Talk:Invertebrate iridescent virus 31

Viruses Low‑importance

	Viruses portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Viruses, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of viruses on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VirusesWikipedia:WikiProject VirusesTemplate:WikiProject Virusesvirus articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Arthropods Low‑importance

	Arthropods portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arthropods, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of arthropods on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArthropodsWikipedia:WikiProject ArthropodsTemplate:WikiProject ArthropodsArthropods articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Requested move 29 May 2024[edit]

It has been proposed in this section that Invertebrate iridescent virus 31 be renamed and moved to Iridovirus armadillidium1.

A bot will list this discussion on requested moves' current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil.

Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly.

Links: current log • target log • direct move

Invertebrate iridescent virus 31 → Iridovirus armadillidium1 – Renamed by ICTV in 2023. https://ictv.global/taxonomy/taxondetails?taxnode_id=202306334&taxon_name=Iridovirus%20armadillidium1 Grey Clownfish (talk) 09:24, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative support. The ICTV has renamed (almost) all virus species in the last few years. Virus species names now follow a binomial format; they are now exactly two words, with the first word being the genus. Wikipedia has a little over 1000 articles on virus species; almost all of them are now using old names that are not binomial. I think a broader discussion on how to title articles on virus species now is warranted. Plantdrew (talk) 16:40, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. One thing I should note is that many articles are titled with common names rather than scientific names. Outdated scientific names could arguably be considered common names, or at least akin to common names and therefore continue to be used. In fact, some plant genera names were borrowed into English and those names still get used for species formerly classified in those genera as a result.

I think this may be comparable to the renaming of Twitter to X. The argument for retaining the Twitter title is that despite it no longer being the official name, it's still the usual name. I've seen that the use of some of these new virus names is almost nonexistent. I think moving is not warranted in those cases. And this is one of those cases. We certainly need to use the new names in any place in which current scientific names are expected, like the taxobox though, but this doesn't necessarily include the title.

I proposed this move because I wasn't really thinking through it and I wasn't sure if it should be moved. Only when writing this am I realising that this move is not warranted yet, if it ever will be. Grey Clownfish (talk) 04:10, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Grey Clownfish:, I've opend a broader discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Viruses#Titles_for_species_articles. Plantdrew (talk) 15:57, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]