Talk:Lloviu virus/Archive 1

RfC

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This debate shows no consensus to change the status quo. Guy (Help!) 08:46, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

---

Should this article be redirected to Cuevavirus?

Please indicate support/oppose below.

• Support/Oppose

• Support not just for this but for other virus articles. Merging single taxa into the higher taxon has precedent in non-virus articles. It is only the virus project that has not been doing this. Examples: [1][2][3][4][5][6] And I already merged the relevant sourced content into Cuevavirus so a redirect is fine. ComfyKem (talk) 12:04, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. Viruses are different. That rationale is not based in science. Just because other stuff exists doesn't mean this is a valid reason in this case. It's the virus that causes the disease, not the genus, not the family, etc. Collapsing viruses back into genus/family makes no sense. The organization in virology is done for a reason. It's very specific, it's very organized. It does not serve the reader, or the project, to do this. Just because it is done with other taxa is not a reason for doing it with the viruses. Especially among the emerging viruses, the bat viruses, etc. As for the merging, it can be undone. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:27, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

• Strong oppose as it is being done without merging content. I did not understand the comment at Wikiproject Viruses, but now I see what they mean. You redirected Lloviu cuevavirus, but moved none of the content about the lower level taxon from that article, in essence, you deleted all the content. If that is your intention, deleting all information in articles about lower level taxa and turning them into redirects, oppose, oppose, oppose this and all others you have already done it to. Please do not continiue deleting content in this manner. MicroPaLeo (talk) 17:32, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

N.B. The above oppose vote was stricken by ComfyKem and not by the editor. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:21, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I apologize to ComfyKem. He/she did transfer the material from the proposed species name to Cuevavirus, then SW3 5D removed it. The proposed name should have been redirected to the same level taxon. MicroPaLeo (talk) 17:48, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

He cut and pasted the material after I reverted his blanking the page and redirecting. This is not the first time he's blanked a virus page and redirected it. SW3 5DL (talk) 20:25, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Can you post links, as this one appears to have been correctly transferred by him, then you blanked the content. MicroPaLeo (talk) 20:39, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I can show an example of that - he did this with Mu phage. I am still a new user, and I saw this as common practice after asking him about it. Bervin61 (talk) 16:39, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect. A monospecific genus (and a pretty obscure and dubious one) does not warrant two articles. Compare Adoxa for a much better known monospecific genus. Maproom (talk) 08:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Lloviu virus is not obscure and it's not dubious. It's a filovirus related to Marburg and Ebola. It's an important emerging bat virus. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:40, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

• Support: If there is only one species known in the genus, there's no reason to have two articles. If the species redirects to the genus, the reader is not done a disservice in any way. Of course, no content should be deleted, and anyone who was deleting content was surely doing it accidentally. --Slashme (talk) 15:32, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose:
  • For genera of zero or more species the genus is not the species and the significance of the genus, logical or practical, is not that of the species if any. It is at any time possible for a user to wish to access material on one or the other in isolation, much as one might very well wish to deal with the genus Flavivirus without reference to yellow fever, dengue, or any of the other diseases caused by species in the genus, and deal with any one of the species without referring to any of the other species or to the genus.(comments below)
  • Given the ease of linking articles for the benefit of readers who wish to read smoothly, either broadly or specifically, the separation of logically distinct topics into physically distinct articles is an important resource. WP is rife with the kind of confused, gappy and redundant slush that accumulates in excessively agglutinated articles.
  • The status of the genus can at any time change from monotypic to polytypic and back again, or it could vanish absolutely if it were recognised as a junior synonym of some other genus, without dramatic alteration to the species article(s).
  • To urge the quantitative argument that "A monospecific genus does not warrant two articles" is vacuous. An article is justified by its function, which is not to be measured by how many species there are in a genus. That line of reasoning leads to nonsense too abject to detail, but interested parties might like to ponder how to formulate a definitive titre of species to determine the necessary and maximal number of articles for any biological topic. Forget about moving me to apologise for pointing out that any species in biology, virus or not, could merit its own articles if only substantial material were available, whether its commercial or health significance or potential were known to be significant or not. Its biological significance would intrinsically suffice generously to justify the articles even if the readership sufficiently informed and alert to appreciate it did not rival that of articles on the typical garage rock band with one dozen groupies and two thousand glove puppets to support it.
  • It makes no sense to assert that the topic is lacking in intrinsic interest or notability on the grounds that the number of human fatalities to date is insufficient and that only viruses that have decimated ten... er... two... errr... several populations are of sufficient importance to justify one article or maybe two. One might as well argue for the elimination of the article on Wyeomyia smithii and merging it with Mosquito because it is not a vector for any human disease.
  • As it happens, not that I am urging this as a necessary support for the status of the article (which is ample in its own right), simply being a Filovirus intrinsically affords the species considerable importance just from its relevance to human health. I invite anyone who argues that it hasn't killed anyone to sit down and count the reasons why it still should be of intimate medical importance. Anyone who cannot think of enough should immediately recuse himself from the discussion. JonRichfield (talk) 12:22, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely. Well said. The Filoviruses are hugely important. SW3 5DL (talk) 00:52, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Support So long as the information here is merged into that article, and we don't actually lose anything. I can't see any sensible reason why the information shouldn't be in one place, given how little unique information is currently at Cuevavirus (i.e. information that isn't also at Lloviu virus). If we get a substantial amount of information on the genus that is not also true of the solitary species within it, it might be a different matter, but I see no evidence that that's likely to happen. Anaxial (talk) 08:10, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

