Talk:Polydnaviriformidae

'Poly-DNA Virus' surely?

Is this article's name correct? As a word it's unpronouncable. --jazzle 11:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The name Polydnavirus is correct. It is the official family name for this group of agents given by the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses, the recognized authority for the naming of viruses. And, in fact, it is pronounceable - pol-lid-na-vi-rus --Ike 23:10, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Added IPA pronunciation guide. Bazza (talk) 13:22, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

the name spelling is correct; the pronunciation is not. grimaldi and engel, "the etymology of insects", p. 427, state that it is "pronounced 'poly-D-N-A-viruses'". the pronunciation hypothesized by the wikipedia editor is unsourced. 174.32.65.1 (talk) 20:42, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

This may hold for the polydnavirus trivial name, but as far as the Latinate names (italicized, capitalized) is concerned, Neo-Latin#Pronunciation in the English case should be followed. Artoria2e5 🌉 00:52, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Question on the general use of 'symbiotic virus' or 'symbiotic microbe'

I happened to notice in this article that the editors were prudent enough to specify that the interactions between PDA and their wasp hosts are mutualistic (by the way, THANK YOU). However, this isn't always the case for original research papers, which is incredibly frustrating because of the ambiguity surrounding the term 'symbiosis'. As such, I'm curious if any of the editors of this page can elucidate for me, based on their experience researching the topic for this page, whether 'symbiotic virus/microbe/bacteria' are generally considered by those in the field as 1) having mutualistic interactions with their host or 2) having one or more commensal/mutualistic/parasitic interactions with their host? To be clear, I'm interested in this because I'm editing a couple of WP pages related to various forms of interspecies interactions, but my review of the literature is constantly hampered by the aforementioned issue. Usually, the context of the article helps, especially if they use 'symbiotic microbe' in reference to a pathogenic relationship with the host, but when the term 'symbiotic virus' pops up without an example to accompany it it's rather impossible to understand how they're using the term 'symbiotic'. SomeEnlightenedNarcissist (talk) 16:00, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Collapsible lists under "Taxonomy" section not working

Could someone fix it? And while at it, the same problem also occurs on the pages "Ichnovirus" and "Bracovirus". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Entomologger (talk • contribs) 16:15, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Shall this be renamed per ICTV proposal?

ICTV changed the name from "Polydnavirus" to "Polydnaviriformidae" for these "mobile genetic elements" doesn't fit the definition of viruses. What is a viriform anyway? David Xuang (talk) 09:03, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

We should certainly have an article with the official name. It could be a redirect to the current article Polydnavirus or we could move the current article and redirect to Polydnaviriformidae. I don't think it matters which way round, it's not as if either is a widely-known concept and searchers on either term will end up with the right article anyway. As for viriform, I suppose it's something that looks like a virus but doesn't quite fit the definition. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:05, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

I hope the main article is Polydnaviriformidae, and this(polydnavirus) is the redirect page, becuase polydnavirus is not a thing; while Polydnaviriformidae is.

>>> Webclouddat (talk) 01:43, 16 August 2023 (UTC)