Talk:List of virus families and subfamilies
Latest comment: 1 year ago by 69.24.229.82 in topic Wen I was watching a video wen it ended it said on phone a virus is in my phone
 | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Organization
editI decided to make this alphabetical, but was tempted to organize by Order per ICTV. The downside of organizing by Order would be that Virus classification is not entirely settled, and the families are more likely to approximate scientific consensus. -- Scray (talk) 23:40, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
- Could also organize this as a table, with sortable columns that include taxonomic classification including ICTV, Baltimore, and perhaps other systems. The overlap between this list and the Virus classification page would then be substantial, though this list would be more comprehensive and interactive. -- Scray (talk) 23:45, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
- @Scray: I have added the Taxonomic list of viruses which is up to date with ICTV's 2014 report, includes expandable lists and generally follows the ICTV taxonomy website structure. What do you think about making this page purely into an alphabetical list, conforming to List of viruses & List of genera of viruses? This seems like a more functionally sound and consistent organization. Bervin61 (talk) 03:19, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
- @Bervin61: Please see my comment over there. I structured this page to reflect the ICTV, which IMHO it does more closely than the page you've created. Perhaps that page should redirect to here, or be renamed to more accurately reflect its structure? -- Scray (talk) 14:23, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
- @Scray: Agreed, though renaming doesn't really make sense to me. Baltimore or not, it is taxonomic, and is a list of viruses. The title isn't the problem, though changing the name of this list, or even merging it with the ICTV page might make a lot of sense. As I said before, the other lists (List of viruses & List of genera of viruses) are only lists, and alphabetical at that. Having a similar list of families would make sense to me. I replied over there as well, hoping to generate discussion on that page. I am still very new to WikiProject Viruses, and new to Wikipedia in general, so I'm interested in the opinion of all the members of the project (and users). Bervin61 (talk) 15:10, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
- With the changes to Taxonomic list of viruses being discussed, I think making this page alphabetical is very sensible. List of viruses is a hot mess - too inaccurate to be of much use (a longstanding challenge) - though I wish it were otherwise. -- Scray (talk) 21:55, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
- Bervin recently updated the species list after my request. The (can I call it) clutter, i.e. genera, families, orders, subtypes, synonyms, common names, defunct species, and viral diseases, were all removed, so only current ICTV species names remain. I think it's much better that that list is just a list of species, which complements the genus and family list articles. ComfyKem (talk) 22:32, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
- I should have looked more closely - it is greatly improved! Thanks for prompting me to look again. -- Scray (talk) 02:31, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
- All three lists are now up to date with the 2014 release, are alphabetical, and share nearly identical formatting. I plan to upload the scripts I used to generate the lists once I've removed the bugs. That way, the lists can easily be maintained in the future. I am also working on a script to generate legitimate articles for all redlinked genera and families, though that is a bit more complex, so it may be a while still. Bervin61 (talk) 12:30, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
- I should have looked more closely - it is greatly improved! Thanks for prompting me to look again. -- Scray (talk) 02:31, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
- Bervin recently updated the species list after my request. The (can I call it) clutter, i.e. genera, families, orders, subtypes, synonyms, common names, defunct species, and viral diseases, were all removed, so only current ICTV species names remain. I think it's much better that that list is just a list of species, which complements the genus and family list articles. ComfyKem (talk) 22:32, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
- With the changes to Taxonomic list of viruses being discussed, I think making this page alphabetical is very sensible. List of viruses is a hot mess - too inaccurate to be of much use (a longstanding challenge) - though I wish it were otherwise. -- Scray (talk) 21:55, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
- @Scray: Agreed, though renaming doesn't really make sense to me. Baltimore or not, it is taxonomic, and is a list of viruses. The title isn't the problem, though changing the name of this list, or even merging it with the ICTV page might make a lot of sense. As I said before, the other lists (List of viruses & List of genera of viruses) are only lists, and alphabetical at that. Having a similar list of families would make sense to me. I replied over there as well, hoping to generate discussion on that page. I am still very new to WikiProject Viruses, and new to Wikipedia in general, so I'm interested in the opinion of all the members of the project (and users). Bervin61 (talk) 15:10, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
- @Bervin61: Please see my comment over there. I structured this page to reflect the ICTV, which IMHO it does more closely than the page you've created. Perhaps that page should redirect to here, or be renamed to more accurately reflect its structure? -- Scray (talk) 14:23, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
- @Scray: I have added the Taxonomic list of viruses which is up to date with ICTV's 2014 report, includes expandable lists and generally follows the ICTV taxonomy website structure. What do you think about making this page purely into an alphabetical list, conforming to List of viruses & List of genera of viruses? This seems like a more functionally sound and consistent organization. Bervin61 (talk) 03:19, 17 March 2015 (UTC)