• • You've yet to provide a reason for why it shouldn't be done, neither here nor on the WP:VIRUS talk page. "The organization in virology is done for a reason." And what is that? Saying "viruses are different" isn't a reason. "It's the virus that causes the disease..." is irrelevant because once again, if a genus has only one species, then the genus and the species are about the same virus. Later on if more species are added to a genus, then the species can get their own articles since species demarcations within the genus will exist. & this doesn't affect the bat coronavirus species you mention since none of them are in a monotypic taxon. For articles like these two, there is no need to have two articles about the same thing. ComfyKem (talk) 07:45, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Here's the reason: you are confusing genus and species. They are different and the problem is, you seem to believe it's okay to treat them as if they are the same. Here's an analogy: A neighborhood has only one Muslim family. Therefore, they cannot have a mosque. They must go to a church or synagogue to worship. When there are more Muslim families, then they can have a mosque. That's exactly what you're doing with the virus articles. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:50, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

"you are confusing genus and species" isn't a reason either. Keep in mind that these are virus articles, and if two taxa are about the same virus, same plant, same animal, and so on, then the characteristics of the two taxa are, by definition, the same. For Cuevavirus and Lloviu virus, the criteria used to create the genus were the same as the species,(pages 6-8) because once again, they are about the same thing, a single virus. In summary:

1. Merging monotypic taxa into the higher taxon is standard practice on Wikipedia,

2. I am attempting to extend this practice to virus articles in an effort to improve articles under the virus project,

3. All other members of the virus project who have spoken about this proposal have supported it, and

4. You are the only person who has expressed opposition to it and have yet to give a valid reason for opposing it. ComfyKem (talk) 19:04, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Where are your diffs to prove all these claims? You've none so far. And a blanket policy that merges 'all monotypic taxa' into higher taxon is questionable. Who made such a policy? Was it done by an expert in the subject? You are confusing water with dirt and mixing the two and creating mud. SW3 5DL (talk) 20:01, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

A species article serves to differentiate a species from other species. In a monotypic genus, the species is not differentiated from other species. It is the genus that is differentiated from other genera. This is why not only Wikipedia but other reference works, such as taxonomic keys, work with monotypic genera at the genus level rather than species level. Viruses are handled in the literature in the same way. A virus that is alone in its genus does not have a discussion about how it differs from other species in the genus. Its desription is the genus description. MicroPaLeo (talk) 17:53, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

• If there really is a policy, de facto or de jure, that a monotypic genus equals the species and that the two entities must share a single article, and that this principle is to be imposed on a blanket basis, it is logically and biologically bankrupt and should be corrected forthwith.

