Talk:Nudivirus

Copyright violation
The section "Relation to polydnaviruses in parasitic wasps" appears to contain text copied from the article "Insect Viruses" from the Wiley reference work eLS: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9780470015902.a0020712. Note the references to "claret arrows" and "green arrows" in a diagram that doesn't exist in *this* article. Unfortunately I don't have institutional access so I can't confirm the extent of the violation.

Requested move 11 March 2024

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. After extended time for discussion, no consensus for the proposed move, or any other suggested move, has emerged. BD2412 T 23:40, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Nudivirus → Nudiviridae – The genus Nudivirus is obsolete. The genus was proposed in 2006 (https://doi.org/10.1007/s00705-006-0872-2), but was replaced in 2013 by 4 new genera and the family Nudiviridae (https://ictv.global/ictv/proposals/2013.003a-kI.A.v1.Nudiviridae.pdf). The content of this page was changed accordingly some time ago. It is now proposed to also change the page title to reflect the currently accepted taxonomy as well as for consistency and clarity. Bernhard Zelazny (talk) 10:21, 11 March 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 02:24, 23 March 2024 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Oppose - I don't think this title is intending to use Nudivirus to mean the now-defunct genus, rather it is the common name for the whole family, which is scientifically known as Nudiviridae. An ngram shows that the common noun nudivirus is more common in sources than Nudiviridae: and the usage is also found in recent sources such as . Cheers  &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 11:40, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The frequency of use should not be an issue here, but the content of the page. The name Nudivirus is a name of a genus. The page is about a family, the Nudiviridae. Within this family there are 4 genera (Alphanudivirus, Betanudivirus, Deltanudivirus and Gammanudivirus, still as red links) which have replaced the obsolete genus Nudivirus. Family names always end in "...idae". See the page Baculoviridae which is a sister family and equivalent to this page. I plead for consistency within the Wikipedia sysstem. Bernhard Zelazny (talk) 21:53, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * How about simply changing the title to "Nudiviruses"? We are not obliged to use ICTV taxonomy for article titles. Graham Beards (talk) 12:09, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * 'Nudiviruses' (plural) would be more accurate than 'Nudivirus'. However, in my view, Nudiviridae would be best and consistent with similar and related wiki pages. To me, it would certainly be less confusing. The equivalent other families under the same order would be:
 * Baculoviridae
 * Hytrosaviridae
 * There seem to be few wiki pages for virus families which do not use the ICTV names. Here is one: Nimaviridae redirects to White spot syndrome.
 * We would welcome your participation in this discussion.
 * Bernhard Zelazny (talk) 17:32, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Well thanks for the ping, but I still think the current title is the best and most commonly used one for the subject at hand. They are routinely referred to in the singular, e.g., meaning MOS:SINGULAR shulld apply, and the common noun is more frequently encountered than the family name. This is the same as numerous other family articles across the project. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 18:32, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * They are just as commonly referred to in the plural, e.g., , , so your argument is weak. Also, we have at least 148 articles where the ICTV family name is used (see ), so without further evidence, I find your second point weak also. If there is no consensus for "nudiviruses", I support the proposal. Graham Beards (talk) 18:59, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * My argument is not weak, because the singular is always our default and it is used across the sources. Using a slightly obscure scientific name for a concept that has a well-attested common name is not the correct thing to do for readers in terms of our article titling policy. I'll always put readers first over your silly quest for a consistency that doesn't exist anyway. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 07:40, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I asked for further evidence. You said "This is the same as numerous other family articles across the project." Given we are discussing taxonomic families, please provide links. Graham Beards (talk) 09:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The name 'Nudivirus' has been created as a genus (see https://doi.org/10.1007/s00705-006-0872-2) and therefore will always be a genus. We cannot suddenly make a family out of it. Bernhard Zelazny (talk) 10:30, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It's not according to the ICTV . Graham Beards (talk) 14:00, 27 March 2024 (UTC)