Talk:Arbovirus
Add topic| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Arbovirus article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
 | Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Arbovirus.
|
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
polyphyly
[edit]Is this group polyphyletic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.248.123.146 (talk) 17:56, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
- Yes. I'll mention this in the virology section. Simplebutpowerful 21:31, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
Untitled
[edit]this page says bunyaviruses include reoviruses... the reovirus page doesn't make any reference to bunyaviruses... i think they may be separate families, then (united under the arbovirus non-taxonomy grouping)... can someone confirm this and edit the article as necessary? 71.234.101.130 00:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Classification
[edit]Is this list only supposed to contain "clinically important" viruses? What does that mean, whether it has caused illness in any humans, or in large numbers of humans, or does it include animals? The statement about African swine fever would seem to indicate viruses that don't affect humans should be included. Anyways, there's a bunch of Phleboviruses and Alphaviruses for example that cause disease in humans that aren't on the list. Mthoma15 (talk) 04:23, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
The article used to group into four "families". Bunyaviridae is not a family, the link redirects to the Order Bunyavirales. Families under this that include the listed genuses are Nairoviridae Peribunyaviridae, and Phenuiviridae. Do these four top groups still hold or should we just use the actual taxonomic families in the list? Mthoma15 (talk) 04:23, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
distracting & probably inaccurate reference to tick systematics
[edit]Ticks are said to be a superorder of arthropods but the link for ticks leads to a page that says ticks belong to the arthropod superorder parasitiformes, which includes ticks and some mites. The page for ticks should cover the current taxonomy. For a page on arboviruses I think we just need links to the pages for the vectors. ~2026-42149-56 (talk) 11:19, 3 August 2026 (UTC)