Firstly, there is a very fundamental concept that the single element of a set with precisely one element is not the same as the set. This is not a matter of fashion, nor of pedantry, nor of confusion of different aspects of the same thing. It is instead a matter of two different concepts; it is possible (and practical) to say and do things with the one that one neither could meaningfully do nor logically could want to do with the other.

Notice too, that a monotypic genus is monotypic until someone recognises that the population actually comprises multiple species, or that a new species is discovered, or that what had been seen as a different genus containing one or more different species actually is a junior synonym and belongs in what now is no longer monotypic. Conversely, if the species is reassigned to another non-empty genus, the change to the article on the species article is nominal, whereas the genus article gets relegated to a redirection.

None of these affects the description or biological relevance of any of the species (except for any resulting change to the binomial) but they do affect the content of the articles on the genus or genera. Mutatis mutandis one does not insist that monotypic taxa at higher levels be fused with their lower ranks, partly because of the complex topics that are involved in their splitting or unification, topics that have nothing to do with the actual species or other members in still lower ranks.

To legislate or to appeal to legislation that would force such unpractical and illogical practices without reference to the logical nature of the topics affected would be harmful both to the interests of WP and users. JonRichfield (talk) 09:35, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

If a genus has only one species, then that genus isn't a set. And your argument about changes to monotypic taxa is reason to merge them into a single article. It can be safely assumed that monotypic taxa are monotypic until any changes are made. But the possibility of those changes being made at some unknown time in the future isn't a reason to keep duplicate articles since those changes may never occur. In that case, WP would indefinitely have mass numbers of duplicate articles, making editing much more burdensome. For reference, the sun bear is the only member of the genus it belongs to, so its article serves as the article for both the genus and the species. This is more efficient than having two articles about the sun bear, which would likely be merged by the people who edit bear articles anyway. ComfyKem (talk) 17:17, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Is this a joke??? "If a genus has only one species, then that genus isn't a set"?

If you don't know what a set is then please read Set theory to find out what it is and why it differs from its elements, and why that matters, before muddying the waters here. Of course a genus with one species is a set, and the species is not the set and the difference is fundamental in practice and in theory. You might equally well argue that a genus with one species is not a genus, and you might have some fun with genera like Nessiteras while you are at it.

The likes of that argument goes back to ancient days when 1 was not regarded as a number (let alone zero or negatives!) but some of us have moved on since then.

Incidentally, the Sun bear example (not mine, please note!) is doubly embarrassing in this connection, as the species has two subspecies, so it even is arguable in which contexts to call Helarctos a monotypic genus at all. So much for arguments along the lines of how safe it is to assume that monotypic taxa are monotypic until any changes are made. Furthermore no one has been arguing that we should "keep duplicate articles". If you read below, you will see that the article on the genus should deal with the genus and the article on the species should deal with the species. There is no more need or desire for duplication there than in any other mutually related articles. JonRichfield (talk) 12:06, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

It seems like you're just arguing for the sake of arguing (i.e. parsing words to create statements not relevant to discussion). You haven't provided a valid reason for why these articles (there are 3 articles about this one virus) shouldn't be merged and you continually make inaccurate or irrelevant assertions. Helarctos is a monotypic genus because there is only one species in it. This is the very definition of what makes a monotypic taxon. That the sole species has more than one subtype is irrelevant to the status of the genus as monotypic. This is the proposal agreed upon by the ICTV to create Cuevavirus and Lloviu cuevavirus. The same demarcations used to create one were used for the other, because there is only one species in the genus. ComfyKem (talk) 22:19, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

The guideline is outlined at WP:TOL#Article titles and mirrored in WP:MONOTYPICFLORA and WP:MONOTYPICFAUNA. Treating the only species in a monotypic genus at the genus title is the usual practice on Wikipedia. Personally, I think it would be better if monotypic genera redirected to the species, rather than vice versa, but either way I see very little point in having separate articles at multiple ranks for monotypic taxa. Monotypic taxa are just placeholders in a rank based classification system. There's not much to say about them. Either you repeat the content of the article at two or more ranks, or you have a one sentence stub with a taxobox. That's not to say that multiple articles for monotypic taxa are NEVER worthwhile; if a currently monotypic taxon has a previous polytypic circumscription, separate articles might be useful. Plantdrew (talk) 18:39, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

If the usual practice is indeed as you say, then it is high time to replace it with something rational; whoever established it either was ignorant of taxonomy, or of data access concepts relevant to an encyclopaedia, or wasn't wearing his thinking cap. "Usual practice" is one thing, and guidelines are another, and compulsion is a third and different and not lightly to be imposed, and we should have enough common sense to act according to the difference.

