Talk:Tevenvirinae

Duplicate Article

This article seemingly has the same subject as T-even bacteriophages. That information should be merged into this one here and that article should be deleted then. Btw is Tevenvirinae an ICTV-Registered taxon? Kind regards. --Ernsts (talk) 06:14, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

@Ernsts: List of virus taxa has been updated to ICTV 2018, and can be used to quickly check whether taxa are accepted; Tevenvirinae is. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:36, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello Peter coxhead, thanks for your reply. What I meant originally was to merge the other article - T-even bacteriophages - to here (not vice versa), just as Tevenvirinae is included in current ICTV master species list as subfamily. However things are more difficult, see NCBI. --Ernsts (talk) 12:00, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I don't like the ICTV's use of italics to make nomenclatural distinctions. Here we can use italics in the text to make distinctions, but not in the article title. So if "X" were the name of a virus species and a sub-species taxon, we could use "X (species)" or "X (virus)" or something similar as titles to distinguish, if this were necessary. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:36, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

With respect to NCBI comment and new ICTV master species list it looks like:

• Tevenvirinae is the subfamily
• T4virus, formerly T4likevirus is a genus in this subfamily
• Escherichia virus T4 is a newly formed species in this genus which comprises legacy T-even bacteriophages as an old synonym (called Enterobacteriophage T4 s.l. in the NCBI)
• former species Enterobacteria phage T4 (s.s.), Enterobacteria phage T2, and Enterobacteria phage T6 are just isolates of new species Escherichiavirus T4

If this holds true, then Tevenvirinae and T-even bacteriophages are false friends and we should

• move current Escherichia virus T4 to Enterobacteria phage T4 (s.s.) or Escherichia virus T4 (isolate) downgrading from species to isolate. Same with T2 and T6.
• identify T-even bacteriophages as a species renaming (moving) it to Escherichia virus T4 or Escherichia virus T4 (species) if preferred, keeping the old name as a forward
• after all check if similar work had to be done for other members of Tevenvirinae (e.g. Schizot4virus) and of T4virus.

How do you think about it? --Ernsts (talk) 00:33, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

@Ernsts: I got involved in viruses and virus taxonomy only because I work on the code of automated taxoboxes, and I recently worked on {{Virusbox}}. I'm far from an expert on viruses, nor am I particularly interested in them. So I leave it to you and other members of WP:WikiProject Viruses to sort out the changes that are needed under ICTV 2018. NessieVL has done quite a bit of work.

If you have any technical difficulties, e.g. with moves or taxoboxes, don't hesitate to ask me for assistance. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:55, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead: thanks for looping me in. @Ernsts: thanks for looking into this, not enough eyes have been looking at the virus articles here over the years, as I'm noticing. It is indeed a bit of a mess. Seems many/most virus articles are very out of date with the taxonomy, and need much more than a simple adjustment for the 2018 ICTV update. ICTV is the taxonomy to be followed, according to consensus, and though NCBI is usually pretty good with microbiota, but even they, as noted, have trouble with the new system. The penultimate ICTV report (the 9th) is posted on the site in detail, and lists the isolates/strains/viruses within Enterobacteria phage T4 (now Escherichia virus T4) as including Enterobacteria phage C16, Enterobacteria phage F10, Enterobacteria phage Fs-alpha, Enterobacteria phage PST, Enterobacteria phage SKII, Enterobacteria phage SKV, Enterobacteria phage SKX, Enterobacteria phage SV3, Enterobacteria phage T2, Enterobacteria phage T4, and Enterobacteria phage T6. Therefore, T-even bacteriophages should merge to Escherichia virus T4. The current content of Escherichia virus T4 seems to deal with the species and not the member virus (called Enterobacteria phage T4 in 2011 but possibly now called Escherichia phage T4), so this shouldn't be too much of an issue. If we want the member viruses like to have their own page, i think that for some like T2, T4, and T6 they may be notable enough, but may not be necessary. --Nessie (talk) 18:30, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead: @NessieVL: Thanks for your comments/work/offer. :-) If the current article Escherichia virus T4 treats T2 and T4 strains as well as T4 strain (though not mentioned explicitely), a merge was apropriate. Otherwise it should be moved to Enterobacteria phage T4 (the strain) as sister strain of Enterobacteria phage T2 and Enterobacteria phage T6. – Anyway the latter two lemmata seem to be clear w/o doubts, so I did some minor updates in order to support the new view. --Ernsts (talk) 23:25, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Did an update here in order to adapt text to the virus box led by List of virus taxa which seems to be a map of current ICTV MSL 2018a v1 (i. e. this lemma appears to have the most recent information) --Ernsts (talk) 09:45, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree that this article and Escherichia virus T4 and the several other similar articles on the T-even viruses should all be merged. There really is only one T Even virus family, unique in its morphology and injection/lytic lifecycle. Having a number of similar articles spreads out the information in a way that makes it less likely to be seen by those who look it up in WP. It has been several months since merging was proposed, and over 10 years that the need to merge all these articles was evident; let's do it already. David Spector (talk) 16:42, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Collapsible list

As for many virus articles in en WP, there are nested collapsible lists/hidden lists. As it was here, this nesting often is unneccesary (if there is only a single item in the list). So I changed the taxonomy section in order to keep things as flat as possible. However, as to my knowledge, there was need to introduce some 'cryptic' coding, which in fact may not be the best solution. Please take this just as a proposal, if you know a better way, please let me know or change it by yourself. Any comments are welcome. Thanks in advance. --Ernsts (talk) 19:37, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of collapsible lists, I've just been too lazy to convert them. I think it makes it hard to read, and to search for text strings on a page without having to click on everything. I'd much prefer them to just be bulleted lists. --Nessie (talk) 20:36, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Agree That bullet lists are preferable to lists that require user interaction to view. David Spector (talk) 16:45, 12 March 2019 (UTC)