Talk:Echovirus

Placebo?

I think it only reasonable we need a source for the statement 'Doctors can administer a placebo.' Btyner 05:02, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup

Perhaps structuring the echovirus article more would help - I'll take a bash at it and let me know what you think THIS ARTICLE NEEDS NO FRICKIN CLEANUP!AstroBoy 01:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC) AstroBoy 01:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it needs clean up and way more information. This article has only slight more information than an Echovirus project that I spent about 2 days on. Look at the eMedicine article, it has a lot of good information. ɱўɭĩє^{What did I do}_wrong 03:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Same as Parechovirus or not

The Picornavirus Pages clearly distinguish between Enterovirus B: Echovirus and Parechovirus A – D. As this Info dates 2006 - 2019, The Pirbright Institute, UK, it apears to be reliable (enough). Some members of the former species Echovirus have been moved to new genus Parechovirus, some appear nowadays (with others) as subtypes of species Enterovirus B in genus Enterovirus --Ernsts (talk) 18:13, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

In relation to it

It seems that the template at the beginning of the article says 'Echovirus == ParechovirusA', that is not accurate. It is correct that some type of Echoviurses has moved and belong to Parechovirus. --Kyuri1449 (talk) 03:06, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• At least echoviruses 22 and 23 have been assigned to the parecovirus. Other than that is unknown by me.---Kyuri1449 (talk) 03:32, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

June 2020 rewrite

This article has been completely changed on 20 June 2020. I gather there was something outdated about the taxon etc., but did it really need a complete rewrite? The edit summary just says "making disambig", which doesn't explain much. The infobox disappeared, there are now no references, and the current structure and layout also seem odd to me (with the bulletpoint 'Summary' section, especially). I'm hoping the editor who did that would come and explain, but anyone else familiar with this matter, feel free to chip in also. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:50, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

DoubleGrazing "Echovirus" currently isn't a coherent group of viruses. It is just a name for various viruses that in the past were grouped together and given the same name with different numbers. Echoviruses are still studied but they are now various strains that are dispersed across multiple taxa. For these reasons, I felt like the best approach was to make the article a disambiguation article (maybe it's not a disambig though) that directs people to the various taxa that the echoviruses belong to. This encourages article development at those articles rather than here, since development on this article would be duplicative, and it is fine to mention individual echoviruses on those articles. If the Echovirus article is kept as I've changed it, then I'll add the references that I used, but I'm open to change to improve this article.

I'll also add that Coxsackievirus (and maybe some others) classification has followed the same pattern that Echovirus has, so that article, this article, Coxsackie A virus, and Coxsackie B virus should likely be dealt with in the same manner, however we decide to approach these articles. Some other users who can comment on this: Ypna, Graham Beards. Velayinosu (talk) 01:42, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Okay I've dealt with some of the concerns like lack of references. Velayinosu (talk) 02:15, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

DoubleGrazing: Velayinosu is a relatively new user and has history of upsetting the system with bold, unexplained edits. While this is an area that could be improved, I can affirm that his/her editing is always in good faith and extremely valuable (see for example the major, high-quality expansion of all four realm articles). Re. this article: I'm not specifically familiar with echoviruses. I just wonder, can any of the original material can be retrieved into the current version? Ypna (talk) 03:18, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

@Velayinosu and Ypna: Thanks for your comments, both. As I'm not knowledgeable about the subject matter, I'll not comment on that, but at least I now understand better where all this is coming from. I also think the article as it currently stands is more coherent, although that said I will add the refimprove tag, as I do feel that more citations are needed to support all this.

@Velayinosu: To make it easier for other editors to see what's happening, could I suggest that in the future you try to be more generous with your edit summary comments, and starting a talk page section wouldn't be a bad idea, either, especially in connection with a major rewrite/restructuring such as this. And even then, try to avoid edits which create major issues such as removing all references, as that will immediately draw the attention of other editors, who may then be equally confused as I was. On this occasion I actually came pretty close to reverting your edits, as I first thought they were vandalism. :) Cheers, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:46, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Definitely I'll try to do the things you mention. Velayinosu (talk) 01:56, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

References

I am trying to add more helpful references, the ones already there don't give much information. Weikerally — Preceding undated comment added 02:27, 10 April 2021 (UTC)