You claim that "Monotypic taxa are just placeholders in a rank based classification system", but think again of the implications of that: the term "just" in such a context is reductionistically fallacious; polytypic taxa are no less "just" placeholders in a rank based classification system, please note, so why not merge articles on bitypic genera with the articles on their species? Similarly, why not merge all the placeholders all the way down any given clade? After all, many a taxon nowadays isn't even ranked, remember? Why have an article for anything that is "just" a placeholder?

Let me guess: you think that that would be ridiculous, right? And guess what? I agree, and you knew I would agree. The problem is that the substantial arguments for its being ridiculous also apply to the idea of telescoping monotypic taxa.

More realistically, as I hope you agree, when there is something to say about a monotypic taxon, ranked or not, whether Regnum or Subspecies, then it is to be said. And if there is nothing, then nothing is what is to be said; the name certainly needs a placeholder, whether as a stub or redirection, or disambiguation, because a user might be looking for it and might reasonably expect to find it without grubbing through all the articles that might mention it in a useful context or might not, and if the taxonomic ranking has been superseded, then he might reasonably expect to see the fact plus an indication of why, and of what to look up instead.

Now, what is the fundamental advantage of a redirection or disambiguation over a stub, or stub-length article? Such an article is no harder to produce, occupies no more data space, and it offers far more flexibility to user and to author and editor. It is more flexible and can contain explanatory remarks such as "monotypic taxon" or "subsumed within" or the like, exactly where the user is likeliest to want want to know that. To remark within the species article that the species is a monotypic genus is taxonomically illiterate, because it isn't a genus at all, and such information belongs in the genus article. Have a look for example at Mitrastigma for a valid article that contains useful material for anyone who needs information on Mitrastigma such as that the reason that the Mitrastigma lucidum referred to in the reference material at his disposal now is classified as Psydrax obovata. That is not information primarily relevant to the species, but is relevant to the genus.

In the case of the Lloviu virus the question of the definitive genus, as opposed to the species or to the genus Cuevavirus most certainly merits an article, and so does the species. The absence of an article on Lloviu (genus) is a blemish. JonRichfield (talk) 12:06, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

• I was requested to provide an opinion here by ComfyKem. Everyone agrees that virus species and genera are inherently different. Usual practice for a genus with a single species would be to construct a single article to cover both, and that's sensible where the pair would otherwise duplicate each other. However, there's no reason in principle why each can't have an article -- as long as there is sufficient distinctive, reliably sourced material in each to merit that. This appears to be the case here, just about (though bloating the Lloviu virus article with speculative information about what the virus particle might look like appears unhelpful). If we are to have a single article on a genus with a single species, as Plantdrew suggests, it would probably be best to have it at the species name, as that is what the bulk of readers are most likely to search for. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:21, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Adding on from Plantdrew's comment, the project policies mentioned are arguably refined versions of WP:REDUNDANTFORK. So as stated before, if a genus has only one species in it, then the articles about the genus and the species would be about the same organism (in this case virus), therefore significant duplication would occur. ComfyKem (talk) 23:23, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree with JonRichfield. The articles both need work. I'll rewrite them. I'll start this weekend. I've got a huge workload in RL, so can't get at it today. Also, keep in mind there is no policy at WikiProject Viruses that mandates separating them. Also as this is an emerging bat virus, it's an important addition to the project. There's plenty here for each to have an article, as Espresso Addict noted. SW3 5DL (talk) 00:47, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

• Question why not merge Cuevavirus into here? PizzaMan (♨♨) 08:41, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.