Talk:Papillomaviridae

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Abide2018. Peer reviewers: Abide2018.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 06:06, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

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)
 * After "asymptomatic" is gives examples type 6 and 11, but I just read at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laryngeal_papillomatosis that 6 and 11 cause severe symptoms in that case. One of them is wrong.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.14.165.102 (talk) 01:04, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

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)

It has been replaced by http://pave.niaid.nih.gov/#home that also contains the link to the original Los Alamos materials — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.198.162.14 (talk) 15:37, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

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)

Article move
To be consistent with the naming convention we have been using for virus families (e.g., Adenoviridae, Herpesviridae, Hepadnaviridae, etc.), I am renaming this article from Papillomavirus to Papillomaviridae. – ClockworkSoul 21:18, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Based on what naming convention? The standard Wikipedia convention is to use common name WP:COMMONNAME.  Google gives twice as many hits for Papillomavirs as Papillomaviridae.


 * 1,670,000
 * 80,000


 * And Google trends doesn't even have enough volume of searches for Papillomaviridae to give it a ranking.  So by Wikipedia naming convention, the article should use the more common Papillomavirus.  Zodon (talk) 07:52, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Zodon. My move was based on the observation that we tend to use the Latin family name for the article name in the cases of taxonomic families. However, given your point, I decided to do a more thorough survey of how we name taxonomic families. First I compared the hit counts of the taxonomic and common names of a number of viral families (I chose those based on the assumption that they would be of the most human interest), and how their ratio tended towards the name of the article for that family. Though they tended to be taxonomically named, I didn't find the results particularly compelling either way, so I extended the comparison to common non-viral taxonomic families. I chose only the three examples I could think of in which the common names referred to families (as opposed to species or orders), and in those three cases the taxonomic names were used, in the case of cats the Google hit ratio was huge (because "feline" is also a common adjective, no doubt). The sample size is small though, so it is only a minor indicator. Given what I've found, though, it's clear that neither is incorrect, but that the taxonomic name is slightly preferred. If consensus leans the other way, however, I would happily go along with it. – ClockworkSoul 16:32, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Shope Papilloma Virus - Frankenstein Rabbit
This article may have relevant information to Shope Papilloma Virus:

This is the video embedded in the article above: davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  16:54, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Papillomaviridae. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140222204150/http://ssai-starss.com/information-about-human-papillomavirus to http://ssai-starss.com/information-about-human-papillomavirus

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 07:17, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Papillomaviridae. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140718233931/http://sites.lafayette.edu/hollidac/links-for-fun/jackalopes/ to http://sites.lafayette.edu/hollidac/links-for-fun/jackalopes/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060925035907/http://hpv-web.lanl.gov/stdgen/virus/cgi-bin/hpv_organisms.cgi?dbname=hpv to http://hpv-web.lanl.gov/stdgen/virus/cgi-bin/hpv_organisms.cgi?dbname=hpv
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080227013223/http://phene.cpmc.columbia.edu/ICTVdB/00.099.htm to http://phene.cpmc.columbia.edu/ICTVdB/00.099.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:03, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

"Virus del papiloma" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Virus del papiloma. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 13 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Widefox ; talk 20:09, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

"Virus del papiloma humano generalidades" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Virus del papiloma humano generalidades. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 13 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Widefox ; talk 20:09, 13 June 2020 (UTC)