Talk:Papillomavirus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Viruses WikiProject This article is within the scope of the Viruses WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve and organize articles about biological viruses on Wikipedia. Please work to improve this article, or visit our project page to find other ways of helping. Thanks!
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
High This article is has been assigned a High-importance to the Viruses WikiProject.

Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

[edit] HPV

Stuff that only applies to HPV should be moved into the HPV article. — Omegatron 23:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

It's hard because there are close to a couple hundred HPV types and only a dozen or so characterized animal types. When the Intro mentions specific HPV types, it's using well-characterized examples to illustrate PV biology in general. For example, you could illustrate the issue of PVs preferring particular sites using CRPV and rabbit oral papillomavirus preferences for the skin vs. mouth vs. not genitals. Or illustrate the commensal papillomaviruses with the old rhesus papillomavirus diversity study. Or the zoo animal forehead study. But those are all relatively obscure - nowhere near as detailed a story as for HPVs 1 vs. 2 vs. 5 vs. 6&11. It seems a shame to focus on the sketchy animal PV examples just in the interest of reducing some inter-article redundancy. Unless I'm missing your point and there are other aspects that need merging. Retroid 00:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Ahh. That was basically my point. Seems like people reading the HPV article would want to know that stuff, though. I don't know what to do. — Omegatron 02:43, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Gotcha. Could maybe solve the problem by adding a bit more detail about the non-carcinogenic HPV types to Human papillomavirus. Here's the thing though - I think the detail belongs lower down in Human papillomavirus, not in its Intro. I feel like the Talk page for Human papillomavirus is trying to tell us that its readers are overwhelmingly interested in the sexually-transmitted types, particularly the high-risk/cancer-causing ones. That's probably even more true in the wake of media coverage of the vaccine and those cryptic Merck and Digene TV ads. So it seems like it serves best if the Intro of Human papillomavirus focuses on the high-risk HPVs. Anyway, it's Wikipedia. If the Human papillomavirus gets a little long toward the end and has some redundancy with Papillomavirus, I'm pretty sure there'll still be space for it at the server farm. Retroid 14:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm.... I guess I just think some of the biological info should be in the other article, like certain types only infect certain types of tissue, etc. It's relevant to the high-risk STDness of it.
Also, there should be no Introduction section, anyway. The first, unnamed section is the introduction. — Omegatron 15:29, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Hallelujah about your philosophy on the introduction section. I've seen every possible permutation of named/unnamed introduction format in various articles. Is there an accepted Wikipedia standard to quote? My quick search a while back didn't find one. Retroid 15:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that the best option for divvying up info between "P" and "HPV" should be 1) "HPV" having a brief "Biology of ..." section, with a header saying "Main article: "P"; and 2) "P" having a brief "HPV and human disease" section, with a header saying "Main article: "HPV". Sfahey 21:26, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
That sounds like a good solution. — Omegatron 18:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PV sequence database

Does anyone know what's up with the Los Alamos National Laboratory papillomavirus sequence database? The link appears to be down. Espresso Addict 15:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Family name

The text box on this page states that papillomavirus constitutes an entire family. My sources indicate that papillomaviridae papillomavirus is in fact the genus, while papovaviridae is the family name. I have changed the text box to reflect this, please change it back or let me know if this is in error. Tuckerekcut 17:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I have added a section on taxonomy of papillomaviruses Touchstone42 (talk) 16:11, 22 November 2007 (UTC)