Talk:Baltimore classification

message: Although there is some sense in calling class vi viruses 'diploid' it wrongly implies that all the trappings of diploidy (e.g. homozygosity, etc.) apply.Bendž
|Ť 16:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Diploid

message: Current information tells that Retroviruses are a sample for Group VI viruses. 
So are there other viruses in Group VI that are no Retroviruses?
If not, so 'Retroviruses' and 'Group VI viruses' are synomyms and text here as in 'Baltomore groups' template should be modified accordingly.
Please nore, that in contrast to the written information, SsRNA-RT virus redirects to Retrovirus as if this was a synonym.
Similar problem for Gruop VII:
Current information does not mention the term Pararetrovirus. So is Pararetrovirus a synonym or a sample for Group VII viruses?
And is Hepadnaviruses as synony or a sample for Pararetroviruses?
Kind regards
--Ernsts (talk) 07:25, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Retroviruses and Pararetroviruses 

message: I am not going to edit anything because I am just beginning to study this subject.  
The first paragraph vs. the caption of the first graphic say two different things. Is the Baltimore classification based primarily on method of replication (main text) or mRNA synthesis (essentially, transcription) (caption of first graphic)?  My textbook breaks it down in terms of the latter.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:9000:AC08:A600:799C:E57B:B62C:99E2 (talk) 02:54, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Basic definition is misleading 

message: :Does this edit by  align with WP:COMMONNAME? I am very familiar with ICTV but scientific nomenclature does not always dominate WP page names.  — soupvector (talk) 04:41, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: "RNA virus" is not a name, common or otherwise. Graham Beards (talk) 06:50, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

text: The content should match the title, i.e. it should be about the ICTV taxon Orthornavirae. The term "RNA virus" should be explained elsewhere. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:08, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

text: The best way to deal with these two articles, which are essentially on the same thing, (RNA virus being the object and Orthornavirae being the taxon container) is to do a merger. The merger would be of the content of the Orthornavirae article into the RNA virus article. The final title of the article would be RNA virus and would have the structure of all other virus group articles. --Guest2625 (talk) 05:58, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. We have used the ICTV taxa for article titles and taxoboxes. As I noted above, the Baltimore system and names like "RNA virus" should be discussed, but should not replace the use of the ICTV classification. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:47, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm fine with the two articles as they are named now. However, having two articles "RNA virus" and "Orthornaviriae" which cover essentially the same material is not ideal. How do you feel about the current structure of the Astrovirus article? Currently the article has the common name "Astrovirus" the lead discusses the group of viruses called "Astroviruses", and the virusbox has the heading "Astroviridae". --Guest2625 (talk) 13:08, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: RNA virus

message: ----
Negative stranded RNA viruses (-ssRNA viruses) are a group of related viruses that have negative-sense, single-stranded genomes made of ribonucleic acid. They have genomes that act as complementary strands from which messenger RNA (mRNA) is synthesized by the viral enzyme RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp). During replication of the viral genome, RdRp synthesizes a positive sense antigenome that it uses as a template to create genomic -ssRNA. -ssRNA viruses also share a number of other characteristics: most contain a viral envelope that surrounds the capsid, which encases the viral genome, -ssRNA virus genomes are usually linear, and it is common for their genome to be segmented.
Negative stranded RNA viruses constitute the phylum Negarnaviricota, in the kingdom Orthornavirae and realm Riboviria. They are descended from a common ancestor that was a double-stranded RNA (dsRNA) virus, and they are considered to be a sister clade of reoviruses, which are dsRNA viruses. Within the phylum, there are two major branches that form two subphyla: Haploviricotina, whose members are mostly non-segmented and which encode an RdRp that synthesizes caps on mRNA, and Polyploviricotina, whose members are segmented and which encode an RdRp that snatches caps from host mRNAs. A total of six classes in the phylum are recognized.
-ssRNA viruses are closely associated with arthropods and can be informally divided between those that are reliant on arthropods for transmission and those that are descended from arthropod viruses but can now replicate in vertebrates without the aid of arthropods. Prominent arthropod-borne -ssRNA viruses include the Rift Valley fever virus and the tomato spotted wilt virus. Notable vertebrate -ssRNA viruses include the ebola virus, hantaviruses, influenza viruses, the Lassa fever virus, and the rabies virus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guest2625 (talk • contribs) 07:08, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Negarnaviricota'' 

message: The current situation is:
* There has been an attempt to merge Orthornavirae to RNA virus
* There has been an attempt to merge DNA virus to this page
Now neither of these took place with a WP:MERGE discussion, just ad hoc declarations that they should be merged. Now my question is: why is process being abandoned? There is nothing very obvious about either of these. To get rid of the Orthornavirae article seems a very retrograde approach. Also, in my mind, we should have some sort of article discussing the meaning of "DNA virus", it could be much reduced, but its needed as a vast number of sources and textbooks divide viruses on the basis of their genome. Even the ICTV divide viruses on the basis of their genomes, see 
Now I don't mind these articles being merged if proper process is carried out, and there is consensus for these changes. The current redirect wars are getting us nowhere, and process being abandoned is really not helping. Process is important. Jules (Mrjulesd) 08:14, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: What's wrong with [[WP:MERGE]] discussions?

message: The megavirales seem to be missing. It contains humdingers like Pandoravirus and Pithovirus. 
There is a T101 in your kitchen (talk)  — Preceding undated comment added 14:18, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Are the megavirales missing?