Talk:Introduction to viruses: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 19:28, 27 July 2008

Revision as of 19:31, 27 July 2008

Line 37:

{{WPMED|class=FA|importance=Mid}}

{{WikiProject Viruses|class=FA|importance=Top}}

{{Archive box|[[/Archive1]] [[/Archive2]] [[/Archive3]]}}

==Microorganism==

<span class=plainlinks>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Introduction_to_virus&diff=224077360&oldid=224069876 Not helpful?]</span> This article states that Viruses are microorganisms in the lead. The [[Virus]] article states that viruses are semi-living things, while the [[microorganism]] article states that Viruses are not microorganisms. "They do not include viruses and prions" --[[User:Haha169|haha169]] ([[User talk:Haha169|talk]]) 15:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

In the [[Virus]] article I wrote a paragraph about the life-form debate which included the phrase "organisms at the edge of life". The argument that viruses are living is based on that they have [[gene]]s, they mutate and evolve by [[natural selection]], they reproduce and they even have [[genetic recombination|sex]]. For these reason they are regarded as living, in other words "organisms". Since the are sub-microscopic in size, it is safe to call them microorganisms, and this is why decent textbooks on micobiology usually have a chapter, (or volume in the case of the source used in the article), on viruses. I deliberately kept this debate from this introductory article because I think it is best kept in the main one. As for that line in [[microorganism]] is it cited to a reliable source? If not it is about as reliable as the Wikitionary entry, which ironically defines viruses as mircoorganisms. Thank for bringing this up. [[User:GrahamColm|Graham<font color="red">Colm</font>]][[User talk:GrahamColm|^Talk]] 16:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

:This is confusing. I did a Google search, and some university sites categorize it as microorganisms, while others do not. Although the microorganism article does need a cite for that statement, there is currently no sub-topic concerning viruses, while protists, fungi, animal, plants, bacteria, and archaea are currently all listed. I'm not sure what should be done. --[[User:Haha169|haha169]] ([[User talk:Haha169|talk]]) 17:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

::Have a look here, [http://www.virustaxonomyonline.com/virtax/lpext.dll?f=templates&fn=main-h.htm], this is the website of the official body that classifies viruses. You will see that they talk about orders, families, [[genus|genera]] and [[species|species]]. All these terms refer to organisms. Graham. [[User:GrahamColm|Graham<font color="red">Colm</font>]][[User talk:GrahamColm|^Talk]] 18:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

:::Well then, the [[microorganism]] article needs fixing. --[[User:Haha169|haha169]] ([[User talk:Haha169|talk]]) 20:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

::::Yes, sort of, I think it needs to take a more [[WP:NPOV|neutral point of view]]. It was nice to see that the <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> template was replaced with the two citations that I put in the [[virus]] article, in which this subject was debated. [[Microorganism]] should have the "many/most scientists" wording changed to a less POV, I think. Thanks, for this, I have enjoyed the debate. Graham. 21:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

:::::No problem. Sorry I didn't get time to review its FAC, mine's still going. I know that this is an "introduction" and all, but I think the [[virus]] article has really good prose, (at least in the lead), some of which could be copied over here. Its a minor issue, but something to think about instead of [[WP:BORED]]. --[[User:Haha169|haha169]] ([[User talk:Haha169|talk]]) 20:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

== Name of page ==

Wouldn't "Introduction to viruses" be more grammatical? [[User:Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday|Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday]] ([[User talk:Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday|talk]]) 20:29, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

:Yes, it would be more grammatical, but the article is tied to [[Virus]] by a script, (see the discussion about this in the archive). For the template to work on the two articles, I had to keep "virus" singular. The result of many discussions was that more people would type "Virus" into Google, as opposed to "Viruses", and so the main article should be called [[Virus]] and so this introduction has to called "Introduction to virus". Graham. [[User:GrahamColm|Graham<font color="red">Colm</font>]][[User talk:GrahamColm|^Talk]] 20:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

::PS: I would prefer to call the main article '''Viruses''', because we have [[Bacteria]] (plural) and [[Archaea]] (plural), I've discussed this with [[User:TimVickers|Tim]] in the past; perhaps it is time to revisit this discussion? We could have a re-direct? I'll leave a note on Tim's page.[[User:GrahamColm|Graham<font color="red">Colm</font>]][[User talk:GrahamColm|^Talk]] 21:11, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

::: Somewhere in our naming conventions guidelines, it says we name singular. [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 21:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

::The argument I've always used is to say that Bacteria and Archaea are named after the domains, not the organisms. Having a general overview of a large group of species under "bacterium" or "archaean" doesn't make much sense to me. [[User:TimVickers|Tim Vickers]] ([[User talk:TimVickers|talk]]) 00:17, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

:::Somewhere, there is also a principle of naming articles so as to create the least surprise in the user. So, a reason I've often cited for the plural names [[Bacteria]] and [[Archaea]] is that most people don't know the singular form of these words. Since most people know the plural, but not the singular, these are cases where the plural article name makes more sense to use, as they create less surprise in the user. But Tim is correct, the scientific name for each ___domain is a Latin(ized) plural, which is why the article name is plural. The same applies to all plant articles named for an order (e.g. [[Pottiales]]) or family (e.g. [[Liliaceae]]), since ''-ales'' and ''-aceae'' are inherently plural endings in Latin. These arguments do not apply to '''Virus''', since the plural is well known in the general population and the article is not named for a biological taxon. --[[User:EncycloPetey|EncycloPetey]] ([[User talk:EncycloPetey|talk]]) 19:34, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

:You seem to have created a nonsense title to accommodate a script. "Introduction to virus" sounds like the name of a new punk band, not the title of an article. If you have to give an article a meaningless title to tie it to another article, then the script is worthless. This article isn't an introduction "to virus," which with a switch of emphasis now sounds like an Indian deity, but an introduction to "viruses." I'm not sure why the conversation should hinge on naming conventions for bacteria or archaea, though. Again, if you have to use a title that is complete nonsense in order to accommodate a script, the script is without value, and should be eliminated rather than going forth with nonsense. Now it sounds like we speak English poorly and meant to write an article, "Introduction to viral pathogens," but used the noun instead of the adjective. --[[User:Blechnic|Blechnic]] ([[User talk:Blechnic|talk]]) 22:16, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

::After reading the first paragraph I see why the discussion of taxa of living things may be relevant to this particular article if not relevant to viruses. This is not an accurate article. Writing simply should never be an invitation to get the facts wrong. --[[User:Blechnic|Blechnic]] ([[User talk:Blechnic|talk]]) 22:19, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

:::As I said above, I would prefer to use the plural for ''both'' articles. [[User:GrahamColm|Graham<font color="red">Colm</font>]][[User talk:GrahamColm|^Talk]] 05:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

::::I've renamed this article, I was never happy with the old title. The link from and to [[Virus]] still works, albeit via a redirect. [[User:GrahamColm|Graham<font color="red">Colm</font>]][[User talk:GrahamColm|^Talk]] 13:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

:::::Good call, the new title is much better. [[User:TimVickers|Tim Vickers]] ([[User talk:TimVickers|talk]]) 17:56, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

::::::I agree. The other title sounded wrong. &mdash;[[User:Mattisse|<font color="007FFF">'''Mattisse'''</font>]] ([[User talk:Mattisse|Talk]]) 18:00, 14 July 2008 (UTC)