Talk:Introduction to viruses/Archive 1
 | It is requested that the deleted page history of Talk:Introduction to viruses/Archive 2 be undeleted and merged into the history of this page. This action must be performed by an administrator or importer (compare pages).
Consider placing Administrators: Before merging the page histories, read the instructions at Wikipedia:How to fix cut-and-paste moves carefully. An incorrect history merge is very difficult to undo. Also check Wikipedia:Requests for history merge for possible explanation of complex cases. |
| It is requested that the deleted page history of Talk:Introduction to viruses/Archive 3 be undeleted and merged into the history of this page. This action must be performed by an administrator or importer (compare pages).
Consider placing Administrators: Before merging the page histories, read the instructions at Wikipedia:How to fix cut-and-paste moves carefully. An incorrect history merge is very difficult to undo. Also check Wikipedia:Requests for history merge for possible explanation of complex cases. |
Richard
- Richard, this is the first draft.--GrahamColmTalk 19:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- Dear Graham, This is already VERY similar to what I kind of envisioned! well done. (You may have noticed that I was working on a small draft when the article was deleted WHILE I WAS EDITING IT!) Wow they are quick here! Anyway all is well. Good work and I will start to edit this draft asap.--Read-write-services (talk) 22:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- Dear Richard, we must be living in completely different time zones. I am so tired; it's past my bedtime, and you, I guess, have just got up or returned home, (maybe?). I saw the "deletion saga" this morning. Yes, they can be too quick. I'm receiving some doubtful comments about this project too. (See my talk page). But what harm can be done? It will be interesting to see what comes out of this. Lastly, we need to think about citations. I make much use of the medical literature, which might not be appropriate here. I will have to think about this. Sorry for any typos - a very tired --GrahamColmTalk 22:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- Okay I have cleaned up a great deal of this, I think where transcription etc. is located it's too over the head for an intro-can you rewrite that bit to a little simpler and I think it will be better? There are almost direct copies of virus in some areas, making the article move slightly towards complexity. Also the lack of "a hydroxyl group", in what way stops a virus??? I have an idea, but a layperson would not understand WHY - Can you extrapolate on this bit? Otherwise, this is looking great and reasonably comprehensible! Good work.--Read-write-services (talk) 00:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- Hi Graham, why does a virus want to make proteins? What does that acheive? i think this is what is required in this article-can you give a goood descrition in the article?--Read-write-services (talk) 21:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Richard, a virus has to make proteins because a virus is made from proteins, (and DNA or RNA)! It is making copies of itself (babies)! It is making viral proteins, some of which are used to make more viruses (babies) and the others are used in the cell to help do this. All enzymes are proteins. I will take a look at this in my morning, probably your evening, and make it clearer. Nice to have you back. --GrahamColmTalk 22:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Hi Graham, I suppose it was a rhetorical question to include the info within the article (for others-I understand the reason, others may not) it was not clear in the intro--Read-write-services (talk) 22:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Shouldn't this be "Introduction to Viruses" instead? Marlith T/C 01:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Hi Marlith, it was when I was working on the first (deleted-see above) draft. --Read-write-services (talk) 01:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, it has to be called Introduction to virus for the link template at the top of the two articles to work. If we rename this article, we would have to rename the main one.--GrahamColmTalk 05:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Graham, I think that perhaps naming virus to viruses and Introduction to viruses may be a good thing. Why would this be such an issue? One thing I was reading (can't remember where), that a virus is the common way of referring to the disease/s caused by viruses so if the article is about viral particles (viruses), then perhaps we should rename?? Cheers!--Read-write-services (talk) 21:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- Also, just a thought, this article was meant to be as an introduction to the subject of viruses not the article "virus"? wasn't it? Maybe something got lost in the translation-still there is no reason why we cant still link the two-of course. also what I was referring to above was, that people say eg. "I have a virus", while the articles seem to relate to viral particles/viruses themselves-just wanted to clarify that point.--Read-write-services (talk) 21:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- Richard, it's best if the two articles are linked. Let's see what Tim has to say.--GrahamColmTalk 22:12, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- Richard, I will ask Tim Vickers.--GrahamColmTalk 21:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- Richard, I have left a comment on Tim's user page.[1]. If he agrees, Tim will probably just do it for us. Best wishes, Graham --GrahamColmTalk 21:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Understood--Read-write-services (talk) 21:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Graham, any news from Tim Vickers? abouut renaming this article? also I think that the article needs a more generic virus particle rather than herpes zoster (as in more virus-like in appearance , such as influenza one with a polyhedral appearance perhaps) what do you think?--Read-write-services (talk) 01:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- Hi Richard. The renaming was discussed on Tim's talk page. Virus was originaly chosen because people are more likely to do a Google search on Virus rather than Viruses, hence the singular for the main article. It might be possible to get the template tweaked so that it can link to a renamed article here, but you will have to discuss this on the template's discussion page. I'm very busy with Rotavirus at the moment, so I can't help. With regard to the Varicella zoster virus micrograph, I think it is perfect for this article because it is so typical of most viruses, ie. icosahedral particle surrounded by a lipid envelope. Influenza is not typical because of its pleiomorphism, (?spelling). Lastly, are you planning to respond to your peer review? Best wishes, Graham. --GrahamColmTalk 09:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- Ok I see. for some reason I thought most people search for/understand polyhedral-shaped viruses, my mistake. I don't have much time lately to include the changes suggested by Una, frankly I think the article is reasonably well written, and positioned/directed to the correct demographic and written in the right tone, I think why rewrite/muck with it? Any way good to hear from you. Cheers, Richard.--Read-write-services (talk) 22:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
New picture
Graham, nice new picture! Although, I thought the case was closed?--Read-write-services (talk) 01:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)