Talk:Parvovirus B19


 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

no consensus David Ruben Talk 01:15, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Merger proposal
This is the text of the proposal. It was misplaced, but I am moving it to the correct location. I will leave a note for the proposing editor. :) --Moonriddengirl 13:35, 6 October 2007 (UTC) I'm new to this merging thing. Don't know if I've noted it correctly. It seems pretty clear, however, that Fifth Disease should be merged into Parvovirus B19.  Also, a search for "Fifth Disease" should redirect to Parvovirus B19. User:Adammarklenny. 09:18, 6 October 2007


 * I agree —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.180.17.173 (talk) 22:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong disagree - fairly strong convention to separate out the biology of the organism, from the disease caused. eg Herpes simplex virus and Herpes simplex, rhinovirus and Common cold. This especially true when there is not an absolute 1-to-1 mapping of organism & disease eg Streptococcus pneumoniae and Haemophilus influenzae both causing Pneumonia, and Parvocirus B19 not just causing Fifth's disease but also seronegative arthritis (and no one surely suggesting that arthritis merges into this article).David Ruben Talk 03:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong disagree. See User:Davidruben's logic.  There should, however, be prominant links between the two pages.  Ask User:Arcadian (administrator) to chime in before this gets merged, please.  A0900 18:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

i am callum downing and i have got a rash —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.89.226 (talk) 11:19, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Parvovirus
In the first sentence, the word "parvovirus" links to "Parvoviridae" instead of to parvovirus. This is confusing! 192.114.175.2 (talk) 14:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Move
I'd like to see a reference for the move of parvovirus B19 to erythrovirus; based on http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ICTVdb/Ictv/index.htm, I'd say the species is still called parvovirus B19... --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 21:41, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Steven, here's one of many. Graham Graham Colm Talk 22:16, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

The genus is called Erythrovirus the species is B19. ICTV. Since there is only one species in the genus, the move was appropriate. Graham Colm Talk 14:18, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

PS. We could rename the article Erythrovirus B19 if this would address you concerns. Graham Colm Talk 14:21, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't want to be a traditionalist or anything, but it seems to me the species is officially called "B19 virus" by http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ICTVdb/ICTVdB/00.050.1.02.001.htm, and there are still far more articles on PubMed from the last year which have "Parvovirus B19" in their title rather than "Erythrovirus B19" or even "B19 virus". If you take a journal like Virology, there's plenty of articles on "Parvovirus 19", but only two on "Erythrovirus B19" and none on "B19 virus". Therefore I don't think there's consensus for your move and suggest we move it back. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 19:13, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Steven, I don't see a problem here. If you type "Parvovirus B19" into the Wikipedia search box, Erythrovirus loads without a re-direct or a disambiguation page. Then the first line of the article explains why Erythrovirus rather than Parvovirus B19 is the title of the article. It is important for Wikipedia to be up-to-date. We do not want readers thinking "silly Wikipedia, do they not know it is  called Erythrovirus now". This is no big deal, but I prefer virus articles to be named after the genus rather than the ICTV type species that is why Rotavirus is called "rotavirus" and not "rotavirus A", and Torovirus is called torovirus and not "Equine Torovirus" (which is the ICTV type species). I realise now that the move should have been proposed rather than enacted and I apologise for this. Having said that, I am confident that the move was the right thing to do.  I suggest leaving things as they are unless others object.  Graham. Graham Colm  Talk 20:14, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I share your concern for precise titling. But I hadn't heard of this before, so I'm concerned about people who're going to Google for "Parvovirus B19" and see a link to something they don't recognise. So my question is: do you have any article that says: "B19 virus used to be called parvovirus B19, but it has been changed since 2000-something and now 'Parvovirus B19' is scientifically incorrect."? On a more theoretical level; isn't the article called "rotavirus" simply because that's what everyone calls it?
 * P.S. no need to apologize, don't take it personal, you're an editor I really respect. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 20:26, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Steven, I think the Google algorithm will easily handle this. Try it. And, soon everyone will call B19 "eryhthovirus" (if they can pronounce it - I have problems) You might be too young to remember HTLV IV, we now call it HIV. Best wishes, Graham. Graham Colm Talk 21:25, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Together with Tim Vickers I've submitted a research paper to a journal about the position of Wikipedia's medical articles on Google; I can assure you, the article's title has a huge impact on its ranking! Once everyone calls it erythrovirus B19, I'll happily join in; as for now, I don't think that name has become generally accepted, and strongly insist on moving it back. A simple Google scholar or PubMed test shows overwhelming support for parvovirus B19. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball; until the name has become accepted, we should stick with parvovirus B19, imho. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 22:00, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Steven, your opinion is not humble in my book, quite the contrary. The move is fine by me. Sorry for my being such a virological pedant. Please move it back, but please leave "Erythrovirus" near the top of the article; then the Google algorithm will still be able to find the word. Best wishes, Graham. Graham Colm  Talk
 * I've moved it back and copy-edited the intro, please review. Thanks for your kind remarks, and I look forward to our next discussion! All the best, --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 11:34, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It was requested that this article be renamed but the procedure outlined at WP:RM did not appear to be followed, and consensus could not be determined. Please request a move again with proper procedure if there is still a desire for the page to be moved. Thank you for your time!Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 19:56, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

i vote do not move
i vote do not move. parvo b19 should be its own article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.128.245.182 (talk) 05:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

CMR
10.1128/CMR.00040-16 JFW &#124; T@lk  23:39, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Parvovirus B19. 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/20070911055831/http://www.biotrin.com/ParvovirusB19.FifthDisease.HTML to http://www.biotrin.com/ParvovirusB19.FifthDisease.HTML

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) 12:46, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I propose merging Papular purpuric gloves and socks syndrome into Parvovirus B19. I think the extremely short content in Papular purpuric gloves and socks syndrome is already explained in the context of Parvovirus B19, and a merger would not cause any article-size or weighting problems in Parvovirus B19.Wuerzele (talk) 10:22, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

pinging you courtesy for your opinion, as you are the only editor, who has been editing that Papular purpuric gloves and socks syndrome page and is still active. Wuerzele (talk) 10:36, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * yes I agree (however it's always a good idea to get more editor opinions...IMO), thanks--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:09, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ Klbrain (talk) 15:01, 3 September 2023 (UTC)