Talk:Picornavirus

message: I doubt it.
So,
I restore below what 88.105.13.157 and 212.76.37.146  deleted. 198.49.180.40 22:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is it acceptable to blank out Talk pages in Wikipedia? 

message: Does one say "pico-R-N-A-virus", or, "picor-na-virus"? 198.49.180.40 20:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How is this word pronounced? 

message: Both articles start out Picornaviruses are viruses that belong to the family Picornaviridae. This seems to indicate that they maybe two different names for the same thing. Maybe we should merge redirect...  Both articles are about the same family of virusus. Bdelisle 20:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with merge redirect - the two articles provide similar info.  A model example is at Retroviridae, which redirects to Retrovirus.  This could be handled the same way.  The resulting article should be at Picornavirus.  -- (James McNally)  (talkpage)  20:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article should focus on biological and general clinical behavior of picornavirus.  The information on poliovirus, rhinovirus and the others should be limited to their own pages.   I also agree with merging this article with picornaviruses (i.e. since theres not much difference between "the simpsons" and "simpson family", anyway) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.38.17.150 (talk) 04:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, merge articles, both would clearly benefit from such a merger. I could 4 yeahs and 0 nays, if there are no other comments in the next few days I will complete the merge myself.--DO11.10 21:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. They are one and the same.GiollaUidir 19:25, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger 

message: If there are two schools of thought on the taxonomy of the Coxsackie A virus, can someone reference them?
* Picornavirus says that species Human enterovirus A contains some Coxsackie A viruses, while Human enterovirus C contains some Coxsackie A viruse.
* Coxsackie_A_virus says that all Coxsackie A viruses belong to the Human enterovirus A species.
--SV Resolution(Talk) 14:40, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The references in the table (MeSH & ICTV) both show coxsackie A as serotypes as both enterovirus A & C species. —G716 <T·C> 03:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taxonomy of [[Coxsackie_A_virus]] -- disagrreement between two wikipedia articles 

message: Rhinovirus says that rhinovirus is a separate genus in Picornaviridae.
However, Picornavirus says that rhinovirus are in the genus enterovirus. Which is correct?  67.84.191.60 (talk) 15:02, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Taxonomy of [[Rhinovirus]]

message: Secoviridae and Dicistroviridae, both members of the same order (Picornavirales), are described in this article (now under the Related Families heading, previously under their own respective sections: Plant picornaviruses and Insect picornaviruses). This page is for the family Picornaviridae, not the order Picornavirales. Secoviridae and Dicistroviridae both have their own pages, and should not be detailed here unless their relationship to Picornaviridae is of some special importance (giving them their own sections is too much even then). Further, labeling them Plant picornaviruses and Insect picornaviruses is misleading, because they are not picornaviruses (in the scope of this article, picornaviruses is synonymous with viruses in the Picornaviridae family. Both sections were added at different times by now-banned, but previously very active editor .
Insect picornaviruses, added by  [here]
Plant picornaviruses, added by  [here]
Bervin61 (talk) 21:19, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove discussion of other families 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Picornavirus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070603132644/http://www.mcb.uct.ac.za/cann/335/Picornaviruses.html to http://www.mcb.uct.ac.za/cann/335/Picornaviruses.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:51, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow users,
Just thought I would ask if it would be appropriate to change the beginning of the article to call the virus positive-sense vs plus-strand. I tend to over focus on non-important issues (gut microbiome vs flora), but couldn't find that many articles that use the term plus sense (and haven't ever heard the term as a US medical student), even though I can't necessarily verify it's usage as wrong, more so just inappropriate. Being a native English speaker of America I view positive as a state of possession and negative as a state of absence, whereas plus would infer to add and minus to take away.
Thoughts from other proficient English speakers that would be more experienced in the field of virology? I will proceed with the change if no one responds, as I definitely do not see it negatively impacting the article.
Lharris15328 (talk) 22:15, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plus sense vs Positive sense