Talk:Introduction to viruses/Archive 1

Archive 1

Richard

• Richard, this is the first draft.--GrahamColm^Talk 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 --GrahamColm^Talk 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. --GrahamColm^Talk 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.--GrahamColm^Talk 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.--GrahamColm^Talk 22:12, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

• Richard, I will ask Tim Vickers.--GrahamColm^Talk 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 --GrahamColm^Talk 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. --GrahamColm^Talk 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)

Good article review

I'm putting it on hold for a while because there's just one very pressing issue that must be addressed. The article is very well-written. It fulfills its goal of being informational and accessible in a very great way. In fact, it would be very nice if this could be transferred to the Simple English Wikipedia. However, the most pressing issue is citations. The article is undercited. The most pressing citation issues are in the Structure, Life cycle, and Disease sections. In general, each paragraph should have at least one citation, and all statements that can be challenged should be cited. For example, it is asserted that a virus next to a flea would be like a human next to a mountain twice the size of Mount Everest. It looks a whole bunch like OR and should be cited or removed.

Generally, galleries are frowned upon, since images should be imbedded into the article, but this is a very special case of an article. The paragraphs are somewhat short. If they could be merged a little to make it less choppy, that would be great. I will wait a week and then check to see how the article is going. Please remind me if I have forgotten by the time. bibliomaniac15 23:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for this, either I or Richard, if he is around, will address these points and get back to you.--GrahamColm^Talk 23:45, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the GA business, However, I'm not sure if I get your drift, are you saying that it is not written in simple English? That was the whole intention of the article. I am presently unable to contribute for the next two weeks but I will try after then. Citations I am notoriously famous for NOT including-so you are definitely on the nail with that one! Maybe that's one for Graham?--Read-write-services (talk) 04:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

No, I think the English is perfectly clear. I would just like to see more citations. bibliomaniac15 Midway upon life's journey... 05:09, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks, I have added the citations and made the other changes you suggested.--GrahamColm^Talk 19:10, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• • I think the problems have been satisfactorily fixed, and I've passed this for GA. If you're going on to FA, I suggest some more expansion into viral shapes, the debate on whether the virus is an organism, and viral applications. Of course more citations would be great. bibliomaniac15 Midway upon life's journey... 21:25, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Microorganism

Not helpful? 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" --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 genes, they mutate and evolve by natural selection, they reproduce and they even have 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. 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. --haha169 (talk) 17:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Have a look here, [2], this is the website of the official body that classifies viruses. You will see that they talk about orders, families, genera and species. All these terms refer to organisms. Graham. GrahamColm^Talk 18:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

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

Yes, sort of, I think it needs to take a more neutral point of view. It was nice to see that the {{fact}} 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. --haha169 (talk) 20:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Name of page

Wouldn't "Introduction to viruses" be more grammatical? Shoemaker'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. 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 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.GrahamColm^Talk 21:11, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Somewhere in our naming conventions guidelines, it says we name singular. 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. Tim Vickers (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. --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. --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. --Blechnic (talk) 22:19, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

As I said above, I would prefer to use the plural for both articles. 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. GrahamColm^Talk 13:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

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

I agree. The other title sounded wrong. —Mattisse (Talk) 18:00, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Viruses are NOT microorganisms

Viruses are not microorganisms, and it is erroneous to have this plainly written out like so. Life is defined by seven characteristics something must have in order to be considered alive. Viruses don't metabolize, are not composed of cells, nor do they maintain homeostasis. It would be much better to describe them as a "pathogenic chemical substance that relies either on DNA or RNA for reproduction inside a host cell," except in a simplified manner, since this is an "introduction to viruses."

TheUnixGeek (talk) 09:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

• I have changed it to "biological agent". This is from Virus:

Opinions differ on whether viruses are a form of life, or organic structures that interact with living organisms. They have been described as "organisms at the edge of life", since they resemble organisms in that they possess genes and evolve by natural selection, and reproduce by creating multiple copies of themselves through self-assembly. However, although they have genes, they do not have a cellular structure, which is often seen as the basic unit of life. Additionally, viruses do not have their own metabolism, and require a host cell to make new products. They therefore cannot reproduce outside a host cell (though bacterial species such as rickettsia and chlamydia are considered living organisms despite the same limitation). Accepted forms of life use cell division to reproduce, whereas viruses spontaneously assemble within cells, which is analogous to the autonomous growth of crystals. Virus self-assembly within host cells has implications for the study of the origin of life, as it lends further credence to the hypothesis that life could have started as self-assembling organic molecules.

