free to participate with your opinion on its reliability, the discussion is not new but I think it needs to be cemented it that avenue. Forich (talk) 22:27, 9 September 2021 (UTC)