Talk:Veterinary virology

Merge proposal
It seems that animal virus was created shortly after the copyvio tag on January 6. Once the copyvio issue is settled, the two should become one, since having two articles on one topic constitutes content forkery. — Æµ§œš¹  [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 19:18, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think so, we have Virus and Virology. And, Animal virology should be moved to Veterinary virology when the copyvio issues are resolved. Graham Colm (talk) 20:12, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Those are actually different topics. In this case, both articles cover the same thing.  — Æµ§œš¹  [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]  19:24, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Again, I disagree. Graham Colm (talk) 20:46, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * In principle, the difference would be the same as the virus/virology articles, but in practice both are about animal viruses. This article was pretty much just examples of animal viruses (Bluetongue virus, Porcine Circoviruses, Herpesviruses, etc), showing that it's not about animal/veterinary virology in the same way that virology is about virology. — Æµ§œš¹  [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]  21:45, 12 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The salient word is "was". When the copyvio is resolved, which will probably entail removal of most of the text, I propose renaming the article "Veterinary virology" and adding to it accordingly based on two sources I have on my shelves:
 * Graham Colm (talk) 22:07, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh okay, so you plan on fundamentally changing the scope of the article so that it will differ from animal virus in the same way that virology differs from virus. Go for it. — Æµ§œš¹  [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]  03:03, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Graham Colm (talk) 22:07, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh okay, so you plan on fundamentally changing the scope of the article so that it will differ from animal virus in the same way that virology differs from virus. Go for it. — Æµ§œš¹  [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]  03:03, 13 January 2013 (UTC)