This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all
list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the
project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the
discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Viruses, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
viruses on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VirusesWikipedia:WikiProject VirusesTemplate:WikiProject Virusesvirus articles
It seems like
List of genera of viruses follows the same alphabetical structure as
List of viruses. That format may have some significance as an easy way to find what you're looking for without knowing the taxonomic structure. However,
List of virus families exists in a taxonomic structure which is entirely redundant with the existence of the present list. It would be useful to change the format of
List of virus families to the same alphabetical list format described above. Thoughts?
Bervin61 (
talk) 15:27, 3 March 2015 (UTC)reply
This page uses the Baltimore classification at the highest level - not an ICTV construct. I think it should explain that because as currently written, one might get the impression that the highest-level organization reflects the
current (2014) ICTV taxonomy, which it does not. The
List of virus families more closely reflects the ICTV taxonomy. --
Scray (
talk) 14:20, 18 March 2015 (UTC)reply
This is an excellent point, and it should definitely be edited to reflect that distinction. Still, it does follow ICTV taxonomy apart from that (it's not as though an order is split into two groups), and is a more complete list. The issue of redundancy remains: all the information and all the structure that exists in
List of virus families is also present in this list, but with the additional Baltimore classification level and the inclusion of all genera, sub-families, and species. @
Scray: I'm glad you're in the conversation now. Is there any way to get more members in this discussion?
Bervin61 (
talk) 14:56, 18 March 2015 (UTC)reply
With clarification (as below) I am fine with this. I will comment on
List of virus families over there. --
Scray (
talk) 21:48, 18 March 2015 (UTC)reply
Groups or no?
When making this list, it made sense to me to use Baltimore groups. However, since ICTV is the standard here, should the group names be removed?
Bervin61 (
talk) 15:29, 18 March 2015 (UTC)reply
The two are not mutually exclusive so including groups doesn't detract from the ICTV's work. I would leave them in since they group together not so dissimilar orders & families and it's more organized than that long list of families under the "Virus families not assigned to an order" tab the ICTV uses. The intro can just be expanded to explain both Baltimore and ICTV classification. Here's an expanded intro that could be used or reworded a bit (sources need to be added):
This is a taxonomic list of viruses according to the most recent (2014) taxonomy release by the
International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses (ICTV), placed into the groups of the
Baltimore classification system. Though not used by the ICTV, Baltimore classification, which groups viruses together based on how they produce
mRNA, is used in conjunction with the ICTV's work in modern virus classification.
The added text is pulled from
Virus#Classification, so sources used there could likely be used here.
ComfyKem (
talk) 18:46, 18 March 2015 (UTC)reply
Should we remove the Baltimore classification structure from this page and use the more current ICTV system instead? --
Nessie (
talk) 17:46, 27 November 2018 (UTC)reply