Talk:Emergent virus

message: ​
​
​My name is Aida Getachew, and I am a third year biochemistry student at Imperial College London. As part of my science communication module, I have selected this page to edit. This editing assignment will end by Friday 17th April 2020. Aida Getachew (talk) 13:09, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Editing assignment

message: Ok, I see that someone made Emergent Viruses a redirect to Virus and you're trying to deal with that, but making the main article be "Emerging viruses, the concept" makes no sense.
I put the latest version of the content back here in the Emergent Viruses article.  I suggest you stick with editing this one, and if someone disagrees with the existence of it, they should nominate it for deletion and a debate can be had to see if there can be an article on this at all.  Unless they do so, assume it's ok to have an article on this, and use the article name which makes the most sense, that being Emergent Viruses or Emerging Viruses, you decide.  --Xyzzyplugh 01:37, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Emergent virus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070224232126/http://www.microbiologybytes.com:80/virology/emerging.html to http://www.microbiologybytes.com/virology/emerging.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:45, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello!  This article is in need of citations.  I plan to help find sources to add, however, if anyone would like to help, that would be great! LPW22 (talk) 18:47, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation Help 

message: I was wondering about perhaps merging the content of the ===Definition=== section with that of the lead section, just to avoid any repetition - what do you think? Aida Getachew (talk) 17:36, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup, in a conceptual article such as this it's quite normal editorial practice to have a ==Definition== section after the lead. But I too have been thinking about the possibility of moving some of the content about 'newly-detected' viruses down from the lead into ==Definition==, or perhaps a ===Newly detected viruses=== subsection. At the moment that content is unsourced (I don't know if you happen to have some good, reliable sourcing to hand for that?). There's also a broader scope issue of how much this page (or perhaps Novel virus?) should be discussing newly-detected viruses, which *most* definitions probably wouldn't count as 'emergent' (FWIW, to me it feels like it makes good sense to illustrate briefly the general distinction). 86.134.212.26 (talk) 19:31, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

text: Adding: RE your query about "avoid any repetition": Actually the lead should (a bit like an abstract) provide a succinct lay summary of the overall content of the article. So, some overlap is normal. (In the present case, I don't think it would be appropriate to consider the fuzziness of the definition/s in the lead, which is why it feels right to me to have a brief ==Definition== section to point out the existence of the issue.)  86.134.212.26 (talk) 19:47, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I've just moved down the 'Newly-detected viruses' content into ==Definitions==. I do think that it is necessary to keep this information in, as the difference between emergent and newly-detected viruses often goes over peoples heads. I'll add in the references for this content today. Aida Getachew (talk) 12:33, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

text:  Just a heads up, I'll be making my final few edits today and tomorrow - the deadline for my editing assignment is 5pm tomorrow :) Aida Getachew (talk) 12:33, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes Aida Getachew, I quite agree, and it would be great to have good sourcing of the general distinction. The lead will ultimately benefit from a brief mention of both the newly-detected and the re-emerging ones. I think re-emerging virus should definitely be a redirect to this page, and *possibly* (for now at least?) newly-detected virus, though I think an expanded Novel virus page might ultimately be a better target for the latter. We also need a redirect for emerging virus (there's already one for 'emerging viruses'). For someone editing as a registered user (like yourself :), creating a redirect page (like this one) is quite straightforward, and if you you'd care to put these ones in sometime that would be much appreciated. Thanks, 86.134.212.26 (talk) 14:00, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  For now, I've created the section ==Emergent vs newly-detected viruses== and I will also briefly define newly-detected and re-emerging viruses in the lead section. I'll also try to figure out redirecting :) Aida Getachew (talk) 15:00, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem :-) 86.134.212.26 (talk) 15:06, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Definition?