 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
 | A fact from Coccolithovirus appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 2 June 2006. The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
Host Species Affected
editIs this virus only restricted to ehux? I'm fairly certain that viruses (which are ubiquitous in the ocean) also affect other coccolithophores, but they may well be endemic to their respective species. Badgerpatrol 02:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
- It's only been directly observed in ehux I think; I'm trying to get some of the original researchers to add some further material specific to the wikipage. I'll forward your query on to them in case they aren't checking the discussion page ;) MattOates 18:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
What Familia
editPhycodnaviridae or Coccolithoviridae? Wiki Species page MattOates 18:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- Though this is 9 years old and the link is broken, ICTV has Phycodnaviridae, and that is the accepted convention here. Bervin61 (talk) 21:46, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Further reading
editI think the references should list all the authors. First of all, every style guide I have ever seen, and every scientific paper I have read (thousands), uses et al. only in the body of the article, and lists all authors in the Reference section. Anything else is a disservice to the unlisted authors. Second, WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_paper_encyclopedia—there's no practical reason not to provide the information.
As for the pointer to Molecular Biology and Evolution, it is a subscription service (my comment said "for-fee" not "funny"). This seems anti-thetical to "Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia", and very few WP readers can access it anyway, so it's a useless link. —johndburger 19:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- Agree with the first point, all the authors should be listed (actually I got a note about this on my last essay). With the second point, I don't necessarily agree. Many libraries/higher education institutes in the UK have access to athens [1]. This provides an easy link for those who have access, and besides, the full citation is given anyway, so people who want to look it up in their library can. Might be better to link to the abstract. If the link wasn't hear I'd just take the citation and shove it in google scholar, which probably wouldn't work anyway because of the citation format, then I'd have to fiddle about with the names and do it again. - FrancisTyers 20:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- TBH I have no problems with listing all authors but to say it's a disservice is a bit strong. It's only a reference to a complete work and the authors are there for the sake of identification. Specifically with that paper there was rather a lot of authors and I felt it confused the page. As to the non-free link: It's not part of Wikipedia it's an external reference, I could take the link out if you like but the reference should remain for people to look up. With Athens in the UK and access to a library there shouldn’t be a problem. Wikipedia is free as in information not money, I've started to pay with my time. Ultima 21:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Agreed, it is a long list of authors—that's one reason I changed the link to be just on the article title, to make it clearer. Also, you folks have convinced me the link to the for-fee article is okay. Thanks! —johndburger 02:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)