Talk:Acciptrid herpesvirus 1
Latest comment: 5 years ago by Ypna in topic Proposed deletion August 2019
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
Proposed deletion August 2019
editYpna looks like you proposed this. Why is Acciptrid herpesvirus 1 up for deletion and not other Category:Infraspecific virus taxa or any of the Category:Unaccepted virus taxa? It seems that Acciptrid herpesvirus 1 is more of an uncertain placement than anything. Plus if it were a species, that would just make it automatically notable. --Nessie (talk) 21:51, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
- I did propose it. Re. infraspecicity: as far as I know, no one has suggested Acciptrid herpesvirus 1 is infraspecific. When I used the word "strain" I just meant to say a group of virus, irrespective of its taxonomic status. So this isn't a reason to keep the article. Re. uncertain placement: The ICTV taxonomy release 2018b lists herpesvirus species of uncertain placement (for which I have created articles), but Acciptrid herpesvirus 1 isn't in that list. It, along with 34 other unaccepted herpesviruses, only appears in the separate list of unaccepted names. I presume the species has been suggested on the basis of insufficient evidence at best, or has been conclusively synonymised with another species at worst. So I don't think this is a reason to keep the article. Re. unaccepted virus taxa: this is new news to me that Wikipedia has other articles for unaccepted virus taxa. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Now this would be a reason to keep the article... or alternatively we could delete this article and all other unaccepted virus articles. Ypna (talk) 10:04, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
- After reviewing the articles in the category of unaccepted taxa, I see deleting them would be quite disruptive. Those articles are apparently kept because, unlike this article, they carry clinical baggage. Therefore I think it might still be justified to delete this article, or else I'm also open to creating articles for the other 34 unaccepted herpesvirus species. Ypna (talk) 10:36, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
- Ypna could you point me to the source where it said that Acciptrid herpesvirus 1 is an unaccepted name? If it is, I think the article should be deleted.
- I also agree that the articles in Category:Unaccepted virus taxa ( 64 ) are a bit of a mess. I think they'd need to be handled on a case-by-case basis. Many are stubs that I don't think are notable either. Others are obsolete taxa that may have some historical significance. --Nessie (talk) 14:10, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
- NessieVL The source is this ICTV page. Acciptrid herpesvirus 1 is listed below "Other related viruses which may be members of the family Herpesviridae but have not been approved as species". Yes, though I don't really like it, I can see the justification for keeping Human herpesvirus 6 would be that the concept now has established a life of its own in the medical world, independent of its taxonomic status. Non-notable stubs like this one haven't. Ypna (talk)
- Yea, i think that only adds to a claim for notability. They didn’t say it wasn’t a thing, just that they didn’t know how to sort it. But that’s kinda the typical ICTV m.o.. Maybe it will end up as a member virus of another species, maybe it will be it’s own species, maybe no one will talk about it for a decade. We could start a wider discussion on WP:Viruses. Though I’m not sure how much wider a discussion that would be. I basically started those two categories to figure out how big the problem was, atleast. Not many folks have realized that we go by ictv for taxonomy. Maybe we need a note in the talk page template, like how {{WikiProject Gastropods}} does. --Nessie (talk) 03:41, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
- Ok, you can remove the deletion notice if you like. In that case we should go in the opposite direction and mention the other species in that table along with Acciptrid herpesvirus 1. Re. talk page templates: maybe, but I think the gastropod template is more warranted. I understand gastropod taxonomy is controversial, so they'd have people using recent sources that argue for taxonomies against the consensus, which would lead to constant struggle if the WikiProject didn't select a preferred taxonomy. Gastropods are under the ICZN which, like the ICN I perceive to be more poorly organised, decentralised, and permissive of controversy than the ICTV. I digress. When you say "we go by ICTV" it makes it sound like there are alternative taxonomies. Are there? It's not Baltimore. The only taxonomic competition I've noticed on Wikipedia is people using obsolete ICTV taxonomy. Ypna (talk) 05:21, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
- Perhaps the best place for these stubs is in a list, either a separate List of viruses which may be members of the family Herpesviridae but have not been approved as species or as a section within Herpesviridae. --Nessie (talk) 13:50, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
- I do think unapproved species are at least notable enough to be mentioned somewhere on Wikipedia. I like the latter option. Ypna (talk) 04:35, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
- Perhaps the best place for these stubs is in a list, either a separate List of viruses which may be members of the family Herpesviridae but have not been approved as species or as a section within Herpesviridae. --Nessie (talk) 13:50, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
- Ok, you can remove the deletion notice if you like. In that case we should go in the opposite direction and mention the other species in that table along with Acciptrid herpesvirus 1. Re. talk page templates: maybe, but I think the gastropod template is more warranted. I understand gastropod taxonomy is controversial, so they'd have people using recent sources that argue for taxonomies against the consensus, which would lead to constant struggle if the WikiProject didn't select a preferred taxonomy. Gastropods are under the ICZN which, like the ICN I perceive to be more poorly organised, decentralised, and permissive of controversy than the ICTV. I digress. When you say "we go by ICTV" it makes it sound like there are alternative taxonomies. Are there? It's not Baltimore. The only taxonomic competition I've noticed on Wikipedia is people using obsolete ICTV taxonomy. Ypna (talk) 05:21, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
- Yea, i think that only adds to a claim for notability. They didn’t say it wasn’t a thing, just that they didn’t know how to sort it. But that’s kinda the typical ICTV m.o.. Maybe it will end up as a member virus of another species, maybe it will be it’s own species, maybe no one will talk about it for a decade. We could start a wider discussion on WP:Viruses. Though I’m not sure how much wider a discussion that would be. I basically started those two categories to figure out how big the problem was, atleast. Not many folks have realized that we go by ictv for taxonomy. Maybe we need a note in the talk page template, like how {{WikiProject Gastropods}} does. --Nessie (talk) 03:41, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
- NessieVL The source is this ICTV page. Acciptrid herpesvirus 1 is listed below "Other related viruses which may be members of the family Herpesviridae but have not been approved as species". Yes, though I don't really like it, I can see the justification for keeping Human herpesvirus 6 would be that the concept now has established a life of its own in the medical world, independent of its taxonomic status. Non-notable stubs like this one haven't. Ypna (talk)