Talk:Lists of virus taxa

two other lists

With this article being created, should List of virus families & List of genera of viruses redirect here? It seems redundant to have those two articles since all the info there is here. ComfyKem (talk) 18:11, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Virus taxobox discussion

Please see Template talk:Taxobox#virus taxobox for a discussion of how to handle the Baltimore classification "group" in taxoboxes. Opinions are sought. Peter coxhead (talk) 05:26, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Converting from Baltimore to ICTV

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)

Just to note that as per the consensus at discussions at WT:WikiProject Viruses, this was done. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:02, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Turn into disambiguation?

I propose to turn this into a disambiguation article, i do not know how to do this.. Webclouddat (talk) 01:49, 10 September 2023 (UTC)