Talk:Introduction to viruses

Page query

Graham Beards, MOS:PAGERANGE changed sometime in the years I wasn't paying attention, so I've fixed my damage here. Could you check these page ranges, as I'm concerned whether there is a typo:

• Collier, Balows & Sussman 1998, pp. 11–21
• Collier, Balows & Sussman 1998, p. 11
• Collier, Balows & Sussman 1998, pp. 11–12

Is the first supposed to be 11 to 21, or is 21 transposed from 12? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:06, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

It is correct. Pages 11 to 21 all cover The Origin and Evolution of Viruses. Possible parasitic origins are on page 11 and plasmids are on pages 11 to 12. I really need to update that source but not because any of the theories have changed. Graham Beards (talk) 18:26, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for checking; was worried I had made one of my many typos somewhere back in the history, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:29, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

wikiversity?

would this article be more appropriate for https://en.wikiversity.org more than Wikipedia? Wikiversity is also a Wikimedia project.... limitless peace. Michael Ten (talk) 13:34, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi, are you saying it is not appropriate here? Graham Beards (talk) 13:40, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Made of RNA?

In the lead, second to last paragraph, one can read:

"Viruses, especially those made of RNA, can..."

Is this to mean that the whole virus is actually made of RNA, or just its genes? Since the lead stated earlier that their genes are built from either DNA or RNA, I would guess the latter, in which case I would suggest clarifying this. For example:

"Viruses, especially those with genes made of RNA, can..." Ribidag (talk) 09:13, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

• Yes, but this is an introductory article. Best to keep the Lead simple.Graham Beards (talk) 09:30, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

  This feels like an example of Lie-to-children, which WP:MTAU explicitly recommends against. It being tricky to phrase simply shouldn't justify incorrectness. Safety In Obscurity (talk) 16:11, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Discussion on retiring introductory articles

There is an RfC at Wikipedia Talk:Make technical articles understandable#RfC: Amending the guideline text, which includes the proposal of possibly retiring introductory articles. You're invited to join the discussion. fgnievinski (talk) 03:17, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

I was just about to bring up here that this does not seem to be on mission. I searched for other "Introduction to "-articles and the vast majority refer to specific lecture series, books, TV episodes, albums, etc. It's a complete anomaly to see a Wikipedia article "X" which is anything other than (specifically) a Wikipedia article on "X". ~2026-52184-8 (talk) 06:05, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi, there are only ten or so of this type of article, so there is "no vast majority". Also, the outcome of the discussion linked above was that they add value and should be retained, Graham Beards (talk) 06:33, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Identical Copies

@Graham Beards

I'm slightly baffled by that revert. Isn't identical appearance (minus errors) implied by "copy"?

It seems misleading to describe the copies as "identical" when the imperfection of the process is what allows viruses to evolve. Safety In Obscurity (talk) 16:04, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi, the tautology was for emphasis. The mutations that allow evolution to occur are base changes in the RNA or DNA, which cannot be seen (by electron microscopy), but only revealed by molecular biology. As this is an introductory article, some liberties have been taken. Graham Beards (talk) 17:01, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Unfortunately I think that emphasis is unhelpful. What precisely does the emphasis achieve that the article didn't already have?

Whether the viruses are visually identical is irrelevant to the absolute beginners the article is targeted at. Besides, depending on the mutation, the virus may not even be visually identical.

I think this particular liberty actively misleads for very little benefit. Safety In Obscurity (talk) 00:23, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

You are quite wrong about mutations giving rise to visible differences. They don't. To edit war over one word with the author is not a good look. Graham Beards (talk) 07:05, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

You're going to need a source for that claim.

Viruses evolve and those changes sometimes include the physical structure of the virus itself. By necessity this means that sometimes the child virion has visible differences. Spike proteins used to gain entry to host cells are often noted to change due to selective pressures (as noted in the first Google result for "spike protein evolution").

It is a particularly bad look to refer to oneself as "the" author of an article. No one has ownership of Wikipedia articles: WP:OWN Safety In Obscurity (talk) 08:25, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Viruses cannot be seen, they can only be visualised by electron microscopes and computer reconstructions. "Visible differences" is most misleading as the changes occur at the molecular level. To revert before I had replied is edit warring. Graham Beards (talk) 08:36, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

I have to concur with SiO on this one. To the entry-level reader, "a copy" is just that, a copy. The possibility that it is an imperfect copy won't have occurred. So to insert the qualifier "identical" is to assert that the copy process is perfect - which is certainly not true. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 08:37, 24 July 2026 (UTC) but "visible differences" is clearly nonsense. And yes, to counter-revert during discussion is indeed edit warring. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 08:41, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

I didn't mean to imply visible without microscopy.

My understanding is that the WP:3RR was the line for edit warring. At worst I have been impolite. Safety In Obscurity (talk) 08:49, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

No, 3RR is the threshold for a referral to ANI and can get you blocked for at least 24 hours for a first offence, as it has gone far enough. It should never get that far. Doing it while a discussion is in progress would be regarded as an "aggravating factor" and make a longer block more likely. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 09:15, 24 July 2026 (UTC) last entrance added --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 09:20, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

You're right, 3RR is only the hard line. Safety In Obscurity (talk) 09:37, 24 July 2026 (UTC)