Graham Colm ^Talk 16:07, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

FAQ

Added FAQ in conjunction with Talk:Virus. ChyranandChloe (talk) 09:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

HIV

Doesn't the statement, "The human immunodeficiency virus, HIV, is transmitted during sex", rather imply that sex is the only way HIV can be transmitted? Seems wrong - am I missing something? WillE (talk) 14:02, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

A fuller statement is given in the body of the article. The Lead is just a summary. Graham Colm (talk) 15:06, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Number of Species/Types of Viruses

The earlier sections of the article quote a source that the number of discovered viruses is 2000. Yet the section on bacteriophages, which is understood to be a type of virus, states that there are 5100 types of bacteriophages. This seems to be a contradiction. Does anyone know enough about the subject to make a correction? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beefcalf (talk • contribs) 17:51, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for this. I have used the ICTV system of families and genera to give the numbers of the types of bacteriophages, rather than the number of strains, (terms I was trying to avoid). And I have updated the figure in the Lead to over 5,000. I have added citations for both of these changes. Graham Colm (talk) 18:38, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Lead image

File:Rotavirus Reconstruction.jpg is an iconic image for "virus". Would it be possible to fix the cropping at the top of the image, where the subject gets slightly lopped off? Emw (talk) 14:28, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi, it's the best micrograph I have. I don't want to tweak it using software because this would compromise its scientific integrity. Graham Colm (talk) 15:12, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Explaining sizes of viruses

I agree that my previous description of virus sizes in nanometers, which was reverted, is a bit daunting in an introductory article, but I think we should find a better way to explain virus sizes than saying they are around 1/100 the size of bacteria, because it's not clear whether that refers to volume or linear dimensions, and both bacteria and viruses come in a wide range of sizes and shapes. There is a nice chart comparing sizes of molecules, viruses, bacteria, and eukaryotic cells at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Relative_scale.svg, showing it directly might be distracting in the lead of an introductory article, because of its logarithmic scale. Further down, the picture of the HIV viruses on a lymphocyte says better than a thousand words how much smaller viruses are than eukaryotic cells. I think I'll change that part of the lead to say viruses are around 10 to 100 times smaller than bacteria in linear dimensions and 1000 to 10,000 times smaller than the cells of higher organisms, with a link to the Relative_scale picture.CharlesHBennett (talk) 13:05, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi thanks for your input. We don't link to images the way you have and there has been much discussion about what we need in this introductory article regarding relative sizes. I think the original wording is acceptable and will revert to this. Graham Colm (talk) 15:54, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

To avoid the inexactness and ambiguity of saying 1/100 the size of bacteria (bacteria have quite a range of sizes, and some readers might take "size" to mean volume), I have revised the introductory sentence on size to say simply "20-300 nm", while deferring comparison to bacteria and eukaryotic cells to the Size section. There I also give sizes in nanometres and micrometres, to make clear we are not speaking of volume.CharlesHBennett (talk) 01:54, 13 March 2014 (UTC) I admit that terms like nanometre, though they resolve the potential ambiguity of size comparisons, may be off-putting for non-specialists. Perhaps a better approach would be to make comparisons explicitly in terms of volume. Thus, just as it is often said that 1 million earths would fit inside the sun (another way of saying the earth is 1/100 the diameter of the sun) one could say how many typical viruses would fit inside a typical bacterium, or a typical eukaryotic cell.CharlesHBennett (talk) 03:04, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

How to describe viruses in the lead

In the first sentence, perhaps it would be good to link "invasive biological agents" to the existing infectious agent article, (e.g. as invasive biological agents), which compares viruses to prions and conventional microorganisms. Another question is whether to call viruses "invasive" or "infectious." Both words perhaps unduly suggest harm to the host or environment (in contrast to the beneficial role described in the Role in Ecology section), but I can't think of a better word. "Self-replicating" might work, but it is cumbersome and also might rekindle fruitless arguments over whether viruses are alive.

Maybe rather than linking to the existing invasive agent article (which itself overemphasizes pathogenicity) at the beginning of the lead, the best thing to do would be to omit the word "invasive" there and add a sentence toward the end of the lead paragraph, so it ends:

"...new viruses are assembled inside the infected host cell. But unlike still simpler infectious agents, viruses contain genes, which gives them the ability to mutate and evolve. Over 5000 species of viruses have been discovered."CharlesHBennett (talk) 14:29, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I would be happy with that change. Graham Colm (talk) 14:44, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Done.CharlesHBennett (talk) 04:24, 14 March 2014 (UTC)